StringJunky

This is my argument; it is, essentially, collectively subjective what constitutes moral behaviour.

Yes, I agree, and rather pretentious. It was probably an 'accidental' piece that just looks good but there was actually little or no premeditation in its construction or message. What they are probably doing is, disingenuously, forcing the viewer to ‘find' a message within the work by exploiting the human tendency towards pareidolia* in the absence of an obvious pattern or message. * "Pareidolia is a psychological phenomenon involving a stimulus wherein the mind perceives a familiar pattern of something where none actually exists." (I might add WRT this discussion: or intended to exist) - Wiki

Perfect way to express my thought. +1

The act of analysis can destroy it. because art is often an emergent property of singular parts but that property disappears when one tries to see the parts in isolation, hence, defying analysis.

From the BBC news site; it's gone now. My understanding was that he had long-running social.violence issues and only fairly recently took on the ISIS banner as a cause.

The two states is like on the faces of a coin. If you know the state of the one you observe you know the other. Once you break the entanglement (collapse the wave function) by observing, there's no way to know, possibly change it and then restore the entanglement (restore the wave function)

The man was mentally ill, that's why the FBI couldn't hang anything on him. He became a 'terrorist' at the last minute.

Everything's normal about it then; it just broke a record and that's why it's newsworthy... for a few days.

This istrue but it's still high. From my reading, so far, the worst place to be condemned is Japan. The prison regime is beyond awful; the most paralysing mental torture.and regimen that a person can think of imo.

I think a good artist strips away the 'extraneous' visual elements that obscures their intent; a complete, faithful rendition of what lies before them is essentially a photograph or recording. It is a continuum between the two as to what constitutes art but I think there needs to be some sort of abstraction to guide the viewer through the artist's mind what they want you to see in your mind;s eye.

This is why AR15 rifles and the like should never be public issue, because of people like him; disturbed.

The typical teenager, or under 30, would likely say "Over my dead body will I turn it off". Life stops when their phone is off! They don't see it as a distraction, they call it 'multi-tasking'; sounds better. Simultaneous multi-sensory input engages more of your brain so should encourage retention, I would have thought; you are creating visual memories and auditory memories of the exercise. Reading aloud also slows you down which should aid comprehension and retention as well.

Both.

The sum of which determines the collective moral code.

I've been arguing the principle that it is consensus that determines the overall morality in any given society; America is not the whole world. I actually haven't had a particular view in this discussion.but it's interesting to notice .the well-worn arguments people carry into a discussion.

Who needs universality of opinion to justify something; it's the majority opinion that matters. I repeat: if there is not majority support for any legislation or policy , it will NOT work. To pursue a policy that is not in harmony with theconsensus is essentially a totalitarian policy. If you notice my position is pragmatic, yours is ideological.

Tht's what I thought: anythiing below 3.8 will keep it frozen

It doesn't but that's the wrong question. It should be: is the consensus that justice has been done? To make the world a better place the crime needs to be prevented in the first place.

No benefit of the sense of justice for the victim's family then? I don't give a monkey's what you think, or even I think, it's what the victim's loved ones feel is right that really matters. The consensus is that the majority of Americans support it, so democratically it is supported as well.

Opinion then, not an argument. I will reiterate: it depends on what a particular society collectively feels is just; the consensus

The trouble with thinking like this is that no consideration is given for the victim's family's loved ones. What right do you have to decide what is appropriate? They are the ones experiencing the loss, not you.

A PhD in psychology qualifies him to authoritatively pontificate on a matter of genetics, does it?

Vengeance

Murder is no good reason?