dimreepr

The copies look the same, the value is in the providence, a contiguous story that is dictated by a historian; not the artist,,,

It's the antipode of supply and demand, I've seen the Rhino unsolicited and if I want it on my wall I've just got to copy and paste. The artworld has to manufacture it's uniqueness in order to dupe the plebs that think eating at a starred restaurant will taste so much better, bc a famous person got paid to say it does.

Unless, by freedom, you mean free-will, then I have indeed answered your question. There is no univesal, objective freedom; even within a single culture, at whatever scale you look, there are different levels of freedom available to each individual e.g. a child has very limited freedom when compared to a parent, and each individual will view their levels of freedom with differing levels of satisfaction. And we're back to your moral standards and the containment/restrictions, presumably, of the people who you consider are not doing things correctly.

Not all languages are defined by a noun, that would be very confusing...

In recent news here in blighty, A Banksy has been defiled by a tagger in a mask caught on camera; the Twittersphere is all of a twitter, which could have added value if it hadn't been bought by someone who didn't understand the art...

Are you sure about that? Modern is just a re-examination of dogmatic beliefs, Christianity doesn't need a god to work; in the right context...

You need to be more specific: Trauma can cause post traumatic stress disorder, which causes people suffering, bc they know what is real...

I don't know about mini me, their arsholery seems roughly equivalent; that of 'Cartman' (from south park) an 8 year old mummies boy, with a devious mind. They're are but pigmies when compared to the statesmanship of Nixon. 😉

There used to be witches, why not call her Karen?

He's not here to ask but, I think, more importantly his answers to the question wasn't to a confidante, and so were filled with political niceties/necessities. IOW, Was Einstein a Christian? is a question between him and his god...

Your not the only one that thinks that, this debate is well worth a listen.

Ok let's go back to the start, your OP in my view isn't a problem, it's a question. This is my first post: In what way does this not answer your question? I want to understand you, but that doesn't just happen bc we text the same language, we need a mutual experience to set the stage for the 'story/play/theater' to happen on.

I've found a reasonable work around, before you leave the site to gather information, highlight a word and click the link button; it mostly, work's.

Perhaps, but right back atcha. My point is, money is not a measure of arseholery, it just looks like it is, bc of this western drive to the bottom of the pile; reducing taxes is the mantra of the uber-arsehole. I think your target is wrong...

Bolded mine, indeed but it's not a problem for morality either, so what is the problem? Ethically, doing wrong is a double edged sword; for instance, a rich man is morally obliged to provide employment or alms to the poor, so they aren't put in a position where they're forced to break the moral convention.

Building a wall is kinda the playbook of the fascist's, climbing the wall is all I can do to stop them... 😉

I think, you don't understand the numbers...

Bc they don't understand why getting the highest number is a problem for other's, but only arseholes understand why and do it anyway, and that's got nothing to do with money...

So the problem/question is, what would you do if you're hungry enough or alone enough or etc. to step over what you now consider to be a moral line/imperative? Not really a problem you can intellectually investigate, it's more of a physical examination of one's price...

Which one of us is claiming to be religious?

I'm not trying to be superior, I'm trying to find out what the actual problem is; I doubt even a diety could understand his imagination...

Your religion isn't very popular, how many followers?

Like I said morality is what one can get away with, in the situation one finds oneself, sure there's a cultural moral imperative involved; a soldier for instance will withstand much suffering upto and including death, bc he knows that if he surrenders his knowledge of the secret plan, to kill 100,000 + of the other side, then his family and friend's are at risk; the other side of that moral coin is the interigator, who knows that his family is at risk, if he doesn't make this 'professional killer' suffer enough to force the truth of the millitary build-up, out of this enemy. I'm not sure which one would suffer the most, but I'd put money on the torturer suffering the longest (assuming that neither are outliers on the spectrum of humanity). Killing or making people suffer is much easier when there's a barrier between the action and the consequence.

If that's all you've got to say, then, I guess, there's nothing more to discuss; good luck with your imagined problem though. 🙏

Try putting a pressure cooker into a microwave?