?
?
?
?
?
1.? What was the most significant executive order ever issued by a president of the US?
2.? Will Joe Biden drop out of the race for reelection?
3.? Are moral codes universal?
4.?Do you expect social unrest after the US election in November?
5.? Should 4th of July fireworks be banned for being detrimental to the environment?
|
1.? Should
a president be allowed to make law by executive order?
That's not what an executive order does. Executive orders direct a
federal official or administrative agency to engage in a course of
action or refrain from a course of action.
2.? Will
the next car or truck you buy be an EV?
It depends on the overall performance and safely feature of the
vehicle.
3.?
Should direction of violent illegal entrants to the US
be regarded as a form of biological warfare - in that
they are committing violent crimes at substantially
higher rate than the average entrant?
This looks like a statement disguised as a question. It makes no
sense. What is the actual question?
4.? Do
you anticipate an imlrovement in the condition of the US
is one of the two major candidates is elected president?
If Biden is re-elected I expect continued improvement in the
condition of the U.S. (which is already in pretty good condition -
better than the rest of the world).
5.? Was
Juian Aassange unjustly convicted?
Not in any way.
Aloha,
Celeste Rogers
|
?
O
?
?
?
1.? Should a president be allowed to make law by executive order?
No
2.? Will the next car or truck you buy be an EV?
Never!
3.? Should direction of violent illegal entrants to the US be regarded as a form of biological warfare - in that they are committing violent crimes at substantially higher rate than the average entrant?
In the sense that they are biological organisms committing violent crimes including murder - they are no different from people carrying Ebola virus - merely a matter of scale
4.? Do you anticipate an improvement in the condition of the US is one of the two major candidates is elected president?
Hopefully if Trump is elected - no way if Biden is reelected.? The outlier is that neither will get a majority in the electoral college in which case a third candidate can be elected.
As an aside - what is the absolute minimum number of votes to elect a president - there are two possibilities depending on exactly how you want to read the rules
5.? Was Juian Aassange unjustly convicted?
Emphatically yes - he did nothing more than expose the dealings of the shadow government to view.
?
|
1.? Should a president be allowed to make law by executive order?
Every authoritarian king and dictator can do so, why not the president?
Checks and balances. The answer is no, although the Executive Branch should not be a puppet or powerless figurehead, either.
2.? Will the next car or truck you buy be an EV?
No. We are towing a travel trailer now, so I needed an affordable and reliable vehicle that can manage that across the country. I also wanted a vehicle that could get itself out?of trouble should?the extreme weather threaten us. We now own a used 6L GMC Sierra 4WD, Last check, it busted out a massive 9MPG!
TBF, I do not know what I will need after the pickup, so maybe? I would need a versatile and reliable vehicle, though...and affordable.
3.? Should direction of violent illegal entrants to the US be regarded as a form of biological warfare - in that they are committing violent crimes at substantially higher rate than the average entrant?
That would be silly. There is already a category for this: terrorism. Illegal immigrants who attack citizens?should be considered combatants and any legal complications encountered by defenders should be evaluated according to whether the aggressor qualifies as a terrorist.
4.? Do you anticipate an improvement in the condition of the US if one of the two major candidates is elected president?
This will improve, that will get worse, life will go on until Armageddon. Subsequent to that?life may or may not?go on. I am hoping there? will be financial improvements in the short term, but that would be a sort of minor bonus to brighten the more portentous major challenges.
5.? Was Julian Aassange unjustly convicted?
I am not sure. It seems like another spectacle. So much publicity when so many actual problems exist.
?
|
?
?
?
1.? Should a president be allowed to make law by executive order?
2.? Will the next car or truck you buy be an EV?
3.? Should direction of violent illegal entrants to the US be regarded as a form of biological warfare - in that they are committing violent crimes at substantially higher rate than the average entrant?
4.? Do you anticipate an imlrovement in the condition of the US is one of the two major candidates is elected president?
5.? Was Juian Aassange unjustly convicted?
?
|
1.?
Scientists at the University of Washington are studying
production of clouds to reflect sunlight with the intent of
cooling the earth - is this a good idea?
I think there will be some unintended consequences that will make it
unwise.
2.? Accusations are being made of using artificial
intelligence to manipulate videos of politicians to make
them look bad - do you believe this is happening?
It is definitely happening.
3.? Are
you going to watch the first presidential debate next
Thursday?
No. I can't stand listening to Trump talk. He's so adolescent. And
he'll probably be sundowning, too.
4.?
Should Robert Kennedy Junior be allowed in the debate next
Thursday?
No. He's just a whack job.
5.? Who
will die first - Putin, Biden or Kim?
Both Putin and Kim have been ill. So one of them will die first.
Biden, on the other hand, is still in pretty good health.
Aloha,
Celeste Rogers
|
Re: [m-scholars-and-scribes] Re: Friday Five June 21
?
?
?
?
1.? Scientists at the University of Washington are studying production of clouds to reflect sunlight with the intent of cooling the earth - is this a good idea?
Brilliant waste of research money
2.? Accusations are being made of using artificial intelligence to manipulate videos of politicians to make them look bad - do you believe this is happening?
Yes - on all sides.
3.? Are you going to watch the first presidential debate next Thursday?
At least part of it
4.? Should Robert Kennedy Junior be allowed in the debate next Thursday?
Emphatically yes - he would show both contenders to be the idiots they are
5.? Who will die first - Putin, Biden or Kim?
Probably Biden.? The other two will be propped up with mechanical hand waving devices - though come to think of it that may already be true of Biden.
?
--
?
|
1.? Scientists at the University of Washington are studying production of clouds to reflect sunlight with the intent of cooling the earth - is this a good idea?
Probably not. Of course, I am not qualified to judge. My opinion is based upon a subjective impression that we are discussing a superficial response to one aspect of a very complex system without due diligence to research the impact this solution might have on other aspects of that system. A considered response would involve a concerted cost-irrelvant research effort to determine whether the overall causes of the current weather trends and how these might be impacted by such a plan. Then comes the potential for adverse effects and reliable, multidisciplinary projections?supporting that potential. After this, the plan for implementation along with engineering exploration and finally the emergency?safety plans to handle the unforeseen.
In other words, if the temps keep going up, I will be dead of overheating?long before the plan is ready for peer review.
2.? Accusations are being made of using artificial intelligence to manipulate videos of politicians to make them look bad - do you believe this is happening?
If it is possible and?fiscally viable, then likely so. Seems like an all-out slugfest is happening. I am surprised there have been so few assassination attempts making the news.
3.? Are you going to watch the first presidential debate next Thursday?
Probably not, but it depends in part on others. I may be exposed in part simply due to proximity. IMHO, the spectacle is simply designed to distract the mob by supporting the media depiction of assessing these two candidates as the?two choices to manage our political future.
4.? Should Robert Kennedy Junior be allowed in the debate next Thursday?
Sure. Bring popcorn.
5.? Who will die first - Putin, Biden or Kim?
All mental processes?come to a complete screeching halt. After as few moments of cognitive stasis, I realize you are probably asking folks to speculate for the purpose of socialization. This is a typical reaction I have to common human phrasing! My knee-jerk is to frown?in confusion and reply, "How the hell would I know? I should be able to predict the future?"
Fortunately, I have been training myself to look beyond my overly-literal reactions to the social chattering patterns of your species!?
They all exhibit a history of health issues, either via reported incidents or visual appearance. They all have access to advanced healthcare. They are all obvious targets of assassination plans. Barring random accidental disasters, and given the assasination histories of the associated protection systems, I would put Biden as front runner. If he loses the election, though, there would be little reason to target him and healthcare decline could take years to threaten his life. That moves?Putin to the top as I am sure Ukraine and the entire?Allied world is just waiting for an opportunity.?
Kim is fighting obvious obesity and some mysterious health threats, if I remember right. He is also working actively to become a more notorious player. His chances of a healthcare or violence-related incident are probably?not insignificant.
Final answer: "How the hell would I know? I should be able to predict the future?"
:)
|
?
?
1.? Scientists at the University of Washington are studying production of clouds to reflect sunlight with the intent of cooling the earth - is this a good idea?
2.? Accusations are being made of using artificial intelligence to manipulate videos of politicians to make them look bad - do you believe this is happening?
3.? Are you going to watch the first presidential debate next Thursday?
4.? Should Robert Kennedy Junior be allowed in the debate next Thursday?
5.? Who will die first - Putin, Biden or Kim?
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Frida y F ive J une 7
Far better to educate young people to be virtuous than to pick them up off the street when they're not. ?But in a culture based on relativism, in which the meaning of "virtuous" can have no clear and stable meaning, that's impossible.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jun 17, 2024, at 08:39, Ed Lomas <relomas2@...> wrote:
?" I suppose flooding the advertising space with campaigns as proactive, funded?and skilfully deployed as the major?cigarette programs that led to huge addicted populations might be useful. I do feel that would be kind of manipulative and ethically questionable, though. Maybe an equally enthusiastic campaign to grow rational decision-making and addiction awareness?in the broader public?" -Darrel
I have mixed feelings about all that as well.? They say that alcoholics don't recover until they hot bottom, but that's like observing that a lost object is always found in the last place you look.
I never tried illegal drugs because I feared that I might get hooked, given my propensity to get obsessed with certain behaviors (I have been a runner since high school).? If it wasn't for hangovers, I might be an alcoholic.?
A friend just completed a drug rehab program, but I'm skeptical of whether it will succeed because some of his ?relatives are heavy drug users and aren't supportive of his efforts.
Ed
On Monday, June 17, 2024, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing= [email protected]> wrote: I agree with?much of that, Ed. The main impetus for the design of my master's program--and the major focus of my Nursing career--was the realization of how ineffective teaching was for our patients. The nurse's role as a health educator is emphasized?in the core nursing classes from the undergrad level, but most nurses were not natural teachers and so fulfilled this duty diligently?but without any significant degree of skill. Because I have been a human mind geek since way back, it was a natural?attention-catcher for me. I focused on coaching throughout my career, bringing together many communication and teaching skills to allow nurses to be more effective under the limitations they endure, such as relative transient and brief contact with students (patients) who were already under?pressures related to their health.
The upshot of my own research was that skillfully applied teaching helps?with encouraging people to a new path, but truly?enduring change is intrinsically motivated. Eliciting motivation to change is far more important than simply teaching the ways of changing the present problem and the consequences associated with it. Undeniably, placing barriers also helps (such as your ideas around limiting use in public spaces), yet the real success happens when a person, such as an active drug user, gets onboard with the program?and leads the charge.
I suppose flooding the advertising space with campaigns as proactive, funded?and skilfully deployed as the major?cigarette programs that led to huge addicted populations might be useful. I do feel that would be kind of manipulative and ethically questionable, though. Maybe an equally enthusiastic campaign to grow rational decision-making and addiction awareness?in the broader public?
D
You and Rhonda make good points, but self-destructive culture can get out of hand, and highly addictive drugs can be viewed as a public health issue, like an epidemic.? Over 100,000 people are dying each year from drug overdoses, and 80% of that is from synthetic opioids. ?(Auto deaths are about 40,000 per year.)
Obesity is a growing public health crisis that is being ignored, and yet there are no restrictions on high-fructose corn syrup or processed foods, so I don't believe that legalizing drugs is going to lead to collective common sense.
Perhaps something like the long, tedious public health campaign against smoking, and restrictions on drug use in public places and firing or ticketing people who drive, go to work, or invade public places while under the influence of drugs might work.
Ed
On Monday, June 10, 2024, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing= gmail.com@groups.io> wrote: David: "...If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense. "
Darrell: Majority?in numbers or in power? This touches on my recent comment about morality being subjective because it reflects the influences of the local?community on the human behavior of resident--and visiting--people. I might argue that laws of that Chicago prohibiting the interference with allowed homicidal behavior would be possible:?Murder, Inc., being a duly licensed corporation conducting the business of homicide and having paid the appropropriate fees for a permit, is hereby authorized to enact the termination of Darrell according to the guidelines set for in...
In Trump's culture, I suggest that both extramarital affairs and the use of "resolution facilitation payments" were business as usual, both morally and practically. (Probably there are a few other behaviors in that culture which are alien to my own, too!) We argue that his culture is part of our national?one and so in violation of shared laws and norms, but while that is undoubtedly true, it is also not a comprehensive analysis. Significant subcultures across the country differ in these areas from the overarching norms. Gangs, ethnic groups, militant religious organizations and various population cohorts come to mind.
What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.
D
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct.? Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made.? If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? ? <<Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards. ? Rhonda
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Frida y F ive J une 7
Yah, people of all varieties are easily gulled. ?I doubt that teaching "thinking skills" would make the slightest difference. ?Learning to think logically is not the problem.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jun 17, 2024, at 08:27, Darrell King <DarrellGKing@...> wrote:
? Absolutely, David. Hitler harnessed propaganda to create his powerhouse war machine. The Allies harnessed propaganda?to create the evil villain?Hitler has become in public tradition. Our culture has evolved these processes until the media weaves realities for millions, driven by money and political power opportunities.
Again, I feel we could?fight back by valuing thinking skills and practicing healthy decision-making, yet the lure of immediate over delayed gratification is an embedded and significant hurdle!
D
// ? ? What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.? ? //
That touches on the question what passes for reality.? Among the thousands of things that I accept as true (provisionally but pragmatically), my attitude to only a few is based personal experience.? We "know" most of what we assume we know only because we were told it was true by people whom we regard as reliable authorities.? I wonder how many of the people who regularly follow "the news" to learn of what's happening in the world beyond their physical ken believe it.? I'd guess that most do.? If that's the case, the news media have the ability to confect reality out of thin air.
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? David: "...If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense. "
Darrell: Majority?in numbers or in power? This touches on my recent comment about morality being subjective because it reflects the influences of the local?community on the human behavior of resident--and visiting--people. I might argue that laws of that Chicago prohibiting the interference with allowed homicidal behavior would be possible:?Murder, Inc., being a duly licensed corporation conducting the business of homicide and having paid the appropropriate fees for a permit, is hereby authorized to enact the termination of Darrell according to the guidelines set for in...
In Trump's culture, I suggest that both extramarital affairs and the use of "resolution facilitation payments" were business as usual, both morally and practically. (Probably there are a few other behaviors in that culture which are alien to my own, too!) We argue that his culture is part of our national?one and so in violation of shared laws and norms, but while that is undoubtedly true, it is also not a comprehensive analysis. Significant subcultures across the country differ in these areas from the overarching norms. Gangs, ethnic groups, militant religious organizations and various population cohorts come to mind.
What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.
D
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct.? Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made.? If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? ? <<Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards. ? Rhonda
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Frida y F ive J une 7
?
I tried being an alcoholic in college - ended up building an 11' flat bottom boat in the dorm lounge to stay sober.
Learned my lesson - and very seldom ever overindulged again.
Marvin
" I suppose flooding the advertising space with campaigns as proactive, funded?and skilfully deployed as the major?cigarette programs that led to huge addicted populations might be useful. I do feel that would be kind of manipulative and ethically questionable, though. Maybe an equally enthusiastic campaign to grow rational decision-making and addiction awareness?in the broader public?" -Darrel
?
I have mixed feelings about all that as well.? They say that alcoholics don't recover until they hot bottom, but that's like observing that a lost object is always found in the last place you look.
?
I never tried illegal drugs because I feared that I might get hooked, given my propensity to get obsessed with certain behaviors (I have been a runner since high school).? If it wasn't for hangovers, I might be an alcoholic.?
?
A friend just completed a drug rehab program, but I'm skeptical of whether it will succeed because some of his ?relatives are heavy drug users and aren't supportive of his efforts.
?
I agree with?much of that, Ed. The main impetus for the design of my master's program--and the major focus of my Nursing career--was the realization of how ineffective teaching was for our patients. The nurse's role as a health educator is emphasized?in the core nursing classes from the undergrad level, but most nurses were not natural teachers and so fulfilled this duty diligently?but without any significant degree of skill. Because I have been a human mind geek since way back, it was a natural?attention-catcher for me. I focused on coaching throughout my career, bringing together many communication and teaching skills to allow nurses to be more effective under the limitations they endure, such as relative transient and brief contact with students (patients) who were already under?pressures related to their health.
?
The upshot of my own research was that skillfully applied teaching helps?with encouraging people to a new path, but truly?enduring change is intrinsically motivated. Eliciting motivation to change is far more important than simply teaching the ways of changing the present problem and the consequences associated with it. Undeniably, placing barriers also helps (such as your ideas around limiting use in public spaces), yet the real success happens when a person, such as an active drug user, gets onboard with the program?and leads the charge.
?
I suppose flooding the advertising space with campaigns as proactive, funded?and skilfully deployed as the major?cigarette programs that led to huge addicted populations might be useful. I do feel that would be kind of manipulative and ethically questionable, though. Maybe an equally enthusiastic campaign to grow rational decision-making and addiction awareness?in the broader public?
?
D
?
?
You and Rhonda make good points, but self-destructive culture can get out of hand, and highly addictive drugs can be viewed as a public health issue, like an epidemic.? Over 100,000 people are dying each year from drug overdoses, and 80% of that is from synthetic opioids. ?(Auto deaths are about 40,000 per year.)
?
Obesity is a growing public health crisis that is being ignored, and yet there are no restrictions on high-fructose corn syrup or processed foods, so I don't believe that legalizing drugs is going to lead to collective common sense.
?
Perhaps something like the long, tedious public health campaign against smoking, and restrictions on drug use in public places and firing or ticketing people who drive, go to work, or invade public places while under the influence of drugs might work.
?
Ed
?
?
?
On Monday, June 10, 2024, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing= gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
?
David: "...If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense. "?
Darrell: Majority?in numbers or in power? This touches on my recent comment about morality being subjective because it reflects the influences of the local?community on the human behavior of resident--and visiting--people. I might argue that laws of that Chicago prohibiting the interference with allowed homicidal behavior would be possible:?Murder, Inc., being a duly licensed corporation conducting the business of homicide and having paid the appropropriate fees for a permit, is hereby authorized to enact the termination of Darrell according to the guidelines set for in...
?
In Trump's culture, I suggest that both extramarital affairs and the use of "resolution facilitation payments" were business as usual, both morally and practically. (Probably there are a few other behaviors in that culture which are alien to my own, too!) We argue that his culture is part of our national?one and so in violation of shared laws and norms, but while that is undoubtedly true, it is also not a comprehensive analysis. Significant subcultures across the country differ in these areas from the overarching norms. Gangs, ethnic groups, militant religious organizations and various population cohorts come to mind.
?
What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.
?
D
?
?
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
?
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct.? Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made.? If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
?
?
?
?
?
<<Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards.
?
Rhonda
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Frida y F ive J une 7
?
There is no difference between the current news sources and propaganda - the only question is which side is pushing the propaganda.
Marvin
?
Absolutely, David. Hitler harnessed propaganda to create his powerhouse war machine. The Allies harnessed propaganda?to create the evil villain?Hitler has become in public tradition. Our culture has evolved these processes until the media weaves realities for millions, driven by money and political power opportunities.
?
Again, I feel we could?fight back by valuing thinking skills and practicing healthy decision-making, yet the lure of immediate over delayed gratification is an embedded and significant hurdle!
D
?
?
// ? ? What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.? ? //
?
That touches on the question what passes for reality.? Among the thousands of things that I accept as true (provisionally but pragmatically), my attitude to only a few is based personal experience.? We "know" most of what we assume we know only because we were told it was true by people whom we regard as reliable authorities.? I wonder how many of the people who regularly follow "the news" to learn of what's happening in the world beyond their physical ken believe it.? I'd guess that most do.? If that's the case, the news media have the ability to confect reality out of thin air.
?
?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
?
?
?
?
On Jun 10, 2024, at 08:21, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing=[email protected]> wrote:
?
?
?
David: "...If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense. "?
Darrell: Majority?in numbers or in power? This touches on my recent comment about morality being subjective because it reflects the influences of the local?community on the human behavior of resident--and visiting--people. I might argue that laws of that Chicago prohibiting the interference with allowed homicidal behavior would be possible:?Murder, Inc., being a duly licensed corporation conducting the business of homicide and having paid the appropropriate fees for a permit, is hereby authorized to enact the termination of Darrell according to the guidelines set for in...
?
In Trump's culture, I suggest that both extramarital affairs and the use of "resolution facilitation payments" were business as usual, both morally and practically. (Probably there are a few other behaviors in that culture which are alien to my own, too!) We argue that his culture is part of our national?one and so in violation of shared laws and norms, but while that is undoubtedly true, it is also not a comprehensive analysis. Significant subcultures across the country differ in these areas from the overarching norms. Gangs, ethnic groups, militant religious organizations and various population cohorts come to mind.
?
What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.
?
D
?
?
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
?
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct.? Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made.? If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
?
?
?
?
?
<<Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards.
?
Rhonda
?
?
?
?
?
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Frida y F ive J une 7
" I suppose flooding the advertising space with campaigns as proactive, funded?and skilfully deployed as the major?cigarette programs that led to huge addicted populations might be useful. I do feel that would be kind of manipulative and ethically questionable, though. Maybe an equally enthusiastic campaign to grow rational decision-making and addiction awareness?in the broader public?" -Darrel
I have mixed feelings about all that as well.? They say that alcoholics don't recover until they hot bottom, but that's like observing that a lost object is always found in the last place you look.
I never tried illegal drugs because I feared that I might get hooked, given my propensity to get obsessed with certain behaviors (I have been a runner since high school).? If it wasn't for hangovers, I might be an alcoholic.?
A friend just completed a drug rehab program, but I'm skeptical of whether it will succeed because some of his ?relatives are heavy drug users and aren't supportive of his efforts.
On Monday, June 17, 2024, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing= [email protected]> wrote: I agree with?much of that, Ed. The main impetus for the design of my master's program--and the major focus of my Nursing career--was the realization of how ineffective teaching was for our patients. The nurse's role as a health educator is emphasized?in the core nursing classes from the undergrad level, but most nurses were not natural teachers and so fulfilled this duty diligently?but without any significant degree of skill. Because I have been a human mind geek since way back, it was a natural?attention-catcher for me. I focused on coaching throughout my career, bringing together many communication and teaching skills to allow nurses to be more effective under the limitations they endure, such as relative transient and brief contact with students (patients) who were already under?pressures related to their health.
The upshot of my own research was that skillfully applied teaching helps?with encouraging people to a new path, but truly?enduring change is intrinsically motivated. Eliciting motivation to change is far more important than simply teaching the ways of changing the present problem and the consequences associated with it. Undeniably, placing barriers also helps (such as your ideas around limiting use in public spaces), yet the real success happens when a person, such as an active drug user, gets onboard with the program?and leads the charge.
I suppose flooding the advertising space with campaigns as proactive, funded?and skilfully deployed as the major?cigarette programs that led to huge addicted populations might be useful. I do feel that would be kind of manipulative and ethically questionable, though. Maybe an equally enthusiastic campaign to grow rational decision-making and addiction awareness?in the broader public?
D
You and Rhonda make good points, but self-destructive culture can get out of hand, and highly addictive drugs can be viewed as a public health issue, like an epidemic.? Over 100,000 people are dying each year from drug overdoses, and 80% of that is from synthetic opioids. ?(Auto deaths are about 40,000 per year.)
Obesity is a growing public health crisis that is being ignored, and yet there are no restrictions on high-fructose corn syrup or processed foods, so I don't believe that legalizing drugs is going to lead to collective common sense.
Perhaps something like the long, tedious public health campaign against smoking, and restrictions on drug use in public places and firing or ticketing people who drive, go to work, or invade public places while under the influence of drugs might work.
Ed
On Monday, June 10, 2024, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing= gmail.com@groups.io> wrote: David: "...If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense. "
Darrell: Majority?in numbers or in power? This touches on my recent comment about morality being subjective because it reflects the influences of the local?community on the human behavior of resident--and visiting--people. I might argue that laws of that Chicago prohibiting the interference with allowed homicidal behavior would be possible:?Murder, Inc., being a duly licensed corporation conducting the business of homicide and having paid the appropropriate fees for a permit, is hereby authorized to enact the termination of Darrell according to the guidelines set for in...
In Trump's culture, I suggest that both extramarital affairs and the use of "resolution facilitation payments" were business as usual, both morally and practically. (Probably there are a few other behaviors in that culture which are alien to my own, too!) We argue that his culture is part of our national?one and so in violation of shared laws and norms, but while that is undoubtedly true, it is also not a comprehensive analysis. Significant subcultures across the country differ in these areas from the overarching norms. Gangs, ethnic groups, militant religious organizations and various population cohorts come to mind.
What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.
D
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct.? Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made.? If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? ? <<Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards. ? Rhonda
|
Re: Frida y F ive J une 7
Success with this approach wo9uld be predicated?on people controlling their impulses with reasoned, detached judgement...? Otherwise, should?we not be depending upon extrinsic motivation?from law enforcement, simply switching the letter of the law? For instance, a cocaine user who starts out Doing the Deed privately during?off hours, gradually bringing his habit to work and highway. Or maybe he reaches his limit for purchasing, either?through quantity?or cost, and so begins using a black market.?
My point is that while the morality of the law might be more pleasing, the practical impact would be minimal.
D
?
The basis for law should be whether the swinging of your arm reaches the next person's nose.
If your actions only effect you - they are legal.? Marijuana and alcohol should be controlled only to the degree that they effect others - though parents need to be cautioned lest they effect their children - drug babies being the worst example.
Marvin
?
<<Are you arguing that if X percent of people disobey a law, it's a bad law?
Or are you arguing that if the cost of enforcing a law is higher than Y, the law should be eliminated?
Or you arguing that if Z percent of people want to do something, they should be allowed to do it?>>
No, my main argument is that adults should be able to make their own decisions about what they put into their bodies. If an adult wants to smoke marijuana, drink alcohol, eat high fat foods, or anything else, that should be their right as an adult. If health insurance wants to charge them higher premiums, they can (and currently do with smoking tobacco.) If they commit crimes while under the influence of marijuana or drinking alcohol, then that should not be accepted in any way as an excuse for the crimes they committed. I was not clear about this in my original posting.
But unfortunately, we live in a society where busybodies want to control other people’s decisions, even though those decisions have no bearing on their own life. That is why I offered the secondary argument for busybodies, who don’t care about people’s freedom or independence, that making marijuana illegal does directly affect their lives in the various ways I mentioned (where as marijuana being legal does not affect their lives.)
?
Rhonda
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Frida y F ive J une 7
Absolutely, David. Hitler harnessed propaganda to create his powerhouse war machine. The Allies harnessed propaganda?to create the evil villain?Hitler has become in public tradition. Our culture has evolved these processes until the media weaves realities for millions, driven by money and political power opportunities.
Again, I feel we could?fight back by valuing thinking skills and practicing healthy decision-making, yet the lure of immediate over delayed gratification is an embedded and significant hurdle!
D
// ? ? What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.? ? //
That touches on the question what passes for reality.? Among the thousands of things that I accept as true (provisionally but pragmatically), my attitude to only a few is based personal experience.? We "know" most of what we assume we know only because we were told it was true by people whom we regard as reliable authorities.? I wonder how many of the people who regularly follow "the news" to learn of what's happening in the world beyond their physical ken believe it.? I'd guess that most do.? If that's the case, the news media have the ability to confect reality out of thin air.
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? David: "...If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense. "
Darrell: Majority?in numbers or in power? This touches on my recent comment about morality being subjective because it reflects the influences of the local?community on the human behavior of resident--and visiting--people. I might argue that laws of that Chicago prohibiting the interference with allowed homicidal behavior would be possible:?Murder, Inc., being a duly licensed corporation conducting the business of homicide and having paid the appropropriate fees for a permit, is hereby authorized to enact the termination of Darrell according to the guidelines set for in...
In Trump's culture, I suggest that both extramarital affairs and the use of "resolution facilitation payments" were business as usual, both morally and practically. (Probably there are a few other behaviors in that culture which are alien to my own, too!) We argue that his culture is part of our national?one and so in violation of shared laws and norms, but while that is undoubtedly true, it is also not a comprehensive analysis. Significant subcultures across the country differ in these areas from the overarching norms. Gangs, ethnic groups, militant religious organizations and various population cohorts come to mind.
What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.
D
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct.? Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made.? If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? ? <<Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards. ? Rhonda
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Frida y F ive J une 7
I agree with?much of that, Ed. The main impetus for the design of my master's program--and the major focus of my Nursing career--was the realization of how ineffective teaching was for our patients. The nurse's role as a health educator is emphasized?in the core nursing classes from the undergrad level, but most nurses were not natural teachers and so fulfilled this duty diligently?but without any significant degree of skill. Because I have been a human mind geek since way back, it was a natural?attention-catcher for me. I focused on coaching throughout my career, bringing together many communication and teaching skills to allow nurses to be more effective under the limitations they endure, such as relative transient and brief contact with students (patients) who were already under?pressures related to their health.
The upshot of my own research was that skillfully applied teaching helps?with encouraging people to a new path, but truly?enduring change is intrinsically motivated. Eliciting motivation to change is far more important than simply teaching the ways of changing the present problem and the consequences associated with it. Undeniably, placing barriers also helps (such as your ideas around limiting use in public spaces), yet the real success happens when a person, such as an active drug user, gets onboard with the program?and leads the charge.
I suppose flooding the advertising space with campaigns as proactive, funded?and skilfully deployed as the major?cigarette programs that led to huge addicted populations might be useful. I do feel that would be kind of manipulative and ethically questionable, though. Maybe an equally enthusiastic campaign to grow rational decision-making and addiction awareness?in the broader public?
D
You and Rhonda make good points, but self-destructive culture can get out of hand, and highly addictive drugs can be viewed as a public health issue, like an epidemic.? Over 100,000 people are dying each year from drug overdoses, and 80% of that is from synthetic opioids. ?(Auto deaths are about 40,000 per year.)
Obesity is a growing public health crisis that is being ignored, and yet there are no restrictions on high-fructose corn syrup or processed foods, so I don't believe that legalizing drugs is going to lead to collective common sense.
Perhaps something like the long, tedious public health campaign against smoking, and restrictions on drug use in public places and firing or ticketing people who drive, go to work, or invade public places while under the influence of drugs might work.
Ed
On Monday, June 10, 2024, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing= [email protected]> wrote: David: "...If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense. "
Darrell: Majority?in numbers or in power? This touches on my recent comment about morality being subjective because it reflects the influences of the local?community on the human behavior of resident--and visiting--people. I might argue that laws of that Chicago prohibiting the interference with allowed homicidal behavior would be possible:?Murder, Inc., being a duly licensed corporation conducting the business of homicide and having paid the appropropriate fees for a permit, is hereby authorized to enact the termination of Darrell according to the guidelines set for in...
In Trump's culture, I suggest that both extramarital affairs and the use of "resolution facilitation payments" were business as usual, both morally and practically. (Probably there are a few other behaviors in that culture which are alien to my own, too!) We argue that his culture is part of our national?one and so in violation of shared laws and norms, but while that is undoubtedly true, it is also not a comprehensive analysis. Significant subcultures across the country differ in these areas from the overarching norms. Gangs, ethnic groups, militant religious organizations and various population cohorts come to mind.
What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.
D
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct.? Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made.? If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? ? <<Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards. ? Rhonda
|
Re: Frida y F ive J une 7
// ? Marijuana and alcohol should be controlled only to the degree that they effect others??//
In modern cultures that rely more and more on strong central governments that increasingly interfere in what we used to call our "personal lives", *everything* we do affects the social machines they believe it their job to keep running efficiently.
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jun 16, 2024, at 14:31, mrvnchpmn <chapman@...> wrote:
?
?
The basis for law should be whether the swinging of your arm reaches the next person's nose.
If your actions only effect you - they are legal.? Marijuana and alcohol should be controlled only to the degree that they effect others - though parents need to be cautioned lest they effect their children - drug babies being the worst example.
Marvin
?
<<Are you arguing that if X percent of people disobey a law, it's a bad law?
Or are you arguing that if the cost of enforcing a law is higher than Y, the law should be eliminated?
Or you arguing that if Z percent of people want to do something, they should be allowed to do it?>>
No, my main argument is that adults should be able to make their own decisions about what they put into their bodies. If an adult wants to smoke marijuana, drink alcohol, eat high fat foods, or anything else, that should be their right as an adult. If health insurance wants to charge them higher premiums, they can (and currently do with smoking tobacco.) If they commit crimes while under the influence of marijuana or drinking alcohol, then that should not be accepted in any way as an excuse for the crimes they committed. I was not clear about this in my original posting.
But unfortunately, we live in a society where busybodies want to control other people’s decisions, even though those decisions have no bearing on their own life. That is why I offered the secondary argument for busybodies, who don’t care about people’s freedom or independence, that making marijuana illegal does directly affect their lives in the various ways I mentioned (where as marijuana being legal does not affect their lives.)
?
Rhonda
|
Re: Frida y F ive J une 7
?
The basis for law should be whether the swinging of your arm reaches the next person's nose.
If your actions only effect you - they are legal.? Marijuana and alcohol should be controlled only to the degree that they effect others - though parents need to be cautioned lest they effect their children - drug babies being the worst example.
Marvin
?
<<Are you arguing that if X percent of people disobey a law, it's a bad law?
Or are you arguing that if the cost of enforcing a law is higher than Y, the law should be eliminated?
Or you arguing that if Z percent of people want to do something, they should be allowed to do it?>>
No, my main argument is that adults should be able to make their own decisions about what they put into their bodies. If an adult wants to smoke marijuana, drink alcohol, eat high fat foods, or anything else, that should be their right as an adult. If health insurance wants to charge them higher premiums, they can (and currently do with smoking tobacco.) If they commit crimes while under the influence of marijuana or drinking alcohol, then that should not be accepted in any way as an excuse for the crimes they committed. I was not clear about this in my original posting.
But unfortunately, we live in a society where busybodies want to control other people’s decisions, even though those decisions have no bearing on their own life. That is why I offered the secondary argument for busybodies, who don’t care about people’s freedom or independence, that making marijuana illegal does directly affect their lives in the various ways I mentioned (where as marijuana being legal does not affect their lives.)
?
Rhonda
|
Re: [Owner] [PhilosophicalM] Friday Fie June 14
Ed,
Yes, so Musk certainly wasn't "the" founder.
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/15/2024 2:25 PM, Ed Lomas wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From wikipedia article on the founding of Tesla: "A
lawsuit settlement agreed to by Eberhard and Tesla in September
2009 allows all five (Eberhard, Tarpenning, Wright, Musk and
Straubel) to call themselves co-founders."
On Saturday, June 15, 2024, Ed wrote:
"No, they should just fire Musk. He's not doing Tesla any
favors and his performance there has been weak."-Celeste
?
Firing the company founder doesn't always work.?
After Apple's board fired Steve Jobs, the company
went to ruin under his successor, and after Jobs
returned, Apple became the world's most valuable
company.
?
Without Musk, there would be no Tesla, a company
worth $567 billion.? Giving 10% of that to the guy who
made it all happen doesn't seem so bad. I don't know
what his 140,000 employees and their families think of
it; some of them might believe that they'd be just as
well off working elsewhere, but others might be grateful
for their jobs.
?
|
David Smith