Are you happy with the state/province/country you live in?

[Max Rockatansky]

I think that we can close this thread.

 

Mike

Meh, I haven't seen anything uncivil in here yet.

[ozarkman417]

It's... alright. Missouri is weird politically. We vote for ballot measures that the legislators whom we also voted for later overturn (or at least attempt to). The nature is nice, though most of the real mountains in the Ozarks are across the border in Arkansas.

The cost of living is low, and that is what keeps a lot of people from moving elsewhere. It's part of why I chose to stay here for college. I live in the southwestern part of the state. Springfield is lacking in a few things, but KC, STL, Tulsa, and NWA are a day trip away. One of the best parts of Springfield is how easy it is to leave it.

Overall, not bad. But what do I know, I'm still in college. Since I've lived here my whole life, I wouldn't mind living elsewhere for a change... If I can afford it.

[DTComposer]

I think that we can close this thread.

 

Mike

Meh, I haven't seen anything uncivil in here yet.

I think it's been very civil, given the subject matter of the digression, but we could/should probably split that off into its own thread. I was and am looking forward to people sharing what they like (or don't like) about where they live.

[Molandfreak]

I think that we can close this thread.

 

Mike

Meh, I haven't seen anything uncivil in here yet.

Right, considering the topic matter, this discussion has been very respectful.

Admittedly I got pretty close to breaking Godwin's Law, but substitute David Duke for a former supervisor that tormented a family member of mine to the point where they needed legal advice, regular therapy, using a leave of absence, and a concoction of SSRI's, and it's basically the same story. I don't condone any violent behavior directed at their former supervisor more than anyone else on the planet, but I still feel resentful for the trauma they directly inflicted on my family member.

[NE2]

I was sad when Osama bin Laden was killed.

[webny99]

If a person was actively promoting or condoning violence against others and/or government policies that lead to widespread deterioration in public health or economic conditions

That second clause seems pretty subjective to me. Who decides whether or not that's the case?

I spent a career working for an agency that collected objective data on the impacts of policy.

That's not really relevant to the question without specific examples, but regardless, it's highly problematic to conflate promoting violence with promoting a policy you don't like. Even if there is some sort of objective "proof" that a particular policy is harmful (which isn't usually the case, especially if it's something with limited historical precedent), democracy and free speech exist so you can have a voice in preventing that policy. But conflating it morally with violence muddies the waters and leads to the exact kind of frenzied rhetoric that eventually causes, well, violence.

[Scott5114]

Even if there is some sort of objective "proof" that a particular policy is harmful ... democracy and free speech exist so you can have a voice in preventing that policy.

This sort of leads to the question of what the "correct" antidote would be to a policy that restricted democracy and/or free speech.

[Roadgeekteen]

Even if there is some sort of objective "proof" that a particular policy is harmful ... democracy and free speech exist so you can have a voice in preventing that policy.

This sort of leads to the question of what the "correct" antidote would be to a policy that restricted democracy and/or free speech.

It depends if you believe in subjective or objective morality. This goes into deep religious implications.

[JayhawkCO]

Even if there is some sort of objective "proof" that a particular policy is harmful ... democracy and free speech exist so you can have a voice in preventing that policy.

This sort of leads to the question of what the "correct" antidote would be to a policy that restricted democracy and/or free speech.

It depends if you believe in subjective or objective morality. This goes into deep religious implications.

This atheist believes in both.

[Scott5114]

Even if there is some sort of objective "proof" that a particular policy is harmful ... democracy and free speech exist so you can have a voice in preventing that policy.

This sort of leads to the question of what the "correct" antidote would be to a policy that restricted democracy and/or free speech.

It depends if you believe in subjective or objective morality. This goes into deep religious implications.

This atheist believes in both.

,eanwhile a few minutes ago I was about to tell someone on Discord I "don't believe" in the concept of Philadelphia

[Rothman]

I think that we can close this thread.

 

Mike

I didn't know comments on the geographic diversity of the DC area were so put-offing.

[Roadgeekteen]

Even if there is some sort of objective "proof" that a particular policy is harmful ... democracy and free speech exist so you can have a voice in preventing that policy.

This sort of leads to the question of what the "correct" antidote would be to a policy that restricted democracy and/or free speech.

It depends if you believe in subjective or objective morality. This goes into deep religious implications.

This atheist believes in both.

I think most humans believe in some kind of objective morality- but where the source of said morality comes from is where the debate comes in.

[Max Rockatansky]

Most people believe in objectivity in general but most things are subjective in reality.

[kphoger]

I think it's been very civil, given the subject matter of the digression, but we could/should probably split that off into its own thread. I was and am looking forward to people sharing what they like (or don't like) about where they live.

Yes.  It had potential for an explosion, then it remained civil, then it seems to have fizzled out.  Maybe we can just let the fizzle die out completely and not bother with a thread split.

Back to the innocuous subject of personal contentment in a given state!

... objective morality ... religious implications

Welp, so much for innocuous subjects! 

I was about to tell someone on Discord I "don't believe" in the concept of Philadelphia

[Rothman]

Most people believe in objectivity in general but most things are subjective in reality.

*reads this subjectively*

[kphoger]

I was sad when Osama bin Laden was killed.

Osama bin Laden was a racist ass clown.

Most people believe in objectivity in general but most things are subjective in reality.

Most people believe in objective reality, but also believe they have a 100% accurate take on it.

[JayhawkCO]

Even if there is some sort of objective "proof" that a particular policy is harmful ... democracy and free speech exist so you can have a voice in preventing that policy.

This sort of leads to the question of what the "correct" antidote would be to a policy that restricted democracy and/or free speech.

It depends if you believe in subjective or objective morality. This goes into deep religious implications.

This atheist believes in both.

I think most humans believe in some kind of objective morality- but where the source of said morality comes from is where the debate comes in.

For me, objective morality is limited to one innate topic - suicide. You are born disliking pain, so therefore you will not harm yourself. Everything else is learned through experience.

[kphoger]

For me, objective morality is limited to one innate topic - suicide. You are born disliking pain, so therefore you will not harm yourself. Everything else is learned through experience.

Interesting.  What about a painless method of suicide?  And what about intentional pain infliction such as religious self-flagellation?  If an innate human dislike of pain is the basis for your objective morality, then it seems you'd accept the former but reject the latter.

Also, there are rare genetic conditions that disallow one from feeling any pain.  Therefore, disliking pain still seems like a subjective basis for morality, not an objective one.  Masochists, too, might like a word.

[JayhawkCO]

For me, objective morality is limited to one innate topic - suicide. You are born disliking pain, so therefore you will not harm yourself. Everything else is learned through experience.

Interesting.  What about a painless method of suicide?  And what about intentional pain infliction such as religious self-flagellation?  If an innate human dislike of pain is the basis for your objective morality, then it seems you'd accept the former but reject the latter.

Re: painless method of suicide, obviously your subjective morality morphs and changes through time, and can "override" the objective morality. People also choose particularly painful methods of suicide. I don't think that is incongruent with the view that human nature is to not kill yourself.

Re: religious self-flagellation, I certainly don't think you're born with the desire to do this. One would be taught it if they grew up in a hyper-religious community in the Philippines, for instance. My son has never heard about God and certainly hasn't seen anyone whipping themselves to worship. So he would never spontaneously self-flagellate in the name of God.

Also, there are rare genetic conditions that disallow one from feeling any pain.  Therefore, disliking pain still seems like a subjective basis for morality, not an objective one.  Masochists, too, might like a word.

Again, subjective morality can override objective for me. I would imagine if you interviewed a lot of sadists/masochists, you would find something in their environment during development that likely skewed them in whichever direction they lean. Not sure how Sartre feels about it.

[kphoger]

... subjective morality ... can "override" the objective morality.

Ah, OK, this appears to be the key to understanding your concept of morality.

Re: religious self-flagellation, I certainly don't think you're born with the desire to do this. One would be taught it if they grew up in a hyper-religious community in the Philippines, for instance. My son has never heard about God and certainly hasn't seen anyone whipping themselves to worship. So he would never spontaneously self-flagellate in the name of God.

True as that may be, somebody was obviously the first person to do it, or else there'd be no one to teach it to anyone else.  But anyway, that seems to be irrelevant based on the first statement I quoted.

[NE2]

I was sad when Osama bin Laden was killed.

Osama bin Laden was a racist ass clown.

So was Charlie Kirk.

Ouch, what's that sharp hook in my mouth?

[kphoger]

Ouch, what's that sharp hook in my mouth?

Wait, wait...  Was that...  Was that...  HUMOR?

Didn't know you had it in you!

[jgb191]

I think that we can close this thread.

 

Mike

Wait, before it gets locked, I would like to have my turn here too:

Born in Corpus Christi, Texas (in a hospital right next to the beach I might add), and raised all over South Texas.  I love it here; my desire to leave my home area ranges from absolute zero to negative [insert large number here].  My reasons 'why' are as follows:

--  The single biggest reason is that we have the best climate in the continental 48 states.  I feel this way because we can enjoy a day at the beach practically any day on the calendar -- even in the middle of January.  Outside South Texas and South Florida, I can't think of anyplace else where winters are that favorable.  We're also so far south that severe weather and tornadoes are infrequent; snow is once-in-a-lifetime occurrence (and then warm again the next day).  Hurricanes are also not as common as the rest of the gulf coast.  Only downside is we have to endure on average of four or five freezing nights per year.  I can't handle cold very well; I remember when Scott5114 said it best when I shiver when our mercury drops below 350 degrees.

-- Other factors include affordable cost of living (I believe one of the more affordable places to live on a modest paycheck).  Friendly people and laid-back pace of life.  Not crowded nor a lot of traffic even during rush hour. 

The one thing I wish we had been from the beginning is that I wish Corpus Christi was more of a tourist-focused destination similar to Daytona Beach, Myrtle Beach, Santa Monica, Destin/Ft. Walton, etc.  As it is we are one of the better locations for boating and fishing, we have a couple of attractions the Texas St. Aquarium and the USS Lexington museum; there are propositions to add botanical gardens, a beachside amusement park and boardwalk pier, return of the Texas Treasure casino cruise, additional cruise docks to bring in Royal Caribbean and Carnival.  A riverwalk canal (canal-walk if you will) is already under construction. 

[Roadgeekteen]

I was sad when Osama bin Laden was killed.

Osama bin Laden was a racist ass clown.

So was Charlie Kirk.

Ouch, what's that sharp hook in my mouth?

You cannot compare Osama Bin Laden, responsible for the deaths of 2,000 people in 9/11 and probably more indirectly in the war on terror, to Charlie Kirk, whose worst crime was saying questionable political opinions on college campuses. Don't be ridiculous.

[NE2]

I. Just. Did.

Anyway, I bet most of the "you can't celebrate someone's death" people were happy about bin Laden.