John Cuthber

Would you like to explain that to all the people with PhDs and D.Phils in science? Also you have claimed that philosophy can solve all questions- but you have not explained how. Perhaps you could illustrate it with a concrete example. The problem I face is that I don't know which pub to go to next Friday. How does philosophy solve that problem?

I can't help wondering if the bloke is thinking "United:don't care: City"

Peter, You seem to have missed this. because your next post had nothing to do with answering the questions I asked. Would you like to try again?

I don't care where the philosophy comes from and it's silly to assume I do. What I'm asking is what it actually achieves. What has would philosophy have done in the last 50 or 100 years which made my life better if I was somewhere other than the West? Or, if you prefer What has philosophy done in the last 50 or 100 years which made my Easterner's life better?

Perhaps I should rephrase the question. What has philosophy done in the last 50 or 100 years which made my life better?

Many years ago, almost any sort of "thinking" would have been termed "philosophy" even if it was about something that would these days be considered as some other subject- perhaps physics or maths- maybe even literary criticism or theory of art. However today those subjects stand in their own right. It's my (unevinced- and presented here so that it might get shot down-) belief that the bits of thinking that remain part of philosophy are the bits that nobody else found a use for. What has philosophy done in the last 50 or 100 years which made my life better?

"What should we get these otherwise unemployed philosophers to do?"

http://xkcd.com/285/

Weird how that keeps happening with different nationalities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_and_naval_vessel_urban_legend

You seem to have missed the evidence I cited. Here it is again. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind/?hl=batshit#entry697415

BTW, for the benefit of those in the USA, much of the rest of the world wonders why you call your two parties Left and Right. From our point of view it's a matter of very Right and even more Right, This may go some way to explaining the issues raised.

As far as I can tell, politicas as a whole has drifted (some would say "sprinted") to the Right. Obama got called a communist even though he's probably to the Right of, for example, Kennedy. That's certainly consistent with the Right hand edge of it needing to be essentially insane, just to stay to the Right of mainstream. I'm still hoping that someone can find the Left wing Nutjobs.

To be fair, the source you cite isn't exactly pro Republican. They might have edited out any Loony Left politicians. I'm hoping that those who seek to support the Right wing will be able to provide us with examples of Left wingers who, for example, believe in dragons like the guy in the OP. Of course, it may be that no such people exist- in which case I'd love an explanation from them.

Come on, to "live within your means " implies that , if times get hard you cut spending. You said "However when you are in trouble with your spending you don't ask for a higher limit on your credit card !" so, either you cut spending or you do the thing that sets a government apart from a household. You increase your income. Governments can do that- they can (and do) raise taxes. The classic distinction between Left and Right is whether they want to increase or decrease tax revenue. You presumably have a view on that and it defines whether you are politically Left or Right, no matter how you think your daughter should dress.

Incidentally, the assertion that the Republicans were more sensible in the past supports the thread title's suggestion that they have lost their minds. An alternative would be that they never had (working) minds in the first place. Also, the labels are valid- no matter how silly they may be. They label two distinct groups- the ones who seem to utter lots of batshit crazy things, and those who don't. Coincidentally, I see we are coming up on the 2nd anniversary of me asking this question. I had a brief look, but I can't see many instances of people rising to the challenge. Perhaps folks would like to make a special effort to find some Left wing Lunes by the 18th to ballance things.

If you call yourself a Republican, and the other Republicans let you, then you are under that umbrella. On the other hand, Mr Obama is not a Republican; so his actions have little or nothing to do with the thread.

I wasn't sure whether to post this here or, by way of contrast here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84846-cross-species-altruism/ but http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/02/trump-wants-to-abandon-u-s-ebola-victims-in-africa-they-must-suffer-the-consequences/

I doubt you would get the ethics cttee to agree to it, but I think it's probably treatable. The essential aspects are detailed here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9964767/Iain-Duncan-Smith-I-could-live-on-53-per-week.html The "patient" is suffering from the delusion that he could live on £53 per week. (strictly, he's just experiencing the delusion: he makes other suffer for it). I strongly suspect that after a few months trying to do so , he would come to realise that he was "confused" and that his "confusion" had led him to make grave errors. (Even if it didn't, it might make good "reality TV")

"I'm not a Liberal. I can't be, not the way I feel about how my teenage daughter should dress." Unless the way she dresses is a political statement, that's off topic. There is a thread here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind/?hl=batshit#entry697415 with ample evidence of lunacy among Rght wingers and relatively little among the Left. If anyone wishes to add to it - giving examples of either side's daft behaviour that would help inform the debates.

"Is Political Conservatism a mild form of Insanity?" Define "mild" Once it starts leading to perfectly predictable deaths, I don't think you can call it "mild" any more. I think it should lead to them being kept away from circumstances where they can harm themselves or others. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/10/bedroom-tax-exemptions-stephanie-bottrill http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fuel-poverty-deaths-three-times-higher-than-government-estimates-7462426.html http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-slammed-brushing-off-3928427

In many of the threads the different religions overlap People compare and contrast them.

When the ladies have finished laughing, they may wish to consider this "The first modern brassiere was patented by the German Christine Hardt in 1889" Also, re. Moontanman's comment that "Also alligators are harmless unless you let get them a lot closer than this photographer was.." Alligators are also potentially harmful if they get closer to you: they have legs.

Sorry, can we just clarify something (see picture)? Also, when you say "The brain injuries suffered by soccer players are going to be getting better known in the near future.", on what basis do you make that assertion? I'm not saying it's an unrealistic idea, I'm just wondering if you can explain the asserted timing.

I can't be bothered to find the video but "Ain't nobody got time for that". It might be quicker to see if any of it is actually correct.