MSC

So it's an issue of law enforcement interpretation then?

For example; Causation. How can causation be non-linear?

Zugzwang haha you've checkmated me in one move. Bravo. That being said... some thoughts do occur. Does that imply that there can be numbers and math involved in creating all types of law to create as MigL would say; "a proper law"? What if I'm going 2 miles over or under in a 30mph zone late at night, and depending on how each cop feels about the context of that, may or may not lead to my getting a ticket? Good response though, speed limits are definitely one of the most variance of interpretation resistant types of code/ordinance/law there is.

Does anyone here know how to make caps? I want a blue one that says D-MAGA Don't Make America Gag Again

Do you know of any laws that are completely resistant to varying interpretations? Seriously asking because I'd say there are none, but you're welcome to try and change my mind.

Can I post the same question in two different forums? Philosophy and Physics? Want both perspectives. Thanks all!

Philosophy causes stress and anxiety too. Existential depression as well. Philosophy seeks to remove ignorance but I can safely say that some philosophers also prefer the universe they've made up in their heads. Metaphysics is full of ignorant and depressing mumbo jumbo, usually born from misunderstandings of language. It's not that metaphysics doesn't have it's place in context, it's just that it has a habit of making mountains out of molehills. I don't know about you, but I often find it difficult to speak to an old man who's standing on a molehill, pretending it's a mountain and that he can't hear me, even after I figuratively hit him with the spade I used to dig up and get rid of the mole hill. As for OP Life causes stress and anxiety. Science can reduce said anxiety by putting food on the table and a roof over our head. As can any worthwhile endeavour and hell even some of the non-worthwhile ones can do that. The ignorant want stuff after all.

They just released data from a large Study that describes the effects on pregnant women. They are less likely to present with fever as the first symptom, but take longer to fend off infection and as such take longer to stop being infectious. So yeah, if you're pregnant, cough and sore throat is the symptom to look out for. You won't necessarily present with a fever. If you're a Dr, test on presentation of Covid-19 symptoms in pregnant women, even if they have no fever, as it is the least likely first symptom. - Study Conclusion

This hits very close to home and while you are certainly not a teacher I'd say was part of the problem, the apology is appreciated even though you're clearly one of the consistently good ones and not the one who needs to apologise. That being said I completely see where you are coming from vis a vis aspirations. I am glad you posted this on the ethics forum however, as I don't think it is anywhere near so cut and dry as what you say here; You've made excellent points and I feel that most of what you are saying is true and pertinent. That being said, it's not the whole context but together we can come to a greater understanding of the structural context at hand. There are indeed mindsets which will contribute to stagnating or negative growth. Now you said, "Most of my colleagues accepted this without comment." Did you accept this without comment, reject without comment or did you openly object at the time? Obviously you rejected this in action but I want to know if you openly argued with teachers about this at the time? I know at the time that I should have lodged many formal complaints, both during Primary, Secondary and higher education. In one extremely violent and traumatic instance I could have straight up sued the school in question, I still can since there is no statute of limitations in Scotland on child abuse. We've entered into the ethics topic of Responsibility now. Of which there are two kinds worth mentioning. Causal responsibility and moral responsibility. Where blame is concerned, there is plenty of causal responsibility to go around. I was hurt by teachers and student. I didn't do a good enough job self-advocating to the schools or my parents. My parents didn't do enough advocacy for me at school, neither my parents or teachers got me help for ASD (Aspergers in the UK still) which I was diagnosed with at 23 due to my own actions of following it up with a psychiatrist. I chose to leave school at 16 before my exams due to my own perceived inability to be able to take bullying at school anymore. There is lots of nuance and lots of instances where I could draw on here, but it would make this comment far too long. Dealing out moral responsibility, where children are concerned should be done with a light hand. A three year old using a derogatory racial slur is probably not morally responsible for the impending harm of said slur, same with swearing in general. The words the three year old were exposed to was causally down to someone else and the child can't reasonably be expected to know the history, meaning or intent behind the slur. The adults in the childs life are morally responsible for it. All children are aspirational Not all aspirations survive childhood Our aspirations become our responsibility once we are old enough to truly know better. The problem. If not all aspirations survive childhood, how morally responsible can we hold each individual adult if they must be judged based on their knowledge and experience? This means, to me at least, that the onus of moral responsibility is on higher education and other forms of adult training programs, need to be reminding people that they once had Aspirations and that the people who told them they shouldn't have had those particular aspirations, were mostly wrong. How can I be sure of this? Well I just described what you are currently doing as a teacher. You remind me of Samuel Beckett. In terms of what is and isn't an adults fault; Damage to their aspirations during childhood was not their fault. Not listening to you or others who are trying to repair those aspirations, is their fault. Also I'd really really like to thank you so much for starting this discussion. It's helped me realise some things and you've helped me come up with a solution to the Is/Ought gap problem in moral philosophy! Will start a thread on that soon. Edit: Self-Correction, this is in the general philosophy thread not the ethics thread. Should maybe probably be in there.

Has anyone ever been found to have more than one of these in each knee? Allowing their knee to bend slightly inwards in a bow shape?

Laymen are like any student. They are arguably more passionate than most undergrads, in being so self directed. I have a question for you. How many of the individuals you speak to online, have personally self identified themselves to you, as either a layman or an expert in a given field? How are you judging and determining who is who? Really? Without an exception? That doesn't sound like Laymen at all. It sounds like atheists, with zero appreciation for the literary arts and the power of writing. I've met plenty of researchers from Atheistic, Theistic to Agnostic, who had the same lack of appreciation. Let's say you are right, as a little thought experiment. So some Laymen behave in the way you initially described. So do some scientists and other formally educated scholars. What truly frustrates you is that so many students either do not reach or leave the stage of student development, Educational Psychologists would describe as Contextual and committed Relativism. The growth of understanding You might enjoy reading this. Perrys original work is also a good read, but this summarises it nicely enough. How do you know they aren't viewing it personally, as something they acknowledge they don't know, but something potentially worth their time debating as if it is true? I've been in a debate team, sometimes you get given something to argue for, you might not agree with it but it's helpful and educational to take part in. Forces you to step into another's shoes by making it competitive and it is just one of many tools at a teachers disposal to help educate their students. Hell, if we wanted we could agree right now to switch who debates for your claims and who debates for mine. I could take a turn at coming up with arguments as to why all Lay people are uninformed buffoons. I personally think there is nothing wrong with identifying meaningful and pragmatic insights from scripture or literature. Bible, Qur'an, Torah etc. Hell, the reason I politically identify as a contextual centrist is because of the Story of Prophet Joseph. I took deep political meaning from that and I've read every version.

I'm gonna air some beef here. I took issue with Obama over at least one thing. Obama and Scottish Independence Obama commanded a fair amount of respect in Scotland. I can't help but feel a little sore as to this interference, as it was a really close vote. It would be interesting to hear what he may have to say about the idea now, seeing as he was saying this during a time when The UK had not yet voted to leave the EU and he was critical of the idea of the UK leaving in the first place. I wonder if he'd speak differently about it now. I personally thought that staying tied to the British Parliament would be an odd thing for any American to advise, without sounding comically and historically hypocritical. That being said, I cannot even begin to quantify my preference for Obama over the Orange One.

Agreed! Dude has to be senile to have conveniently forgot what non-partisanship is all about. If I was on that committee, even if I supported Trump, I'd sure as shit not tell a Senator (even one I was "Friends" with) that, if I wanted to keep my damn job. All Bob Dole has done is confirm that the commission is actually doing a moderately decent job of keeping their private political leanings out of their professional lives. No different than what a decent civil servant is supposed to do.

Too true. I'm holding out my hopes for those senatorial retirees. It's not like they have to worry about pissing off voters if they swing the vote away from the Republican Majority. If not, Biden will probably have to add more justices or pass term limits, if he wins and doesn't lose in what will probably be a non-peaceful transfer of power.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't openly supporting Trump be what makes them too biased?

That's really interesting! You could almost say the same about language to be honest. The word "Electron" by itself could not tell you anything about what an electron is, or what it is like, if you don't already know, anymore than the word "Dog" can tell you what a dog is or is like, if you've never seen one. Words and letters themselves are also abstractions we use for expressive contextual convenience. We can go a stop further with "General relativity" being a linguistic abstraction of a mathematical model abstraction, meant to describe what might be the truth. Did I phrase all of that right? Sorry if this got a bit off topic, I should probably copy this to my what words mean thread.

This confuses me a little. Is this not the same as saying that science is attempting to discern the truth of the natural behaviour of existence? Is science an inquiry into how nature behaves, why nature behaves the way it does, or both?

One of my favourite episodes! I truly loved how philosophically deep TNG was. DS9 was full of it too and was vastly underappreciated in my opinion. That being said, I still prefer Picard to Sisko but both are preferable to Kirk. Humanity would like to think that I'm sure. Humanity can just be wrong though and it's not really fair if we view it in a way where we are our own judges of how much "Truth" there is to know. It's just man playing a game with himself. I don't believe truth is relative to man at all. I believe, Truth is relative to context. We can find truth within a lesser context of reachable knowledge but there will always be things we are incapable of knowing due to the visible context of existence that is available to us. In some ways, even a dog has access to contextual information about the universe that we cannot due to physiological differences in our sensory capacities. I cannot smell what a dog can smell. If a dog could talk, I'd not be able to understand a word he says as I am completely lacking in the qualitative context of actually being and existing as a dog. If we look at it purely through the lens of what we can know collectively, that still highlights problems in an individuals ability to be able to apply every ounce of our collective knowledge. It is only together that we can overcome our individual weaknesses and truly delve deep into the mechanics of structural context. Collaboration and unity are needed now, more than ever, just to be able to survive long enough to figure out more about how existence works.

Me to an undergrads conceptualisation of Free-Will; YOU SHALL NOT PASS!

Oh! Awrite mate! Similar situation as yourself, but grew up in Edinburgh, probably too multicultural where I was from to be considered a true ghetto though, that being said, you could argue that some ghettos are based on socio-economic class alone. Up until last month, I was living in a racially segregated ghetto on Chicagos South-west side. - How the US government segregated America. So, I think ghettos do exist. However I want to develop an argument from your point of view that they only exist in the mind (which in some ways is actually accurate since racist and classist fears are all in the heads of bigots) but why that is still a bad thing. I was once trying to get on a STEM course and my interviewer point blank told me "Some people just aren't capable of getting a PhD, so I don't think this course would be good for you if that is what you want to do." (Cow). I had told the interviewer it was my dream to get a PhD in physics at the time, other than my socio-economic background being from a really poor family in Edinburgh there was nothing this person could have known about me that would make her say something like that. Unless, in her mind I was from a ghetto. So, it's all very well to say "The ghetto exists in our minds" but we need to ask, does it only exist in the minds of people from ghettos? Or does it also exist in the minds of people trying to keep us there? If it is both, then the idea of ghettos definitely contributes to making ghettos a reality people from them have to overcome. An extra hurdle for us in comparison to rich people. To the point where it even makes it difficult for people like me and you to get onto entry level stem courses. Note: will be back to edit and complete in 20 minutes, phone is dying. Resumed: Now back to redlining. Do you know where American public schools get their funding? Property taxes. So Schools in redlined districts would have far less funding than schools in green districts. We are talking about decades of over-investment in white neighbourhoods vs underinvestment in minority ones. Take a drive across Chicago and the evidence for it is plain to see. It's like crossing between different worlds when you go from North to South. Why? Redlining. Decades of it. Even ending the practice hasn't fixed much because the effects of it were so potent that those neighbourhoods still have very little money whereas the green districts never experienced these things and their property values just kept rising and rising while red districts were forcefully stagnated. The crazy thing is, whites in green districts were under the belief that if black people moved in, it would lower their property value. When in reality it actually raised it because minorities had to be willing to pay more for a house than white people were in order to actually own property. It was just sheer racism. The damage these policies caused has in no way been fixed because even now insurers and lenders still feel it is too risky to invest in these ghettos. There is still less opportunity for minorities because of the decades of funding and investment inequalities.

How would you react if I asked you to provide a definition for each of those words you just used? Each and every one mind. What would you think of me if I did? You're not wrong by the way, we are expected to define complex words we use however it's not a case of me just being allowed to take a word and define it as something else completely. It has to somehow make logical sense in relation to root meaning, Etymology, historic vs current usage etc Couldn't have put it any better than this if I tried. will need to upvote this tomorrow when I've got more.

Maybe, I know I care and judging by a correction someone made of a comment of mine yesterday, at least one other person cares about classification between ethics and meta-ethics. In the end you've gotta ask I guess. You yourself brought up the topic of fallacies today by speaking about strawmen. So you care about logic at least a little bit, even if we disagree over who was strawmanning. Out of the six I suggested, Logic is the one I'd be most glad to see as an addition. I actually prefer this forum to others simply because it has made a point to have a science and a philosophy section. Elsewhere it's usually either/or, rarely both. I guess it just seems a bit strange to see clear and logical classification on one side of things and not the other.

You're right, it does. A thread for another day it seems. I'm not going to start it though. The free will debate gives me a headache and I'm a compatibilist, so I don't really want to get into the nitty gritty of variant definitions of free will. What my original comment about choice was referring to, was our emotional sentiments toward a claim. A person can say "I don't believe you" even if you provide cold hard evidence to back it up. If so, then their statement of disbelief may be a falsehood, either to the person providing the evidence or to themselves. In relation to the meaning of words, phrases and terms, how would you describe differences in meaning between Science, Art and Philosophy? I agree that scientific terms are meaningfully fixed by the scientific consensus of the given field. The same cannot be said of Philosophy (with the exception of philosophy of science) or art.

Why is there no forum for Meta-ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, logic, aesthetics or Phenomenology in the philosophy section? Just to name a few, I could go on but to me those are the six that should absolutely have their own forum. Any Philosophy of (insert sub-field here) can probably stay in general philosophy but those six I mentioned should probably be looked into. Thanks for reading!

I disputed the truth/validity of a moderators pride? Uhm... Okay. The mods here don't strike me as the sort to care if I disagree with them or not and I doubt they have plans for retribution. All I know is, I'm glad you're not a moderator.