Peterkin

Maybe I have no sense obvious humour. But, anyway, Skol! Oh, I wasn't planning to go there! Regarding the cuckoos, all I meant was that, compared to crows, they're pretty dumb, but yet they have this apparently devious behaviour that allows them to 'outsmart' crows. I find that pretty amazing, and wonder whether they know what they're doing and why, or following a long-established instinct. On a more esoteric philosophical level, I might wonder whether some cuckoos wish they could have a family of their own and might consider adopting orphaned phoebes or something. Just following the illogic of the thread.... and, uh, If it's not a personal question, what happens at midnight?

It's impossible to tell how much, or what they're thinking. There is some very fine specialization of physical abilities and instincts, but how conscious is the activity? Nature tries everything and keeps everything that works. Clearly, distributing eggs in the nests of as many other birds as possible maximizes the survival potential of offspring for the cuckoo, but it doesn't propel the species into the social relationships and the need to communicate that made the corvids so clever and adaptable. There is always some trade-off. Yes, and abstract thought required to identify, interpret and manipulate symbols. But this is quite a few steps past the egg-laying orders. Not everyone needs the help of alcohol to wonder about things.

Be more interesting if it were two sexes of the same species.

Not only that: Amazing, the risk and trouble some species must take to avoid the joys and pains of parenting. Fish can just swim away and never give it a thought. And yet we can barely cope with the conceptual difference between egg and chicken and are utterly stymied by the sociological question of rooster/hen/other.

I would further say that everyone is, or should be, their own philosopher. To some degree, all adolescents are, when they are working out their attitude to the world in which they are being prepared to live their adulthood. Not all do it in the same way; not all are original, organized or articulate; not all question received wisdom with the same intensity or acuity. But all do, at some time in their young life, question and challenge. At that moment, informed guidance would make a difference - might make the whole world different.

Whyever not? Apparently, this is not true: It's quite an interesting article, actually, if you can bear to wade through the accompanying advertisements. Not punny at all. But then,a cuckoo in a crow family would raise some serious issues with evolution, were the offspring allowed to marry in. I suppose they twig by puberty.

Where is even a crow going to find nuance in chicken v egg ? He'll just eat both.

But at least they'd all be more egg-aware than humans are.

Not snipping, just picking. A mirror - yes, sort of. To the human mind and its workings. It's really just the external version of introspection - that is, the philosopher projects his own "reflections" onto his nation or his entire species (even when he has no clue to other cultures or mind-sets or world-views.) It's a presumptuous, arrogant kind of thinking engaged in by people who consider themselves wiser than other people. To everyone equally - well, yes: scientist, peasant or priest, you are all grist to the philosopher, who simply ignores your individuality, your attainments, your varied experiences and convictions, and sweeps you in with generic mankind. 'Should' in philosophy doesn't apply to scrutiny of persons; only of traits, actions, beliefs and systems of organization. About her particular science, yes. About everything else - who knows? The philosopher mostly doesn't care. Huh? What, precisely, constitutes a leader? Who are counted as 'sheeple'? In what way is the one "better" than the others? In which philosophical school of thought is this concept elaborated?

Maybe so. But then, there is the cultural question, too. What do frogs know of ribbits or chickins? If they were having a debate, wouldn't it be more likely "guppy-guppy-guppy" vs "roe-roe-roe"?

Nope. You didn't mention Hooo-grrmmm-grm, cheep-cheep-cheep, Um-ba um-ba, or any of the other sounds frogs make. They're a wonderfully vocal and varied folk. It would be interesting to watch what Gareth Malone could make of a population of a Canadian pond. (And, of course, we should probably take into consideration the significance of a particular listener hearing English in the sounds heard from frogs, whose native tongue is clearly not English. But that would come under Psychology.)

Also, professional speech writers are usually canny about what gaffes, likely misrepresentations and contentious wordings to avoid. They're are keenly aware that every speech will be analyzed with fine journalistic tweezers under powerful PR optics.

Sounds a lot like maggots. They can't go anywhere until they grow wings, and even then, they can't hurt you. Best solution: Do not keep rotting vegetables in the house. Put it out in the compost, where it has a chance to become something useful. https://whyfarmit.com/maggots-in-compost/

As previously mentioned, in understanding psychology, ethics, social organization, relationships, all that stuff ophthalmologists don't do as well. If you're not interested in model trains, ornithology, cartography, antiques or philosophy, you'd probably be happier not discussing those subjects. Attempting to transpose them into different realms, or to fathom why someone else may respect the pioneers of those fields, may well prove frustrating. Also, when I need an eye operation, I look for someone with stead hands, as well as facts.

The American people didn't make him president at all. The faction that did vote for him certainly also took his legal word whenever he pronounced fraud or criminal activity or election theft against other people and weasled out of his own legal obligations or forgave his convicted felonious cronies. Peculaire, is it not so, their understanding of 'legal' ?

That's what I first thought of. But my SO mentioned Putin yesterday. Of course, Russian rewriting of history is nothing to us; the rewriting of American history is far more difficult for East Bloc immigrants to grasp.

If you mean the Democratic, and potentially Democratic voters who most desperately need to turn out and vote in record numbers, in spite of the obstacles that will no doubt be raised even higher, yes, probably. Will they have the resolve? Will there be bloodshed? Who can tell? If you mean the moderate, sensible and potentially sane Republicans, I worry that it reached them only through the distorted medium of their own news sources, which might be more damaging than not reaching them at all. I haven't yet had the stomach to read the werewolf's reaction, among others.

Not just some people. Everyone needs to learn before they can understand, and understand something before they can do it well.

Hence 'delivered' rather than 'invented'. Presumably, he knew what was in it before he performed it. No. Can live without.

Perhaps because they dispensed more useful wisdom without 'ie, facts' * than a great many modern people who have far wider access to a greater number of facts, yet keep denying those facts, keep telling lies, keep spreading noxious propaganda and inciting violence. Also, of course, * facts are not weapons, they're merely the building blocks of knowledge. All people, at all times, have been in possession of facts that pertained to their world and used those facts, and the resulting knowledge, to operate in their world. If the ancient Greeks used different metaphors from the ones used by modern Americans, they did, nevertheless, describe the workings of the human psyche far more accurately. And yet, here you are, beating up on the people you don't appreciate, rather than promulgating the wisdom of those you do.

It's always just a matter of time. He stiffs them, he fires them, he throws them under random buses....they dump him.... https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/06/william-barrs-trump-administration-attorney-general/619298/

He's never been a terrific public speaker. In this instance, it didn't seem to matter: he delivered it credibly and with conviction. Pretty much my sentiments https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/opinion-biden-s-fiery-speech-addressed-the-elephant-in-the-room/ar-AA11p4V8?cvid=7c22a17dd4d04544ba349c7d0fa7e4b2

IOW - routine Trumpery

When did he have access? Alternatively: Who in the Trump entourage had access to Hunter Biden's briefcase?

They could very easily be stuffed into folders with other documents, or in among the pages of Time, or in new folders with whatever proposed executive order was meant to declassify them, or hare-brained legal procedure he meant to bring against the writer... or under the bed with some old NY Posts hat carried stories about him. Or rolled up in the pocket of Russian spy who plans to use them to buy his way out of Russian service? FBI needs a lot more search warrants to look for them.