Philosophy Discussion Forums

Posted: **May 30th, 2020, 9:49 pm**

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 30th, 2020, 9:57 am
evolution wrote: ↑May 30th, 2020, 4:44 am

"We can't... do some thing" means that 'it' can NOT be done.

Yet here we are, in the days when this is written, doing what you said "we can't do".
No, that's not actually how English works. That's a misunderstanding about how it works, especially common in connection with some conditions that are referenced in the DSMs.

WHY do you end up looking at and discussing 'the way I write' and STOP looking at and discussing what I am actually saying, and meaning?

Is it just a coincidence that you do this every time I find fault and flaws in your so called "logic" and "reasoning", and you appear to not be able to counter my findings at all? Or is there some other reason your revert to doing this?

From what I have noticed you appear to want to criticize and argue against just about absolutely anything in what others say, and when you cannot criticize nor argue against what I have said, and meant, you revert to criticizing just the way I write, as though that has some importance here.

Telling me that that is not how english works is about as useful as your misunderstanding that how english works has absolutely NO importance to me at all.

Obviously when a person states, "We can't do some thing", and then I point out that thee actual Truth IS that we actually can do that thing and in fact that we actually do do that thing, in a particular time period, then that is what it IS. Now, either counter this with some logical reasoning and explanation, or just accept that this is a True fact. Reverting to only criticizing 'the way I write' and saying, "No, that's not actually how English works", just shows, with evidence, that you cannot counter what I said, and meant.

Every discussion with you just almost always detracts extremely quickly away from what the actual topic of discussion is about.

Posted: **May 30th, 2020, 9:57 pm**

Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 30th, 2020, 11:35 am
evolution wrote: ↑May 30th, 2020, 9:33 am

Well we all, hopefully, know how well that did not go. So, I suggest, it best we never go down those well worn paths again.

Remember this is about doing what actually teaches good and right, and not doing what teaches and causes evil, bad, nor wrong. The intention behind all religions might be for the well and good for all, but the way religions are interpreted and taught has, so far, obviously caused what is wrong, evil, and bad.
So then, we'll teach our children right and wrong in the public schools. And we'll teach them to love good not just for themselves but for others as well? Any ideas on what the moral curriculum should contain?

Yes. First idea is remove any idea that public schools plays a part in any of this.

The fact is that the younger a child is, the more knowledge they already have and KNOW about what is actually right and wrong in Life. This knowledge is never lost, but learning to ignore this knowledge happens very quickly, and so it just becomes completely forgotten.

Adults can and will learn far more about what is actually morally right and wrong in Life from children, than children have ever learned so far from adults.

The WHOLE idea of teaching and learning needs to be upturned and changed around completely to understand fully what is just, and morally true, right, and correct.

Posted: **May 30th, 2020, 10:40 pm**

evolution wrote: ↑May 30th, 2020, 9:57 pm The fact is that the younger a child is, the more knowledge they already have and KNOW about what is actually right and wrong in Life. This knowledge is never lost, but learning to ignore this knowledge happens very quickly, and so it just becomes completely forgotten.

Adults can and will learn far more about what is actually morally right and wrong in Life from children, than children have ever learned so far from adults.

The WHOLE idea of teaching and learning needs to be upturned and changed around completely to understand fully what is just, and morally true, right, and correct.

So, you're suggesting that we do whatever our child tells us? I think that's called "spoiling" the child. It gives them the false impression that others outside the family will also do what they say.

One of my teachers in 7th grade had several quotes around the walls. One of them was "Discipline thyself, or the world will do it for you."

Posted: **May 31st, 2020, 1:47 am**

Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 30th, 2020, 10:40 pm
evolution wrote: ↑May 30th, 2020, 9:57 pm The fact is that the younger a child is, the more knowledge they already have and KNOW about what is actually right and wrong in Life. This knowledge is never lost, but learning to ignore this knowledge happens very quickly, and so it just becomes completely forgotten.

Adults can and will learn far more about what is actually morally right and wrong in Life from children, than children have ever learned so far from adults.

The WHOLE idea of teaching and learning needs to be upturned and changed around completely to understand fully what is just, and morally true, right, and correct.
So, you're suggesting that we do whatever our child tells us?

Not at all. That could not be further from the Truth of what I am saying, and meaning. Your assumption here is absolutely utterly WRONG.

Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 30th, 2020, 10:40 pm I think that's called "spoiling" the child.

Well that is obviously the WRONG thing to do. The word 'spoiling' provides that clue.

Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 30th, 2020, 10:40 pm It gives them the false impression that others outside the family will also do what they say.

Okay. But I think this is so obvious it did not need saying, but anyway.

Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 30th, 2020, 10:40 pm One of my teachers in 7th grade had several quotes around the walls. One of them was "Discipline thyself, or the world will do it for you."

One of the quotes I say is; 'Children do not need discipline. It is adults who need self-discipline, to learn how to teach children what is right'.

But just like what I have said above got taken out of complete context, so to when I say that, it also all to frequently gets taken out of context, BEFORE clarification is sought.

Posted: **May 31st, 2020, 8:26 am**

evolution wrote: ↑May 30th, 2020, 9:57 pm Yes. First idea is remove any idea that public schools plays a part in any of this.

The fact is that the younger a child is, the more knowledge they already have and KNOW about what is actually right and wrong in Life. This knowledge is never lost, but learning to ignore this knowledge happens very quickly, and so it just becomes completely forgotten.

Adults can and will learn far more about what is actually morally right and wrong in Life from children, than children have ever learned so far from adults.

The WHOLE idea of teaching and learning needs to be upturned and changed around completely to understand fully what is just, and morally true, right, and correct.

So, do you wish to clarify what you are saying?

Posted: **May 31st, 2020, 9:46 am**

evolution wrote: ↑May 30th, 2020, 9:49 pm WHY do you end up looking at and discussing 'the way I write' and STOP looking at and discussing what I am actually saying, and meaning?

You long ago stopped bothering with anything I consider "actual content."

It would be nice if you changed your personality rather than your name.

Posted: **May 31st, 2020, 11:09 am**

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 24th, 2020, 10:41 am The standards of "proof" need to be even more stringent than they are. We can't convict people just because we feel that they're guilty. We need to have solid evidence that they are. (And the evidence should never consist solely of testimony--hence why on my view the standards of "proof" need to be more stringent than they are.)

Forensic (scientific) evidence is as likely to lead to faulty conclusions as eye witness testimony. The modern love of science (as an example) elevates DNA evidence over eye witness testimony. But if someone has been raped, and knows the rapist, is it likely that she misidentifies him? If the DNA that is collected is not the accused's, that doesn't "exonerate" him -- there could be dozens of explanations consistent with that fact.

Science is not foolproof; scientific "evidence" is always subject to interpretation. If 50 people witness a murder and identify the killer, isn't that good evidence? (It seems to me that eye witnesses are equivalent to "History", and forensic evidence to "Science". Some scientifically oriented people question history, unless there is "scientific evidence", i.e. archaeological remains. Do we really need to confirm eye witness accounts of a major battle with archaeology before believing them?)

Also, do you really think that the Mob boss who orders a murder and pays the murderer shouldn't be prosecuted?

Posted: **May 31st, 2020, 2:30 pm**

Ecurb wrote: ↑May 31st, 2020, 11:09 am Forensic (scientific) evidence is as likely to lead to faulty conclusions as eye witness testimony.

So first off, citation?

(And aside from the fact that you'll have no citation for it, think for a minute about how we'd even demonstrate this.)

The modern love of science (as an example) elevates DNA evidence over eye witness testimony.

Not just DNA evidence, but physical evidence that a crime occurred in the first place.

But if someone has been raped, and knows the rapist, is it likely that she misidentifies him?

You can't just go by testimony, because people can claim anything they'd like to claim. There needs to be physical evidence that a crime occurred.

If the DNA that is collected is not the accused's, that doesn't "exonerate" him -- there could be dozens of explanations consistent with that fact.

We need to err on the side of letting some guilty people go free. Not on the side of convicting some innocent people.

Science is not foolproof;

Of course not. But it's much better than people claiming whatever, because again, people can claim whatever they'd like to claim, whether it's true or not, and they can do this in conjunction with other people, too. Also, even though physical evidence isn't infallible, there's certainly nothing better to be had. If there were something better to be had, I'd advocate using that instead. But there isn't anything suitable.

Also, do you really think that the Mob boss who orders a murder and pays the murderer shouldn't be prosecuted?

Yes, of course I think that. I wouldn't type that I think this if I did not.

Posted: **May 31st, 2020, 8:19 pm**

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 31st, 2020, 2:30 pm

Also, do you really think that the Mob boss who orders a murder and pays the murderer shouldn't be prosecuted?
Yes, of course I think that. I wouldn't type that I think this if I did not.

I can see several problems with this approach:

1) It unfairly favors the rich. A billionaire who wanted to murder someone wouldn't even need to have criminal connections. He could just advertise for a killer on the internet. He'd doubtless find someone to do the job for a mere $million or so.

2) It is morally untenable. The man ordering and paying for the murder is just as morally culpable as the shlub who pulls the trigger.

3) It would (I think) increase criminal behavior, especially among the rich (of course they wouldn't be considered criminals any more, but it would increase what is now considered criminal behavior.)

4) It would increase class distinctions based on wealth, and further destabilize society.

As far as the need for "physical evidence", in the case of rape, what would constitute physical evidence? Bruises? Semen? Neither are physical evidence that a rape occurred. The same could be said of most crimes (assault, for example). I'm all for stamping out wrongful convictions, but this seems a bridge too far.

Posted: **June 1st, 2020, 9:39 am**

Ecurb wrote: ↑May 31st, 2020, 8:19 pm 1) It unfairly favors the rich. A billionaire who wanted to murder someone wouldn't even need to have criminal connections. He could just advertise for a killer on the internet. He'd doubtless find someone to do the job for a mere $million or so.

2) It is morally untenable. The man ordering and paying for the murder is just as morally culpable as the shlub who pulls the trigger.

3) It would (I think) increase criminal behavior, especially among the rich (of course they wouldn't be considered criminals any more, but it would increase what is now considered criminal behavior.)

4) It would increase class distinctions based on wealth, and further destabilize society.

Obviously I don't agree with "The man ordering and paying for the murder is just as morally culpable as the shlub who pulls the trigger."

Re the rest, simply prosecute and then separate the people "pulling the trigger." I'm not saying to let folks commit murder. I simply want to limit prosecution to the people who performed the action that I'm objecting to--the murder.
With rape, I'd make it the case that technically, rough sex--so something that would leave bruises, etc. (where we can also detect that they were indeed inflicted by the other party in question), requires explicit consent. The upshot of that would be that if someone claims that a rape occurred, with physical injuries as evidence, then you'd better have evidence of explicit consent of rough sex to avoid being prosecuted. This, of course, would make it so that spontaneous rough sex would be risky, but that is a worthwhile compromise in my view.

Posted: **June 2nd, 2020, 5:37 am**

Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑May 31st, 2020, 8:26 am
evolution wrote: ↑May 30th, 2020, 9:57 pm Yes. First idea is remove any idea that public schools plays a part in any of this.

The fact is that the younger a child is, the more knowledge they already have and KNOW about what is actually right and wrong in Life. This knowledge is never lost, but learning to ignore this knowledge happens very quickly, and so it just becomes completely forgotten.

Adults can and will learn far more about what is actually morally right and wrong in Life from children, than children have ever learned so far from adults.

The WHOLE idea of teaching and learning needs to be upturned and changed around completely to understand fully what is just, and morally true, right, and correct.
So, do you wish to clarify what you are saying?

In regards to what exactly?

What would really be helpful here would be if you informed me what you would like clarified. That is if you do want something clarified, and if you do, then just ask me a clarifying question. The more specific the clarifying question you ask, then the more specific my answer can and will be. But, to answer your question; Yes I would love to clarify what I am saying.

But considering absolutely everything I am saying is completely CLEAR to me, there is nothing that needs clarifying, from my perspective. So, the only things in what I am saying that need clarifying are the things that you, or others, want clarified.

But if, and when, these writings are re-read there will be noticed just how little lack of interest there really is in what the other is really saying, and meaning. The lack of clarifying questions asked to each other is the evidence of this.

Is there anything specific you want me to clarify?

Posted: **June 2nd, 2020, 5:49 am**

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 31st, 2020, 9:46 am
evolution wrote: ↑May 30th, 2020, 9:49 pm WHY do you end up looking at and discussing 'the way I write' and STOP looking at and discussing what I am actually saying, and meaning?
You long ago stopped bothering with anything I consider "actual content."

It would be nice if you changed your personality rather than your name.

Is that how philosophy is really done from your perspective? Concentrate on the person, the personality, and/or the way they write.

Either critique or challenge what I actually write, or continue on the way you are. But, if you want to continue the way you are, then what is my personality, and what personality would I need to change to, to be nice to you?

Also, if I supposedly long ago stopped bothering with anything you consider "actual content", then why are you still communicating with me after all this time?

Posted: **June 2nd, 2020, 6:11 am**

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 31st, 2020, 2:30 pm
Ecurb wrote: ↑May 31st, 2020, 11:09 am Forensic (scientific) evidence is as likely to lead to faulty conclusions as eye witness testimony.
So first off, citation?

(And aside from the fact that you'll have no citation for it, think for a minute about how we'd even demonstrate this.)

The modern love of science (as an example) elevates DNA evidence over eye witness testimony.
Not just DNA evidence, but physical evidence that a crime occurred in the first place.

But if someone has been raped, and knows the rapist, is it likely that she misidentifies him?
You can't just go by testimony, because people can claim anything they'd like to claim. There needs to be physical evidence that a crime occurred.

But you yourself would contradict what you just said here.

If you were on the jury and the prosecutor said there is dna evidence and so it is scientifically proven ..., then you would accept that correct?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 31st, 2020, 2:30 pm
If the DNA that is collected is not the accused's, that doesn't "exonerate" him -- there could be dozens of explanations consistent with that fact.
We need to err on the side of letting some guilty people go free. Not on the side of convicting some innocent people.

Why do we 'need' to this?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 31st, 2020, 2:30 pm
Science is not foolproof;
Of course not. But it's much better than people claiming whatever, because again, people can claim whatever they'd like to claim, whether it's true or not, and they can do this in conjunction with other people, too.

Which is exactly how the scientific, and prosecution, community work sometimes.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 31st, 2020, 2:30 pmAlso, even though physical evidence isn't infallible, there's certainly nothing better to be had. If there were something better to be had, I'd advocate using that instead. But there isn't anything suitable.

What possible physical evidence could there even be in all rape cases?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 31st, 2020, 2:30 pm
Also, do you really think that the Mob boss who orders a murder and pays the murderer shouldn't be prosecuted?
Yes, of course I think that. I wouldn't type that I think this if I did not.

Sounds like a complete lack of any responsibility here.

The president could order the armed forces to go and do absolutely anything at all, and even if a whole country of people or a whole culture could be killed and wiped out, to you the president has absolutely no responsibility at all. Sounds like, to you, hitler did nothing wrong at all, correct?

Posted: **June 2nd, 2020, 6:41 am**

evolution wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2020, 5:37 am In regards to what exactly?

What would really be helpful here would be if you informed me what you would like clarified. That is if you do want something clarified, and if you do, then just ask me a clarifying question. The more specific the clarifying question you ask, then the more specific my answer can and will be. But, to answer your question; Yes I would love to clarify what I am saying.

But considering absolutely everything I am saying is completely CLEAR to me, there is nothing that needs clarifying, from my perspective. So, the only things in what I am saying that need clarifying are the things that you, or others, want clarified.

But if, and when, these writings are re-read there will be noticed just how little lack of interest there really is in what the other is really saying, and meaning. The lack of clarifying questions asked to each other is the evidence of this.

Is there anything specific you want me to clarify?

Well, you said this:

evolution wrote: ↑May 30th, 2020, 9:57 pm The fact is that the younger a child is, the more knowledge they already have and KNOW about what is actually right and wrong in Life. This knowledge is never lost, but learning to ignore this knowledge happens very quickly, and so it just becomes completely forgotten.

Adults can and will learn far more about what is actually morally right and wrong in Life from children, than children have ever learned so far from adults.

The WHOLE idea of teaching and learning needs to be upturned and changed around completely to understand fully what is just, and morally true, right, and correct.

I don't see how we can upturn the sequence of teaching and learning such that the child becomes the teacher of the parent. Would you care to clarify how that would be done?

Posted: **June 2nd, 2020, 6:41 am**

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑June 1st, 2020, 9:39 am
Ecurb wrote: ↑May 31st, 2020, 8:19 pm 1) It unfairly favors the rich. A billionaire who wanted to murder someone wouldn't even need to have criminal connections. He could just advertise for a killer on the internet. He'd doubtless find someone to do the job for a mere $million or so.

2) It is morally untenable. The man ordering and paying for the murder is just as morally culpable as the shlub who pulls the trigger.

3) It would (I think) increase criminal behavior, especially among the rich (of course they wouldn't be considered criminals any more, but it would increase what is now considered criminal behavior.)

4) It would increase class distinctions based on wealth, and further destabilize society.
Obviously I don't agree with "The man ordering and paying for the murder is just as morally culpable as the shlub who pulls the trigger."

Yes it is clearly obvious that you do not agree that the "shlub" ordering and paying for the murder is just as morally culpable as the man or woman who pulls the trigger, but do you have any logical and/or sensible reason for having this view?

As explained to you already, this just gives those with money and power over others even far greater, absolutely unfair and unjust, power.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑June 1st, 2020, 9:39 amRe the rest, simply prosecute and then separate the people "pulling the trigger." I'm not saying to let folks commit murder. I simply want to limit prosecution to the people who performed the action that I'm objecting to--the murder.

This is a prime example of what I was saying earlier, that is: What is just and fair to someone is not necessarily at all just anf fair to another one.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑June 1st, 2020, 9:39 amWith rape, I'd make it the case that technically, rough sex--so something that would leave bruises, etc. (where we can also detect that they were indeed inflicted by the other party in question), requires explicit consent. The upshot of that would be that if someone claims that a rape occurred, with physical injuries as evidence, then you'd better have evidence of explicit consent of rough sex to avoid being prosecuted. This, of course, would make it so that spontaneous rough sex would be risky, but that is a worthwhile compromise in my view.

This is obviously absurd and just as obvious would never work.

Also, why do topics in philosophy forums,which are specifically about 'things in general terms' end up with some people seemingly always wanting to give their own very particular point of view, on a very particular part of the general topic?

All you are doing here is providing PRIME EVIDENCE and PROOF for and of how and why 'what is actually just and fair for everyone' can not be reached. Fortunately though there is a way that actually is just and fair for EVERY one, and which will come to be and thus reached

Philosophy Discussion Forums

(The way we use) law is unjust!

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!