Why is there a prison for children?

Agreed,it wasn't a good argument.I tought about another one which I hope makes more sense:“God is real because he produces real effects.” If correct this conclusion can be applied to justify the existence of any other thing including an entity that is contrary to the existence of God(let's call it No-God),something on the lines:The believe in No-God produces real effects in the world therefore he is real.But No-God and God can't be both real therefore this conclusion can't be used to justify the existence of God.(this is a mere tought and probaly has strong counter arguments)

Another thing is that in the conclusion presented(God is real because he produces real effects.) it's not God that is producing the effects is the believe in God.

I love that, in an ideal world

However. The existence of these unfortunate young people tells us we do not live in an ideal world. And at a certain point, protecting society from these people has to trump their rehabilitation if it’s been demonstrated that such rehabilitation is not working in the present moment.

Crappy choices all around. No right answer.

I just want to interject and say I admire your patience. I feel like every point you make is refuted with just a rewording of the previous response.

And showing monstrously violent children that it's OK to be monstrous to other people is going to help how?

Not sure about the author, but how about instead of setting up the prison system to be monstrous to people, take a look at some other countries? Whereas the anglosphere on both sides of the pond gets off on trying children as adults, other countries allow up to 21 year olds to be tried as juveniles if their maturation is clearly delayed. They also have supervised living arrangements for non-violent offenders etc.

If all you perceive is monsters, monsters is what you're going to get. If you waste any chance at them becoming competent citizens, don't blame them either. Cherrypicking extreme examples just to excuse not putting in even the slightest effort to turn their life around is no less monstrous.

[deleted]

That would be a prison for young offenders, ages 13 to 17. Below 13 they don't (usually) go to prison, and above 17 they are adults. The author of the article seems to be deliberately using the word "children" instead of "young offenders" to promote a sympathetic response.

I don't see the author offering alternatives here. The sad fact is that children can be MONSTROUSLY violent...and yes, usually because they are poor, disenfranchised, uneducated (let's all please remember that schools are not equipped to deal with violet/recalcitrant students...you've got to be able to get along and function in a reasonable manner to be successful in school.) I wish the author would spell out their alternatives...make it plain, what do you suggest?

[deleted]

TF A CHILDRRNS PRISON

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

I see a big issue.

​

>𝐏𝟯 Naturalism is a belief that entails infinite negative utility for the adherent.
>
>𝐏𝟰 Theism is an example of a belief that can potentially entail infinite positive utility for the adherent.

The issue is: why?

To me, Naturalism would have the potential for infinite positive utility/motivation for attempting to extend it as much as possible, even in the face of low-chance-of-success.

And Theism would have have infinite negative utility because why would they want to live longer? Living longer only provides more chances for them to screw up and be sent to where they don't want to be... therefore they would want to have a shorter life and have better chances of moving onto "the good place." Or if there's only one place to move onto... they would want to hasten it's approach as it's supposed to be "better," no?

Take it back to your analogy:

>On this basis, would you say "You know, you're right, we're probably going to die" and sit down waiting for death? Or would you continue searching for a way to survive, despite the apparent futility?

A Naturalist would see the slim chance of living as their only chance of prolonging their life, and strive to do whatever they could to manipulate that chance into reality.

A Theist would look at the odds, see that their time is near and be happy that they're about to move along into "the next, better life" and therefore be fine with giving up.

Like most rational people, I'm agnostic about Santa Claus.

What is saving the world when the villain already changed it?

I am huge comic book fan and because of that I read a lot of reboot events. And in that I seen events that I wanted to use as examples of how it is handled:

Flashpoint: Flashpoint was a reality morphing event in which at the end 2 characters know the reality changed: Flash and Batman. In that is not a apocalypse hellscape they decide to not change it.

Invincible Reboot: This a event Mark the hero is put in a world by a cosmic god entity at the start of his heroes journey, and can in theory do everything a lot better, and save a lot of people, but he choices not too because to him this reality takes away someone he is not sure will exist again, his daughter.

House of M: This event the world is turn into a paradise like world. But the heroes rebel because they know it was caused by someone, be damned if they have a family created by this reality or not, or a loved one had return. Because it isn’t ‘real’

So with these examples in mind I want to ask, is it a hero’s duty to return the world to ground zero? Can one be content in a altered reality? What makes a new world’s life more or less valid then the old ones?

"Ultimately, William James argument in favor of the belief in God can be boiled down as:
“God is real because he produces real effects.” (p. 517)"

By anology the believe in Santa Claus by a child might have a positive and real effect on that child life the same way the believe in God does to some people.However that doesn't make Santa Claus real.

I'm always surprised to see Under the Net thrown around as her most well-known and most recommended book.

I think you'll get a better sense of her style and voice from the other books.

I enjoyed your comment and wanted to make a tiny contribution. You touched upon it, but I wanted to highlight that, even if God exists, said communication with Him is not a fact until one can argue that it was not simply a hallucination. One might feel very strongly about having contacted God, and that feeling in itself can be considered a fact. Whether said communication took place, however, is by no means clear.

Les paris stupides

Un certain Blaise Pascal - etc...

By Jacques Prévert

It doesn't matter that it has nothing to offer. It's just what is. You can believe a higher power gives you the ability to bring a rotting corpse back to life, but it's not going to, and the belief in a higher power hasn't helped you bring that corpse back to life, it's just given you the delusion that it's possible to.

Theism is no less of an escape than intoxication.

“…the fact of their direct personal communication with the Divine…”

REALLY? That is a fact??

You cannot put such a statement so early in a treatise, then build much of the rest of that treatise upon that statement, without calling the statement itself into question. There would in fact need to be a Divine in order for this statement to have any merit whatsoever. And as James has already strongly implied that god might not exist, and the Divine IS god, then he’s already demolishing his own supposed point.

This makes all the rest of his utterances into apologist gibberish.

If you want to argue that belief is comforting to many, that it gives many strength, go right ahead.

If you wish to claim that community that comes from shared belief has value, I’m listening. Provide data that supports your claim.

But do NOT say “the fact of their direct personal communication with the divine” without providing incontrovertible factual evidence of the existence of the divine. Otherwise, are these people who have had such ‘communication’ really anything other than the average lunatic, wrestling with the many voices in his own head?

​

From that point forward, some salient issues are covered. First is one I’ve raised since my own enlightenment: the idea of direct experience of the divine. If that is the foundation of all these religions, then how in the world does sitting in a pew - with the priest/rabbi/imam as intermediary - have a chance of getting you closer to god? Answer: no chance. Which is why James is forced to note the actual social role played by religion, which is largely about control.

Returning to Stephen Handel’s first remarks, he sounds like he was a mostly unthinking atheist. ‘Waving the flag” of ANYTHING is not a hallmark of critical consideration.

Radical empiricism doesn't mean subjectivity always triumphs over objectivity. It's saying subjective experience is a part of a broader reality.

The article mostly boils down to the old hat idea that religion helps some people's mental health. Therefore, it should not be clowned on. Just because a thing is helpful to some people doesn't shield it from criticism.

"Instead he considered himself a “radical empiricist,” and he defined this as accepting all observations of reality, including conscious experiences from a first-person perspective."

Not this any of what I am about to say disproves relgion's potential or supposed benefits, but James' "radical empiricist" claim is a bit silly here. If you want to be empirical in regard to subjective reality, you must come to the realization that not everyone's perception can be weighed equally. An example of an opinion that should be given less credence in this context would be someone suffering hallucinations. I may believe that a person experceived/percieved an event, but that doesn't mean it truly happened. There are also situations in which one should be weary of less honest relayed experiences. In this context, a religious bias in interpreting events is relevant.

Thanks for that! I’ll take a look at those two.

I think I'd recommend The Bell too.

I don't know which communicates her philosophy more clearly though; I liked both books but I've really no idea what they were saying philosophically.

> You know, you're right, we're probably going to die

Yes, sure.

> Naturalism is a belief that entails infinite negative utility for the adherent.

How?

> death is an infinite loss

First, it's strange to assign inifnite loss to non-existence.

Second, belief in Naturalism doesn't entail you will die; Naturalism (as believed in its current form) entail you will die. You have to differentiate between what is entailed from adopting a belief, and what is entailed from the content of the belief being true. You can believe in Naturalism, but may be theists are right! May be the naturalist won't die but happily suffer in hell for all eternity! Or perhaps there is a weird god who only allows Naturalism in heaven and make all theists suffer! and so on so forth. So even belief in Naturalism can only potentially lead to "infinite loss" or "infinte gain". Which makes believing in Naturalism again on par with believing in Theism.