commie

Depending on the context of the sentence, yes: suffering might be an expression of love. These words have many meanings and a five-word sentence is basically a catchphrase. The issue is: what difference do you think it makes exactly whether suffering is or is not an expression of love?

It only looks contradictory because you understand these words as pointing to contradictory things. But people may use the same words to mean different, non-contradictory things or even no thing.

Agreed, hypothetically (I don't think that's why we suffer). So what? I agree that using the word love in this context is confusing. But how would you know the limits of logic and mind? "It's simple as that" doesn't exactly communicate expertise.

You can be ignorant about some thing which is there. Indeed you can be ignorant about no thing. The typical example would the air you breathe. Often times people aren't aware of it and for the longest time people didn't know how breathing worked or what it was for. If air is absent, you die. But if you're ignorant of it, it's typically not a serious problem. I'm not sure what question you're talking about. Could you simply type the whole question again (label change included)?

No, they said "Suffering is the ignoring of truth" and "Love = Truth". You brought "opposite" into this.

I don't think you are. I realize you didn't ask my opinion but the meaning of your question is anyone's guess. I think you would do better by answering Nahm's question: what do you know, except subjectively? I vehemently disagree with Nahm about the broader issues by the way. Neither do I intend to support their (mis)use of language in this thread. I only agree that it is a good question.

The issue you do not address is that language is subject to political power, making Orwell more relevant to your topic than any liberal philosopher for instance. Politicians are wont to say obvious falsehoods while requiring others to speak in ways that support the lie not so much in order to confuse the uninitiated but as a ritual of submission reinforcing the separation between the in-group and the out-group and making productive communication between the two less likely. As you can see by reading threads in this forum for instance, when it comes to charged political topics, people are typically more interested in determining whether the speaker is part of an in-group than in understanding what they're saying. You're only scratching the surface of ambiguity in language by the way.

Because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Now, that was a simplistic answer. Why did people die in the Grenfell tower fire? Because photosynthesis produces oxygen. Was that simplistic? That's not quite the right word considering the level of bias and deflection involved, is it not? To begin with, the US didn't invade Iraq with either time. Any explanation that fails to explain why other states collaborated is a non-starter. Frankly, the question isn't specific enough to be answered fairly. It's an invitation for bias, kind of like a Rorschach. Consider all the reasons why the invasions shouldn't have happened or the number of people who were supposed to stop such destructive schemes and failed or did not bother.

Wolff is wrong but interesting. If you're into economics, learning exactly how he is wrong rather than dismissing him might be worthwhile. Peterson on the other hand is a complete waste of time. Videos of anyone vs. Peterson are at best entertainment. "Capitalism being a more effective system" is nonsensical ideological signalling. Who on earth actually has an alternative to capitalism and how would we know how effective it is? Effective in what terms anyway? Are screwdrivers ineffective hammers?

Is "the truth" whatever gets you aroused? By all means inform yourself. But reading or saying things like "greatest threat" or "collapse" is not informing yourself or anyone else. If you were informed, you could me much more specific. When will this collapse occur? What will be the mechanism? And most importantly: how would it be avoided? What steps would be sufficient or insufficient alone or in combination? Do you think climate change is magic? If not, you must know on some level it's about numbers. Know the numbers, speak the numbers! Otherwise all you're doing is peddling BS, same as most politicians and ideologues.

I don't know how to do that so I tried looking it up but what I found was dreadful. So I looked up the exact phrasing of something I knew instead (de viis inferni) and said that even though it's not exactly what you asked.

Never met liberals before?

Please leave my reason outside of this. You're going to confuse yourself to no end if you keep thinking about existence but, putting that aside, I'm indeed assuming that I'm alive. And I can tell you I have no need of your reason. Stop thinking for all I care!

In the context of the PSR, "reason" is inclusive of unknowables. I did notice the quotation marks but they can't replace what you didn't say instead, or silence for that matter...

I said what I said which is that it doesn't need a reason. I didn't say it had no reason and I didn't say anything about causes. If you want to do philosophy, the first step is to master words. Life is obviously unconcerned with the PSR, you are because you are trying to reason. Einstein evidently reasoned the same way but since he was doing real work, he risked being proved wrong... and on this matter, he was. That is obviously no refutation of the PSR but an object lesson as to the dangers involved in using it. Most thinkers have long moved on from such arrogance.

When that last word comes up, it's a good sign someone's confused. But who said anything about causes? So in other words, it doesn't.

No, it doesn't.

Please! I'm certainly not a normal guy.

You keep waiting for magic cures! I have no idea what you call "energy" but you don't need it to got out and walk. Walk fast or walk uphill and that'll be exercise enough if you're out of shape. Simply walking also makes it easy to observe the environment you're walking in (kind of like meditating). You can consider upgrading to running later but the main thing is to start doing something now. Working on the farm is probably a good idea as well. The reason your family's money isn't much use (but certainly not useless!) is apparently that you have no reasonable plans to do anything with it. Unlike hopes for magic, coming up with solid plans takes time. Let the doctors worry about what drugs (if any) are appropriate in your condition. Since your family has money, you'll have plenty of opportunity to talk to them about suicide or other side effects after they've recommended a drug.

Unbelievable. You just posted a reference to a RCT showing they work! But obviously that's an irrelevant RCT, like the other studies referenced. Looking at such studies now would be a really dumb approach to evaluate mask effectiveness, but of course that's not what you're trying to do. Can you explain coherently why on Earth would you look at influenza transmission more than 7 months into an epidemic involving a novel pathogen?

I don't care much for civility and I'm no liberal but there's an obvious reason why it makes a big difference that a baby is still in its womb... I would address it if was asked in by someone who appeared to be interesting in finding out what that reason is.

Yes, it's misleading... as is much of what is stated here. But the first question is a very good question in spite of the misleading word. For instance, can you imagine a square circle? Why not? It is obviously possible to fly to the moon without a rocket, just not practical right now (but then flying to the moon with a rocket is also impractical right now!). The only people who flew to the moon were part of the same program which was based on rockets so I understand why you might associate rockets with flying to the moon but it's not the only way. Nobody knows what laws prevents them from doing this or that (if any). What you may be getting at is: what's limiting the laws we perceive (scientific or otherwise)? It's a similar question to "what's limiting our imagination" but it is also very different...

You can explain BS narratives on a 5 year old level (see above) but understanding real answers would require much more education. The first step of such an investigation would be to develop a sensible object of inquiry. Many of the most wretched places on this planet are majority-Muslim but the neighboring non-Muslim-majority countries are often not much better off or even worse off. Also, most Muslims live in Asia rather than in the Mid-East and Africa. So does it make sense to investigate the development problems and opportunities of Muslim countries? I don't think so. I think you could productively look at all so-called developing countries or specific groups of Muslim countries which have common problems not shared by most Muslim countries. It depends on what you're trying to do. That said, the most important thing any independent polity outside of Europe and North America needs to achieve in the current circumstances is a revenue stream which can not be controlled by outsiders. The technological imbalances are too great for mostly closed or mostly open economies to be options worth considering. And Malaysia would I think be a better example of a successful Muslim country than the richest Gulf countries because very few countries have comparable mineral resources. But realistically, the best chances most countries have (Muslim or not) is change at the global level. Out-competing your peers will never work for everyone.

That's simply not how you establish cause and effect. Look up "cherry picking" for instance. We have granular enough data to test that particular hypothesis... and it seems obvious that it can't explain most of the changes in crime rates. But do tell if you've found a way to make it work.

I just said that it would result in fewer abortions. Indeed the reduction would be much higher than banning abortion or "having some kind of punishment". So you are in favor of my modest proposal? Marvelous!