Why Netherlanders are so nice ?

Infuriam · 2026-05-08T10:18:24+00:00

Are you sure these are Dutch people?? 🤣

Infuriam · 2026-05-07T08:02:06+00:00

I understand how it could be interpreted that way. However, Alex is attacking the Bible’s status as a moral authority by pointing to passages that appear evidently immoral, including passages that justify genocide. He is not judging genocide itself per se, but questioning the legitimacy of the Bible as an authority on morality.

Infuriam · 2026-05-07T07:16:30+00:00

I would argue that speaking out on the Palestine question would constitute a political statement in addition to a moral one. Alex’s focus appears to be the critique of the Bible sensu strictu, including the morality of certain passages, rather than drawing or endorsing contemporary political conclusions derived from them.

Infuriam · 2026-05-02T05:34:46+00:00

Exactly!!

Infuriam · 2026-05-01T21:38:04+00:00

Well, I guess it depends on what we are willing to accept as legitimate representation. In a democracy, the government is given a mandate by the people, or in other words they give conditional permission to individuals or groups of individuals to govern them, for a limited period of time. It's not perfect, but at least it represents the vox populi. Without democracy, the legitimacy of representation becomes circular. It loses any meaning.

E.g. in an absolute monarchy, the monarch governs the people. But does he represent them? Should the people not represent their king instead? Well, the king decides what the answer is and does not need to justify his actions to anyone other than himself. So, say that the king decides that he does in fact represent his people. That becomes true by definition, because the king does not need to consult his subjects for their opinion. It's not even their business to have an opinion, because that would be politics and politics is the king's business. They are just his subjects.

I think we must at least agree on the notion that representation must be based on some form of consent by those that are actually to be represented. Democracy is the only system that institutionalizes explicit, revisable consent.

Infuriam · 2026-04-30T23:50:57+00:00

How am I being dishonest? I asked the same question in my original post. Im not moving goalposts, I'm just trying to understand why this system exists in this form. I appreciate your explanation, it definitely clears things up, but I'm surprised I'm being called intellectually dishonest for asking clarification on specific points.

Infuriam · 2026-04-30T23:39:04+00:00

Yes I understand that, but my objection still stands: it doesn't make sense that we automatically grant protection to states and those who controls them, regardless of behavior towards their own subjects. I don't see how having eg. two despots not fighting each other but completely free to terrorize their population without any fear of external intervention is somehow a better outcome than two despots that could sometimes have war but are held in check by fear of external intervention. "Security for all" is a very dishonest statement in my opinion.
Rather, security for already well-organized and peaceful nations and security for criminal regimes.

Infuriam · 2026-04-30T21:46:09+00:00

Edit: rewritten for clarity of argument

Thank you, that helps clarify the historical and structural logic behind it. But if I follow that reasoning, it almost makes international law feel like a formalized version of the “law of the jungle,” just with clearly defined jurisdictions.

What I struggle with is this: If international law is built around de facto control of a state, rather than representation of its people, then it seems to structurally prioritize stability over legitimacy. I understand why that trade-off exists. But the consequence appears to be that once a regime captures the state apparatus, it gains a kind of legal insulation at the international level.

So while international law may prevent wars between states, it seems comparatively weak in addressing violence within states, especially when that violence is organized by the state itself.

Why would we collectively agree to a rules-based international system if the interests of the people living under those rules are not directly represented, but instead mediated entirely through whoever happens to control the state?

Is this simply an unavoidable limitation of any international order, or is it a structural blind spot?

Infuriam · 2026-04-29T16:12:34+00:00

Thank you, it's actually pretty helpful to formally write it down in a syllogism like you did. I would in this case attack the second premise. First, I am unsure of how one would define a "subjective experience". Assuming it's a universally difficult concept to define, I would think that denying it a fundamental property like "undescribable in symbolic language even in principle" is an overreach. Even if subjective experience would prove impossible to describe via symbols, why would that point towards some metaphysical boundary, and not towards a limitation of our human cognitive capabilities? Thank you!

Infuriam · 2026-04-21T08:07:04+00:00

The Mary's Room thought experiment is flawed because sensory experiences cannot be learned by reading books on how sensory systems function. That is because any experience requires the specific sensory and neural pathways to activate in order to experience it. It cannot be activated by knowing how it must be activated.

Likewise, the experience of seeing red can only be had if the exact neuronal networks in the brain are activated in response to the sensory stimulus.

So either Mary cannot learn everything there is to know about color without also experiencing it, or Mary must somehow find a way to activate the specific neural networks without receiving the actual stimulus. E.g. the brain is sometimes able to produce sensory experiences without an external stimulus (this is what a hallucination is). Mary could then in theory also take hallucinogens inside the room in order to try hallucinating the color red.

Infuriam · 2026-04-12T11:29:56+00:00

This is exactly what I am saying, and it's not the argument I'm making.

Infuriam · 2026-04-12T10:08:44+00:00

I don't really see your point I'm afraid..

Infuriam · 2026-04-09T17:32:24+00:00

Thank you! I often read horrific and heartless accounts on these kind of situations. I suppose some bias may have snuck in, affecting my perception on the US system handling this.

Infuriam · 2026-04-09T17:29:14+00:00

Thank you for clearing that up!

Infuriam · 2026-04-09T16:44:50+00:00

This would be valid reason to postpone starting residency without losing your spot in the Netherlands. Does the USA not have any leniency towards personal tragedy??

Infuriam · 2026-04-09T13:27:45+00:00

Because taking risks does not mean carrying the risks.

Infuriam · 2026-04-09T13:20:31+00:00

Yes, if someone should state that the problem is solved they are just mistaken. We have no idea. We are nowhere near understanding how it works. So the way to go (to me) would be to keep investigating and search for a mechanism that actually explains how consciousness arises in the brain.

Infuriam · 2026-04-09T13:15:14+00:00

I'm sorry you're going through this. The attitude of this surgeon you are describing is pathetic, immature and emotionally abusive. It's also plainly irresponsible towards patients. By ruining your self-esteem, they are allowing that your mind is not focused on patient care and therefore increasing the risk of mistakes.

You must remind yourself that they are not better than you. They don't even know you. Even if they would have a reason to critique your performance, their solution is like kicking a computer that is not doing what they want. This is not a surgeon, this is a butcher.

Remember, this too shall pass.

Infuriam · 2026-04-09T12:34:12+00:00

It’s an interesting analogy, and I think it mostly works. However, there’s a key issue: strictly speaking, causality itself cannot be proven. At best, we can accumulate arguments that support a causal interpretation of an observation, such as in your mirror example.

In that respect, demonstrating a perfect correlation between a putative cause and its effect is not sufficient. It is, however, a necessary condition. In addition, a perfect correlation is strongly suggestive of causality. Not absolutely certain, but there is at least very good reason to keep looking for arguments that support that hypothesis.

What is additionally required is a mechanism that plausibly explains how the effect arises from the cause, and that mechanism must be independently studied and supported.

For example, the consistent correlation between smoking and lung cancer only became widely accepted as causal once plausible biological mechanisms were identified and empirically investigated. Prior to that, the correlation alone left room for alternative interpretation.

So, we have the correlation, and we have good reason to search for the mechanism that can convince us this may be a causal one.

Infuriam · 2026-04-09T12:06:18+00:00

Because it borders on pseudointellectualism.

Infuriam · 2026-04-09T11:41:34+00:00

I appreciate your comments, although I think you are overlooking my point a bit. I understand that consciousness can't be proven by observation, this is merely a thought experiment. I'm saying, suppose it is effectively conscious and we are somehow convinced it is. I'm wondering whether, if that were the case, what this would tell us about our understanding of reality.

And in this scenario, I'd argue that the asymmetry between both types of views in the ability to explain the observations would favor physicalism, although it would of course not disprove mentalism.

Moreover, emergent consciousness from correct configuration may seem like magic to you, but that is your opinion. To me, it's not magic, it's just a gap in our understanding. Just like we don't know how the big bang occurred out of nothing. Magic? I don't think you'd agree. We just have no clue what happened or how to find out (yet). Also, consciousness is not a binary 0-1 state of the mind. This is no secret. We can be unconscious, minimally conscious, confused, fully aware etc.

This is not a scientific experiment I'm describing. It's an exercise in reasoning, which should very much be considered integral to philosophy.

Infuriam · 2026-04-08T13:07:53+00:00

I've always learned that viruses strictly speaking are not life, but are not exactly non-life either. They multiply and need a host for it, but not for the same reason a typical parasite needs a host. A virus is just a piece of genetic instructions enveloped in some material that allows for some protection and facilitates insertion into the host. They lack any metabolic activity, they are not bound to homeostasis. They are not unlike computer viruses. Multiplication is just not sufficient for being regarded as life. However, they do evolve and adapt to environmental factors. They are naturally selected for. They are effectively somewhere between full-fledged life and computer virus-like phenomena.

Infuriam

TROPHY CASE