PDA

View Full Version : Name something good religion has caused



Pages : [1] 2

robdastud
08-07-2006, 01:03 PM
Name something good that has come soley from religion... Something real. Moses walking on water doesn't count.

Damocles
08-07-2006, 01:04 PM
Name something good that has come soley from religion... Something real. Moses walking on water doesn't count.
It's good that Moses walking on water doesn't count, because Moses never walked on water...

robdastud
08-07-2006, 01:06 PM
and no shoddy answers like "christmas" or santa or something. its got to be something good

Damocles
08-07-2006, 01:06 PM
Anyway, 'dawg. In the past, before the new idea of Public Schools almost every single school out there was supported by a religious institution... We can thank them for educating youngsters, if it was only in reading.

robdastud
08-07-2006, 01:07 PM
Anyway, 'dawg. In the past, before the new idea of Public Schools almost every single school out there was supported by a religious institution... We can thank them for educating youngsters, if it was only in reading.

don't count... are you trying to say religion caused education?? LOL. if anything they hinder education as in Kansas where science takes a backseat. nice try but have you been.:clink: :clink: :clink:

Damocles
08-07-2006, 01:12 PM
don't count... are you trying to say religion caused education?? LOL. if anything they hinder education as in Kansas where science takes a backseat. nice try but have you been.:clink: :clink: :clink:
In the Dark Ages almost the sum total of people who could read were either Gentry who hired a Monk as a tutor, or those who were Monks or Priests. So, yes, robdawg. Before there were Public Schools education was pretty much the sole prerogative of the Church. You may luagh but it is true. Without the church, both Christian and Muslim, we would be so far back after the Middle Ages we would still think the Telegraph was a cool new invention and the alphabet would likely be a new invention too....

Mathematics would have suffered almost a grievous blow, starting us over...

It's the same with pretty much every religion. Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian... It was the center for education in society in the back times.

OrnotBitwise
08-07-2006, 01:19 PM
In the Dark Ages almost the sum total of people who could read were either Gentry who hired a Monk as a tutor, or those who were Monks or Priests. So, yes, robdawg. Before there were Public Schools education was pretty much the sole prerogative of the Church. You may luagh but it is true. Without the church, both Christian and Muslim, we would be so far back after the Middle Ages we would still think the Telegraph was a cool new invention and the alphabet would likely be a new invention too....

Mathematics would have suffered almost a grievous blow, starting us over...

It's the same with pretty much every religion. Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian... It was the center for education in society in the back times.
Actually, in the case of mathematics, we did have to start over. It was the Muslim Arabs who preserved it for us. ;)

Your point's well taken. Today, in the "developed" world, we see a sharp distinction between religious thought and everything else. That wasn't so through most of history. Almost all universities the world over were religious schools, to some extent, up until fairly recently.

Damocles
08-07-2006, 01:32 PM
Actually, in the case of mathematics, we did have to start over. It was the Muslim Arabs who preserved it for us. ;)

Your point's well taken. Today, in the "developed" world, we see a sharp distinction between religious thought and everything else. That wasn't so through most of history. Almost all universities the world over were religious schools, to some extent, up until fairly recently.
If you notice, above, I included them in that...

maineman
08-07-2006, 01:32 PM
although I find it interesting to note that Eratosthenes an egyptian from the third century BC, calculated the radius of the Earth to with a few percentage points of it's true size....and nearly two millenia later, in the fifteenth century AD there were Christians all over Europe who thought the world was flat.

gonzojournals
08-07-2006, 02:40 PM
don't count... are you trying to say religion caused education?? LOL. if anything they hinder education as in Kansas where science takes a backseat. nice try but have you been.:clink: :clink: :clink:

The United States wouldn't exist (Puritans wouldn't have come over) and we wouldn't have an education system. You can say what you want about Intelligent Design, but schools still teach evolution....furthermore, American public education was started by religious institutions...pick up a fucking history book.

gonzojournals
08-07-2006, 02:41 PM
Oh, and you wouldn't have anything to bitch about without religion....why don't you stop pointing your finger and look in a mirror, unless your shit is completely without odor.

OrnotBitwise
08-07-2006, 03:01 PM
The United States wouldn't exist (Puritans wouldn't have come over) and we wouldn't have an education system. You can say what you want about Intelligent Design, but schools still teach evolution....furthermore, American public education was started by religious institutions...pick up a fucking history book.
Don't be dim, duckie. Religion didn't "cause" the Puritans to come over here. It was one factor in many -- little more than a rationalisation, in the final analysis. Basically, they were a nasty, brutal bunch whom no one in England liked at all. They picked up their toys and ran off to a place where they could be nasty and brutal to their black little hearts' content. Why don't you pick up a fucking history book.

If it hadn't been them it would have been someone else.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-07-2006, 04:57 PM
The concepts of religious belief, are the basis for almost every law we have. The idea that "all men are created equal" is not a "scientific" concept, it is a religious one. Religious morality might be the historic cause of some wars, but it's also the thing that eventually ends most wars. Finally, religion is the vehicle, by which mankind pays tribute and honor to something greater than self, and without this, the world would become cold, selfish, and bitter... much like you.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-07-2006, 04:59 PM
Religion didn't "cause" the Puritans to come over here.

As a matter of fact, it did. Hello? Church of England? Fact is, without religion, there would not have been "Puritans" at all, nor a Church of England.

OrnotBitwise
08-07-2006, 05:04 PM
Religion didn't "cause" the Puritans to come over here.

As a matter of fact, it did. Hello? Church of England? Fact is, without religion, there would not have been "Puritans" at all, nor a Church of England.

Religion is only part of a cultural tradition. The Puritans were culturally incompatible with their English contemporaries. They certainly perceived that incompatibility as a religious issue, but that's a simplistic and superficial explanation.

maineman
08-07-2006, 05:11 PM
simplistic and superficial? Thy name is Dixie.

gonzojournals
08-07-2006, 05:13 PM
Insubstantial and arrogant? Thy name is Maineman.

maineman
08-07-2006, 05:17 PM
they say that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

Consider me flattered.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-07-2006, 05:18 PM
Religion is only part of a cultural tradition. The Puritans were culturally incompatible with their English contemporaries. They certainly perceived that incompatibility as a religious issue, but that's a simplistic and superficial explanation.


They were culturally incompatible because they were Puritans! The whole reason for them coming to America, was to freely practice their religion. There is nothing superficial about it, and it just happens to be that simplistic. What you are trying to claim, is like saying, black people weren't discriminated against because they were black, rather because they were culturally incompatible with white folks.

Beefy
08-07-2006, 07:33 PM
Dixie's Pinhead Quote of the Moment:
"Your brain is too small to distinguish between Israelis and Jews."
Gonzojornals explains how to conceal your anti-Semitic views.

I digress here, but what is anti semetic or incorrect about a distinction between Israelis as countrymen and Jews as religious people?

Care4all
08-07-2006, 07:39 PM
Name something good that has come soley from religion... Something real. Moses walking on water doesn't count.

HOLIDAYS
holy days


:D

gonzojournals
08-07-2006, 07:44 PM
Dixie's Pinhead Quote of the Moment:
"Your brain is too small to distinguish between Israelis and Jews."
Gonzojornals explains how to conceal your anti-Semitic views.

I digress here, but what is anti semetic or incorrect about a distinction between Israelis as countrymen and Jews as religious people?

I think Dixie feels guilt about the Holocaust.....if only that made any sense.

Beefy
08-07-2006, 08:12 PM
I think Dixie feels guilt about the Holocaust.....if only that made any sense.

Indeed it makes no sense. But his insinuation is clear, that if you are not some sort of staunch supporter of Israel, the you must not like Jewish people and are thus a bigot. I resent such an insinuation.

gonzojournals
08-07-2006, 09:08 PM
Indeed it makes no sense. But his insinuation is clear, that if you are not some sort of staunch supporter of Israel, the you must not like Jewish people and are thus a bigot. I resent such an insinuation.

As do I....unfortunately the two parties of this country seem to relish dealing in absolutes.

Damocles
08-07-2006, 09:21 PM
Dixie's Pinhead Quote of the Moment:
"Your brain is too small to distinguish between Israelis and Jews."
Gonzojornals explains how to conceal your anti-Semitic views.

I digress here, but what is anti semetic or incorrect about a distinction between Israelis as countrymen and Jews as religious people?
Let's expound on this. Most Arabs are semitic, one cannot be pro-Arab and anti-semitic at the same time.

Beefy
08-07-2006, 09:26 PM
Let's expound on this. Most Arabs are semitic, one cannot be pro-Arab and anti-semitic at the same time.

The connotations have changed though. You are correct in your assertion, but the connotation has trumped the denotation.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-07-2006, 10:18 PM
Dixie's Pinhead Quote of the Moment:
"Your brain is too small to distinguish between Israelis and Jews."
Gonzojornals explains how to conceal your anti-Semitic views.

I digress here, but what is anti semetic or incorrect about a distinction between Israelis as countrymen and Jews as religious people?

Because there is no distinction unless you are anti-Semitic. Israel was established as a Jewish state in 1948, they even have the Star of David on their flag. To deny that Israel is a Jewish state, is nothing more than anti-Semitism hiding behind intellectualism. Indeed, bigots, racists, and anti-Semites have often used such philosophical tactics to continue supporting their bigotry and hate.

Beefy
08-07-2006, 10:25 PM
Because there is no distinction unless you are anti-Semitic. Israel was established as a Jewish state in 1948, they even have the Star of David on their flag. To deny that Israel is a Jewish state, is nothing more than anti-Semitism hiding behind intellectualism. Indeed, bigots, racists, and anti-Semites have often used such philosophical tactics to continue supporting their bigotry and hate.
You dodged my concern. Based on what you say above, any Jewish person, anywhere on Earth, is an Israeli, and vice versa.

If Iran is an Islamic State, then not every Muslim is an Iranian, and not every Iranian is a Muslim. It would be bigoted to believe so, and the analogy is exact. One does not have to hate Muslims people if they do not support Iran.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-07-2006, 10:39 PM
Based on what you say above, any Jewish person, anywhere on Earth, is an Israeli, and vice versa.

I didn't say anything about people anywhere on Earth. Israel is a Jewish state, that is why they are so hated. To pretend there is no elephant in the room, and say that Israel doesn't mean Jewish, is indicative of anti-Semitic bigotry. Now you can get all technical and say that the Jewish religion doesn't actually run the government of Israel, but everyone in the world knows that Israel is a Jewish state, in fact, the only Jewish state.

Beefy
08-07-2006, 10:42 PM
Based on what you say above, any Jewish person, anywhere on Earth, is an Israeli, and vice versa.

I didn't say anything about people anywhere on Earth. Israel is a Jewish state, that is why they are so hated. To pretend there is no elephant in the room, and say that Israel doesn't mean Jewish, is indicative of anti-Semitic bigotry. Now you can get all technical and say that the Jewish religion doesn't actually run the government of Israel, but everyone in the world knows that Israel is a Jewish state, in fact, the only Jewish state.

What about the rest of my post Dix?

I look at coutries and governments as exactly that. You can call that bigotry if you wish, but I don't call every Israeli a Jew, or every Jew an Israeli. The fact that they are a theocratic state merely says that their government is one based on a religion. It does not mean that the government and the religion are one in the same.

Yes or no Dix, if someone is not pro Israel, does that make them anti-Jew? Address the whole post if you will.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-07-2006, 11:42 PM
What about the rest of my post Dix?

I look at coutries and governments as exactly that. You can call that bigotry if you wish, but I don't call every Israeli a Jew, or every Jew an Israeli. The fact that they are a theocratic state merely says that their government is one based on a religion. It does not mean that the government and the religion are one in the same.

Yes or no Dix, if someone is not pro Israel, does that make them anti-Jew? Address the whole post if you will.


You don't make any sense, you keep insisting I am saying things I haven't said. I never stated that every Jew was Israeli or every Israeli was Jewish. I never said the government and the religion were one in the same. These are your words, not mine. Try making some sense, and maybe I'll respond.

No, if someone is not pro-Israel, it doesn't mean they are anti-Jew. If I don't want to do business with black people, it doesn't mean I am a racist. You can choose to hide behind your semantics and intellectualism, and continue your bigotry toward the Jewish state of Israel, you've got it all figured out.

Beefy
08-07-2006, 11:54 PM
No, if someone is not pro-Israel, it doesn't mean they are anti-Jew. If I don't want to do business with black people, it doesn't mean I am a racist.

How is this even remotely relevent? You keep putting up this ridiculous straw man, and I will continue to call you out on it.


You don't make any sense, you keep insisting I am saying things I haven't said. I never stated that every Jew was Israeli or every Israeli was Jewish. I never said the government and the religion were one in the same. These are your words, not mine. Try making some sense, and maybe I'll respond.

Your sig suggests otherwise. Your sig suggests that any lack of support for Israel is somehoe antisemetic.

You can choose to hide behind your semantics and intellectualism, and continue your bigotry toward the Jewish state of Israel, you've got it all figured out.

Nice wording. Marrying the religion and the government. Did you think I wouldn't notice that? "Bigotry toward the Jewish state of Israel". That's rich, and you're telling me you can see the difference between Israel and Jews? LOL Come on man.

Here you have just shown what yo believe. You can't distinguish between the Israeli Government and the Jew.

Be honest now why did you phrase it as "bigotry toward the Jewish state of Israel"?

I've said time and again that the state and the religion are not one and the same. Why do you insist on making it so? Your implication is that anything but support for Israel, the country is anti Jew. You just proved my point.

What is your point anyway?

gonzojournals
08-07-2006, 11:55 PM
Just ignore him....he is too stupid to deal with valid points and logic.

klaatu
08-08-2006, 05:11 AM
Well.. as a Born and raised Catholic.. I have always felt real good about Catholic Charities ....
And I have always felt real good that..not including their tithngs .. people of faith are likely to give more to Charity ....
So .. Charity is the answer ... as Christ so often preached ...

AnyOldIron
08-08-2006, 05:45 AM
No, if someone is not pro-Israel, it doesn't mean they are anti-Jew. If I don't want to do business with black people, it doesn't mean I am a racist.

If the sole reason that you don't do business is because of race, then you are racist.

Israel, on the other hand is neither religion nor race, it is a political entity. Criticising criticism of Israeli actions as anti-Jewish is as ridiculous as stating that criticising the actions of the Syrian government is anti-Muslim.

AnyOldIron
08-08-2006, 05:45 AM
The notion that religion creates such virtues as charity, forgiveness and empathy is a misnomer. These virtues exist outside the religious sphere, thus negating causation.

In fact the motivation to act in such a way within religions derives more from selfishness, the notion that acting in such a way refutes the anger / pleases whichever fictional anthropomorphic dictator-god is involved.

Does religion do good? That is a philosophical minefield. What is deemed 'good' is subjective.

Do religion's induce an atmosphere of peace, understanding and mutual respect? No. Religion only perpetuates itself.

klaatu
08-08-2006, 05:56 AM
The notion that religion creates such virtues as charity, forgiveness and empathy is a misnomer. These virtues exist outside the religious sphere, thus negating causation.

In fact the motivation to act in such a way within religions derives more from selfishness, the notion that acting in such a way refutes the anger / pleases whichever fictional anthropomorphic dictator-god is involved.

Does religion do good? That is a philosophical minefield. What is deemed 'good' is subjective.

Do religion's induce an atmosphere of peace, understanding and mutual respect? No. Religion only perpetuates itself.


Having a field day are you Anyold? lol


He asked a question and I answered with what I thought was a good ...deed ...

I repeat ... Catholic Charities is a very good orginization that does much good around the world ...

religion doesnt cause strife .. people do ....

If people were to walk the path Jesus Christ taught ... it would be a path of peace, understanding and mutual respect ...
Its people that invented the path of destruction .. its called greed ....

Care4all
08-08-2006, 06:32 AM
name something good that homosexuality has done for the world...

Name something good that Atheism has done for the world....

blah, blah, blah.....

Religion is part of the civilized and uncivilized world, whether you like it or not, the world today has been shaped by all of it....so, if you hate your life and you hate your country then blame religion, cuz it definately has been and was a part of where you are today....

robdastud
08-08-2006, 06:46 AM
Having a field day are you Anyold? lol


He asked a question and I answered with what I thought was a good ...deed ...

I repeat ... Catholic Charities is a very good orginization that does much good around the world ...

religion doesnt cause strife .. people do ....

If people were to walk the path Jesus Christ taught ... it would be a path of peace, understanding and mutual respect ...
Its people that invented the path of destruction .. its called greed ....

its like your saying that w/out religion there would be no charity... keep fishin klaatu.

anyold how was the bank holiday?? LOL

AnyOldIron
08-08-2006, 06:47 AM
Having a field day are you Anyold? lol

Quiet day at work so I thought I'd say hello.. Bloody home line is still down and I have now had a deep excavation at the end of my street for over a week.... That's what you get with privatised industry! lol

To state that it is religion that 'makes' people act in a charitable manner is the misnomer. I am obviously not claiming that there aren't good religious people, just that religion has nothing to do with them being good.

As for JC, I agree that he was a wise philosopher and the truisms that shine through his butchered teachings are worthwhile; however, JC himself stated that it isn't religion, or fear of repercussions from a mythical deity, that should guide a persons deeds, but empathy. As he said 'do unto others'.

Religion does cause strife, primarily through its absolutism, however it isn't charity etc through fear of god / pleasing god that is good, but empathy itself.

AnyOldIron
08-08-2006, 06:48 AM
anyold how was the bank holiday?? LOL

Not until the end of the month...

robdastud
08-08-2006, 06:51 AM
anyold how was the bank holiday?? LOL

Not until the end of the month...

OH SORRY... IT was scotland who had a bank holiday yesterday...

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-08-2006, 07:01 AM
I've said time and again that the state and the religion are not one and the same. Why do you insist on making it so? Your implication is that anything but support for Israel, the country is anti Jew. You just proved my point.

Actually, you just proved MY point. Pinheads such as yourself, will intentionally separate the Jewish aspect of Israel, and consider your anti-Israeli views acceptable. It's much like segregationists validated their views as "non-racist" to the public. Everyone knows Israel is a Jewish state, the only one on the planet, and it's the number one, primary, main reason, for all the animosity toward Israel. If they were Muslims, they wouldn't be the constant targets of terrorism and criticism from anti-Semites.

See, I get it... I understand, not many anti-Semites will come right out and say... I HATE JEWS! They will find clever ways to hide those sentiments, like trying to argue that Israel is not a Jewish state, and that hating Israel is not anti-Semitic. Your prejudice blinds you to a point, which apparently you don't think people realize Israel represents the Jewish people, and you think you can sell your foolish and hateful viewpoint.

AnyOldIron
08-08-2006, 07:11 AM
Actually, you just proved MY point. Pinheads such as yourself, will intentionally separate the Jewish aspect of Israel, and consider your anti-Israeli views acceptable.

You talk so much tripe Dixie.

Israel is a political entity, it is not a religion any more than Syria is a religion.

Hiding criticism of the actions of the Israeli government behind accusations of anti-semitism is exactly the same as hiding criticism of the actions of the Syrian government behind accusations of anti-semitism.

maineman
08-08-2006, 07:12 AM
Israel is a Jewish state...but to Israelis, being a Jew is much like being a caucasian. Being a Jew in Israel has very little to do with religion. I would venture to say that the vast vast majority of Israelis have not seen the inside of a synagogue in decades. Hardly ANYONE "keeps kosher"... it is purely a matter or ethnicity, not spirituality or faith. So... Israel is not a "religious" state, just a jewish state. I know that is tough for simple minded neocons to understand.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-08-2006, 07:14 AM
Israel is a political entity, it is not a religion any more than Syria is a religion.

No, Israel is a state. A Jewish state, established for the Jewish people, in the Jewish homeland. I've never stated that Israel is a religion, that is stupid.

maineman
08-08-2006, 07:15 AM
Being a Jew is not a religion either. idiot.

klaatu
08-08-2006, 07:33 AM
its like your saying that w/out religion there would be no charity... keep fishin klaatu.

anyold how was the bank holiday?? LOL


Im not fisdhing for nothing .. you asked a question .... I answered ..

You dont like my answer ....

My question.. why did you ask the question ?

For someone who is working on a Masters .. you are one shallow person if you have to aske a question like this .. it simply proves how fucking dimi witted you really are ...

Try opening up a History book young one .. and learn something about the great cultures throughout history ...

Egyption, Roman , Italian Renaissance , Greek ... all were driven by their faith ...

AnyOldIron
08-08-2006, 07:34 AM
like trying to argue that Israel is not a Jewish state,

Syria is a Muslim state. Islam is a semitic religion. Your criticism of Syria makes you anti-semitic....

klaatu
08-08-2006, 07:36 AM
And of course lets not forget the great contributions of the Buddhists and the phenominal Cathedrals of Eastern Europe and Russia ....

AnyOldIron
08-08-2006, 07:42 AM
A Jewish state,

Actually Israel is nominally a secular state, not Jewish...

It is entirely a political entity.

klaatu
08-08-2006, 07:44 AM
In 1901, the first Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Jean-Henry Dunant, founder of the Red Cross, whose whole life was guided by a passionate devotion to the humanitarian cause; he took initiatives and carried out activities of the utmost generosity. Living in poverty in a poorhouse at Heiden (Canton of Appenzell, Switzerland), and too ill to travel to Sweden to accept the award, Henry Dunant chose to bequeath the prize money to charitable causes rather than to keep it for himself.

The International Committee of the Red Cross was subsequently awarded the Nobel Prize on three other occasions: in 1917 and 1944, as a tribute to its humanitarian activities during the two World Wars, and again in 1963, together with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, on the occasion of the Movement's 100th anniversary.

Few people realize that Jean Henri Dunant was also one of the founders of the World Alliance of YMCAs in Paris in 1855. Dunant started very humbly by inviting a few friends to meet regularly at his house to study the Bible, to encourage each other in good works, and to bring about a spiritual awakening among young people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


William Booth embarked upon his ministerial career in 1852. His crusade was to win the lost multitudes of London to Christ. He went into the streets of London to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to the poor, the homeless, the hungry and the destitute.

Booth abandoned the conventional concept of a church and a pulpit and took his message to the people. His fervor led to disagreement with the leaders of the church in London. They preferred traditional measures. As a result, he withdrew from the church and traveled throughout England conducting evangelistic meetings. His wife, Catherine, was a major force in The Salvation Army movement.

In 1865, William Booth was invited to hold a series of evangelistic meetings in the east end of London. He set up a tent in a Quaker graveyard and his services became an instant success. This proved to be the end of his wanderings as an independent traveling evangelist. His renown as a religious leader spread throughout London. His followers were a vigorous group dedicated to fight for the souls of men and women.

Thieves, prostitutes, gamblers and drunkards were among Booth’s first converts to Christianity. His congregations were desperately poor. He preached hope and salvation. His aim was to lead them to Christ and to link them to a church for further spiritual guidance. Even though they were converted, churches did not accept Booth’s followers because of what they had been. Booth gave their lives direction in a spiritual manner and put them to work to save others who were like themselves. They too preached and sang in the streets as a living testimony to the power of God.

In 1867, Booth had only 10 full-time workers. By 1874, the numbers had grown to 1,000 volunteers and 42 evangelists. They served under the name "The Christian Mission." Booth assumed the title of a General Superintendent. His followers called him "General." Known as the "Hallelujah Army,'" the converts spread out of the east end of London into neighboring areas and then to other cities.

Booth was reading a printer’s proof of the 1878 Annual Report when the noticed the statement, '"The Christian Mission under the Superintendent’s of the Rev. William Booth is a volunteer army. He crossed out the words "Volunteer Army'" and penned in "Salvation Army'" From those words came the basis of the foundation deed of The Salvation Army which was adopted in August of that same year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many Oregonians have journeyed through life in service to others. In 1838, Father Francis Blanchet traveled for six months overland from Montreal, Canada, to French Prairie, where St. Paul, Oregon, is now located. At that time, there were only 26 Catholic families in the Willamette Valley. Shortly after he arrived, the Sisters of Notre Dame du Namours joined him and founded an orphanage. Together, they began a legacy of Catholic charity, serving Oregon's poor and vulnerable.

For the Sake of the Children

From the earliest years, the history of Catholic Charities has been one of concern and advocacy for children. Father Edwin O'Hara, a priest at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, teamed with other community leaders to investigate abuses of child labor. They researched these conditions and presented their findings to the State Legislature. The result was the enactment of Oregon child labor laws in 1913. This first legislation became a model for child welfare and labor laws throughout the United States.

Through the efforts of Father O'Hara, Archbishop Alexander Christie founded the Catholic Children's Bureau in 1917, which coordinated all Catholic children's cases and represented families and children in the Portland courts.

In 1932, Father Lucien Lauerman evaluated Catholic social welfare work in the Archdiocese of Portland and presented his report to a group assembled by Archbishop Edward Howard on September 12, 1933. The result was the establishment of the first Catholic Charities office, where Father Lauerman employed four staff members who represented Catholic social service institutions in all court cases and acted as case managers for children.

robdastud
08-08-2006, 07:47 AM
Im not fisdhing for nothing .. you asked a question .... I answered ..

You dont like my answer ....

My question.. why did you ask the question ?

For someone who is working on a Masters .. you are one shallow person if you have to aske a question like this .. it simply proves how fucking dimi witted you really are ...

Try opening up a History book young one .. and learn something about the great cultures throughout history ...

Egyption, Roman , Italian Renaissance , Greek ... all were driven by their faith ...


history degrees don't really pay anything.

robdastud
08-08-2006, 07:47 AM
And of course lets not forget the great contributions of the Buddhists and the phenominal Cathedrals of Eastern Europe and Russia ....



what were their great contributions??

can you site an example if there are so many?? LOL.

klaatu
08-08-2006, 08:01 AM
what were their great contributions??

can you site an example if there are so many?? LOL.


http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/rdbudart.htm


Art, Architecture and Holistic Health-Care .. just to name a few ......

Beefy
08-08-2006, 10:04 AM
See, I get it... I understand, not many anti-Semites will come right out and say... I HATE JEWS! They will find clever ways to hide those sentiments, like trying to argue that Israel is not a Jewish state, and that hating Israel is not anti-Semitic. Your prejudice blinds you to a point, which apparently you don't think people realize Israel represents the Jewish people, and you think you can sell your foolish and hateful viewpoint.

Nice. Again with a ridiculous parallel that a 3rd grader could see through. Stop basing your political beliefs on the Bible Dix. It's painfully obvious that the "promised land" and "chosen people" aspects of the Bible are clouding any rational judgement on the political issues in the middle East. I am no more an anti-jew than you are. You just can't distinguish between a political entity and a religious one, and that's embarrassing.

maineman
08-08-2006, 10:47 AM
I just noticed this from earlier in thsi thread.... does this smell funny to anyone else, or is it just me?

Dixie said, "If I don't want to do business with black people, it doesn't mean I am a racist.'

I would say that that sentence is a prima facie example of racism.

What if Dixie were to say that he didn't want his children dating black people...isn't that the same thing?

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-08-2006, 11:24 AM
I just noticed this from earlier in thsi thread.... does this smell funny to anyone else, or is it just me?

Dixie said, "If I don't want to do business with black people, it doesn't mean I am a racist.'

I would say that that sentence is a prima facie example of racism.

What if Dixie were to say that he didn't want his children dating black people...isn't that the same thing?

Here's what Dixie said:

No, if someone is not pro-Israel, it doesn't mean they are anti-Jew. If I don't want to do business with black people, it doesn't mean I am a racist. You can choose to hide behind your semantics and intellectualism, and continue your bigotry toward the Jewish state of Israel, you've got it all figured out.

Perhaps you have a problem with examples, because I did not state that I don't do business with black people, I made an absurd and sarcastic example to counter Beefy's point, that not being pro-Israel doesn't mean anti-Jew. Sure, you can make that claim, just like segregationists claimed they weren't racist, in fact, I don't know of a single segregationist who ever said he hated black people, just like anti-Semites don't say they hate Jews. When you allow your 'intellectualism' to excuse your bigotry, it enables you to hold onto a seemingly legitimate viewpoint, and some people will even agree with you. It doesn't change what is in your heart, it doesn't change what you really are.

maineman
08-08-2006, 11:38 AM
I understand that not being Pro-Israel does not make someone an anti-semitic. If someone does not want to do business with people because of the color of their skin, that DOES make them a racist....I do not see any sarcasm in your sentence.

maineman
08-08-2006, 11:39 AM
Oh...and did the ignore button accidently get switched off? ;)

gonzojournals
08-08-2006, 12:58 PM
I just noticed this from earlier in thsi thread.... does this smell funny to anyone else, or is it just me?

Dixie said, "If I don't want to do business with black people, it doesn't mean I am a racist.'

I would say that that sentence is a prima facie example of racism.

What if Dixie were to say that he didn't want his children dating black people...isn't that the same thing?

Dixie is too stupid to understand, as his signature shows us. He is making my point for me by displaying my message.

AnyOldIron
08-09-2006, 03:19 AM
Dixie, if you refuse to do business with people simply because of the colour of their skin, then you are racist.

If you judge someone by their actions (ie Israel) then you are not.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-09-2006, 09:28 AM
Dixie, if you refuse to do business with people simply because of the colour of their skin, then you are racist.

If you judge someone by their actions (ie Israel) then you are not.

Yes, but if you lie and say you don't do business with blacks because you believe in supporting your own kind, and not because of their skin color, it's no different than opposing Israel because they are Israeli and not because they are Jews. You are hiding behind bigoted logic. The same logic used by segregationists, Nazi's, radical Islamics, and most all other bigoted people of world history. You can SAY you oppose Israel for their actions, but their actions have been to defend themselves and fight for their existence against people who are bent on their destruction. You can SAY you don't do business with blacks because you want to support white business, that excuse doesn't make you non-racist.

uscitizen
08-09-2006, 09:34 AM
LOL
Been gone a while, but I see Dixies convoluted illogicical rhetoric has not changed a bit.

maineman
08-09-2006, 09:41 AM
I have no problem with Israel attacking Hezbollah. I think they do themselves a disservice in the area of international opinion, when they do not show enough discrimination in their targeting to avoid attacking Christian lebanese neighborhoods, which they have done. That makes it appear as if they are not targetting Hezbollah, but rather Lebanon and the Lebanese in general. Israel dropping bombs on Lebanese Christian civilian apartment buildings is not qualitatively different than Hezbollah launching katyushkas that are aimed at Israeli civilian targets.

Beefy
08-09-2006, 10:28 AM
Dixie has reverted to the old idiotic trump card that not being a rabid supporter of Israel makes one a bigot. Okay then.

Good God, what utter crap.

maineman
08-09-2006, 10:49 AM
just like he postulates that anyone who is not a rabid supporter or Bush and his failed war in Iraq is a traitor and a coward....

which I find especially ironic coming from a guy who successfully avoided military service such as Dixie.

bob
08-09-2006, 11:05 AM
Beer

maineman
08-09-2006, 11:06 AM
Beer

great answer!

uscitizen
08-09-2006, 11:06 AM
Name something good that has come soley from religion... Something real. Moses walking on water doesn't count.

good is a matter of personal perspective rob.
Some would say that keeping the gays in the colsets is a good thing that Religion has done.
You have the same attitude as the religious people on this issue, just the other side of the fence.
They hate you because you are gay and you hate them because they hate you.
A reall smart route for both sides to take ?

bob
08-09-2006, 11:08 AM
great answer!

thanks.... well they had to get most of these people to belive what there saing somehow

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-09-2006, 11:17 AM
Dixie has reverted to the old idiotic trump card that not being a rabid supporter of Israel makes one a bigot. Okay then.

Good God, what utter crap.


I haven't "reverted" to anything, much less something old and idiotic. Israel is taking defensive action against people who want them wiped off the planet. There is no negotiating with the enemy, they are not interested in a "two-state solution" they want a "no jew" solution. I'm really sorry that you think it's "rabid support" to believe Israel has a right to exist.

maineman
08-09-2006, 11:18 AM
do you think that Israel has the right to bomb Christian arab neighborhoods in east and norht Beirut?

gonzojournals
08-09-2006, 03:38 PM
I guess he does.

OrnotBitwise
08-09-2006, 04:06 PM
I guess he does.Well, they do have the poor judgment to live in the same country where some terrorists are operating

uscitizen
08-10-2006, 09:09 AM
Well, they do have the poor judgment to live in the same country where some terrorists are operating

So do I :)

uscitizen
08-10-2006, 09:13 AM
Name something good religion has caused. Well as I said before this is a matter of perspective. Exxon and other oil companies loves religion, it has caused their profits to soar into the stratosphere.
I figure Chenys old company also loves their war profiteering, etc...

Care4all
08-16-2006, 04:55 AM
Name something good that has come soley from religion... Something real. Moses walking on water doesn't count.


1829's: Congregationalists, Quakers, Mennonites, Methodists and Unitarians organized the "underground railway" to help slaves escape northward towards Canada and southward into Spanish held territories.

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 04:58 AM
1829's: Congregationalists, Quakers, Mennonites, Methodists and Unitarians organized the "underground railway" to help slaves escape northward towards Canada and southward into Spanish held territories.

Religion didn't create this, empathy did.

It is not what good religious people have done, but what religion itself.

One point against religion... it promotes philosophical illiteracy....

Care4all
08-16-2006, 05:20 AM
1829's: Congregationalists, Quakers, Mennonites, Methodists and Unitarians organized the "underground railway" to help slaves escape northward towards Canada and southward into Spanish held territories.

Religion didn't create this, empathy did.

It is not what good religious people have done, but what religion itself.

One point against religion... it promotes philosophical illiteracy....

Any old

Religion, is not a person and can not act on its own, and means NOTHING without people....Besides, you are being a hypocrite....you say religion has caused wars...but people cause wars and create the action.....if that's okay with you for that...... then it most certainly should be okay with you in my scenario.....

try again! ;)

good morning,

care

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 05:28 AM
Religion, is not a person and can not act on its own, and means NOTHING without people....

Are you really saying that a religion is the sum of its parts? Religion is an entity that takes on an existence of its own, I am not being anthropomorphic but there is a clear difference between the religious ethos and it's components.

Besides, you are being a hypocrite....you say religion has caused wars...but people cause wars and create the action.....if that's okay with you for that...... then it most certainly should be okay with you in my

I haven't argued that religion causes wars, I have argued that religion is used as an excuse or justification for wars, masking the true cause, greed. It is a problem with religion that it facilitates this. Religion creates absolutism and it is this absolutism that is the cause of the justification.

In your case, religion is attributed as the cause, used as the justification, but this masks the fact that it is simply empathy that leads people to conduct such acts...

Care4all
08-16-2006, 05:53 AM
Religion, is not a person and can not act on its own, and means NOTHING without people....

Are you really saying that a religion is the sum of its parts? Religion is an entity that takes on an existence of its own, I am not being anthropomorphic but there is a clear difference between the religious ethos and it's components.

Besides, you are being a hypocrite....you say religion has caused wars...but people cause wars and create the action.....if that's okay with you for that...... then it most certainly should be okay with you in my

I haven't argued that religion causes wars, I have argued that religion is used as an excuse or justification for wars, masking the true cause, greed. It is a problem with religion that it facilitates this. Religion creates absolutism and it is this absolutism that is the cause of the justification.

In your case, religion is attributed as the cause, used as the justification, but this masks the fact that it is simply empathy that leads people to conduct such acts...

But what you call "simply empathy" is sparked in "some" more than others, evident in this case where the religious people felt a calling to ACT on this empathy....

hey! maybe "Something" inside of them vs. others, sparked them to commit to this action of helping to "right" a "wrong"? Being "religious" for these particular people is what probably gave them the strength to battle this issue.... Ya never know? :)

----------------------------------------------------------------

have you read any Myan Prophesy?

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 06:14 AM
But what you call "simply empathy" is sparked in "some" more than others, evident in this case where the religious people felt a calling to ACT on this empathy....

Are you claiming that empathy is higher amongst the religious?

Religion might be used post-facto as the justification but it empathy that drove the act.

hey! maybe "Something" inside of them vs. others, sparked them to commit to this action of helping to "right" a "wrong"? Being "religious" for these particular people is what probably gave them the strength to battle this issue.... Ya never know?

As I said, post facto justification. If only religious people demonstrated empathy and acted on it, you might have a point....

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 06:15 AM
have you read any Myan Prophesy?

I don't put any stock in prophesy, unless they can validly demonstrate how they came about the prophesy.

Most are self-fulfilling, or based on the probability of actions occurring...

uscitizen
08-16-2006, 07:25 AM
Yes anyold, Like my prophecy that GWB will not be reelected again.

Care4all
08-16-2006, 07:50 AM
But what you call "simply empathy" is sparked in "some" more than others, evident in this case where the religious people felt a calling to ACT on this empathy....

Are you claiming that empathy is higher amongst the religious?

Religion might be used post-facto as the justification but it empathy that drove the act.

hey! maybe "Something" inside of them vs. others, sparked them to commit to this action of helping to "right" a "wrong"? Being "religious" for these particular people is what probably gave them the strength to battle this issue.... Ya never know?

As I said, post facto justification. If only religious people demonstrated empathy and acted on it, you might have a point....
In more cases than not, they do Anyold, you just don't want to give credit to this faith that they have....you are too busy looking at the noisy false prophets out there and too closed to thinking there is something beyond oneself and earth.... maybe because you have seen so many hypocrites over the years, maybe because you never really understood it, and nor did your Pastor.... :(, maybe because it is just not your time to believe yet... :D,

but whatever it is....it all is so very real to me, even though it is not touchable.... crazy, I really know that.... but it still is the situation.... there is nothing that will change me..... it is seared in me... and I use it daily... not by flipping through the good book, but because I was raised and taught right from wrong, from parents that got their guidance and knowledge on right from wrong from their God or their Church, or their parents
who learned their reasoning on Justness from the Bible which determined right from wrong FOR THEM....

And pretty much as you said, people do not have to believe to have compassion or empathy for your fellow human beings, or to just KNOW what is right and just, and what is wrong and unjust....

but know that this is NOT DISCARDED by the Bible, the Bible says that He seared that knowledge of right from wrong in ALL mankind, whether religious or not, we all have a conscience, unless ill perhaps.... now that does not mean that we don't choose the wrong path, many times over, just that we KNOW when we are doing wrong...

Damocles
08-16-2006, 08:50 AM
AOI, a religion is the sum total of its believers, just as you are the sum total of your thoughts. Their actions is how religions can be and are judged. Any other way is disingenuous tripe attempting to explain away their actions. The Atheists didn't band together to get that done, it was Christians in various shapes and forms.

uscitizen
08-16-2006, 08:55 AM
AOI, a religion is the sum total of its believers, just as you are the sum total of your thoughts. Their actions is how religions can be and are judged. Any other way is disingenuous tripe attempting to explain away their actions. The Atheists didn't band together to get that done, it was Christians in various shapes and forms.

a religion is the sum total of its believers
//

Absolutely.

Care4all
08-16-2006, 08:55 AM
have you read any Myan Prophesy?

I don't put any stock in prophesy, unless they can validly demonstrate how they came about the prophesy.
Most are self-fulfilling, or based on the probability of actions occurring...

i believe the Myans believe they did do just that.... it's wild, and qite unique and all tied in to TIME....

IHateGovernment
08-16-2006, 09:20 PM
Religion has created fear of eternal retribution for a transgression. It would be naive to say that religion alone has not at least once prevented a murder or theft.

Now whether or not that is negated by the negative effects of religion can be debated but that isn't what was asked.

OrnotBitwise
08-17-2006, 10:23 AM
Religion has created fear of eternal retribution for a transgression. It would be naive to say that religion alone has not at least once prevented a murder or theft.

Now whether or not that is negated by the negative effects of religion can be debated but that isn't what was asked.
Religion, in the institutional sense, is a social adaptation. It has a function and the very fact that it has survived as long as it has indicates that it has fulfilled that function. It may not be the best possible solution, but it works.

That's evolution. ;)

Hermes Thoth
05-03-2007, 08:11 PM
The morality teachings of all religions are basically good for society, what is not good is the powermongering structure of the priests of the official religious hierarchy.

Hermes Thoth
05-03-2007, 08:14 PM
Religion, in the institutional sense, is a social adaptation. It has a function and the very fact that it has survived as long as it has indicates that it has fulfilled that function. It may not be the best possible solution, but it works.

That's evolution. ;)


Ingroup morality is an evolved trait in many social species of animals. Religion is an expression of that. I know that truth messes up your simplistic little dichotomy, though. Deal with it.

AnyOldIron
05-04-2007, 03:32 AM
The morality teachings of all religions are basically good for society.

That's a broad statement. Many of the moral decisions of religion could be considered bad for society. Good and bad are subjective descriptions, dependent on the person doing the judging.

What one person might find as good from religious morality (for example most religion's anti-gay stance) another might consider bad.

AnyOldIron
05-04-2007, 03:33 AM
Ingroup morality is an evolved trait in many social species of animals. Religion is an expression of that. I know that truth messes up your simplistic little dichotomy, though. Deal with it.

Religious morality is an attempt to find straight lines and absolutes when there are none innately. It has a use in chaotic societies, but as an actual moral code, the absoluteness makes it difficult to defend.

uscitizen
05-04-2007, 06:12 AM
Ingroup morality is an evolved trait in many social species of animals. Religion is an expression of that. I know that truth messes up your simplistic little dichotomy, though. Deal with it.

Religious morality is an attempt to find straight lines and absolutes when there are none innately. It has a use in chaotic societies, but as an actual moral code, the absoluteness makes it difficult to defend.

Agreed, It has a stabilizing effect, but is a problem within itself. It is not a cure but is just substituting it's own set of problems.

OrnotBitwise
05-04-2007, 09:45 AM
Ingroup morality is an evolved trait in many social species of animals. Religion is an expression of that. I know that truth messes up your simplistic little dichotomy, though. Deal with it.And this is different from my postulate exactly how? :rolleyes:

Religion is one of many mechanisms humans have evolved to promote social cohesion and submission to authority. It's not the only one -- redundancy is one of the hallmarks of evolutionary adaptation -- but it is one of the more effective ones.

Hermes Thoth
05-07-2007, 10:56 AM
And this is different from my postulate exactly how? :rolleyes:

Religion is one of many mechanisms humans have evolved to promote social cohesion and submission to authority. It's not the only one -- redundancy is one of the hallmarks of evolutionary adaptation -- but it is one of the more effective ones.


I think you already said that.

OrnotBitwise
05-07-2007, 11:03 AM
I think you already said that.Pretty much, yes. I rephrased it since you obviously didn't understand it the first time I posted it.

Hermes Thoth
05-07-2007, 11:06 AM
Pretty much, yes. I rephrased it since you obviously didn't understand it the first time I posted it.

Did I say my comments were in opposition to yours?

OrnotBitwise
05-08-2007, 09:25 AM
Did I say my comments were in opposition to yours?
Gosh, do you suppose I might have gotten the idea from this?

" I know that truth messes up your simplistic little dichotomy, though. Deal with it."

:BKick:

Hermes Thoth
05-08-2007, 03:35 PM
Gosh, do you suppose I might have gotten the idea from this?

" I know that truth messes up your simplistic little dichotomy, though. Deal with it."

:BKick:

Quit typing lies! :)

So you're not anti-religion?

AnyOldIron
05-09-2007, 02:07 AM
So you're not anti-religion?

You say that like its a bad thing....

AnyOldIron
05-09-2007, 02:20 AM
I have something!

Religion kept alive the antiquated museum-piece Aristotelian view of existence long after Newton blew it to pieces. They keep alive the idea of heavenly aether, of the Earthly substance and the transcendental immaterial, of the notion that what is of the Earth must return to the Earth (the body) and what is of heavenly aether returns to the heavens (soul or spirit), long after they were demonstrated to be without a fraction of truth by Newton.

Maybe religion could be the museum of antiquated ideas. They should campaign for a return of phrenology and bird-sign.....

OrnotBitwise
05-09-2007, 09:28 AM
Quit typing lies! :)

So you're not anti-religion?I am not anti-religion per se. I am, however, anti-faith. Blind faith is a very bad thing, in my view. It's demeaning and dangerous. But that's just on the individual level and so not terribly important.

I was addressing what caused us to develop religion and what keeps it going. Vague feelings of spirituality aren't nearly enough to do that, in my view.

Religion is, like almost all human institutions, an exercise in politics and social control.

Damocles
05-09-2007, 09:31 AM
I am not anti-religion per se. I am, however, anti-faith. Blind faith is a very bad thing, in my view. It's demeaning and dangerous. But that's just on the individual level and so not terribly important.

I was addressing what caused us to develop religion and what keeps it going. Vague feelings of spirituality aren't nearly enough to do that, in my view.

Religion is, like almost all human institutions, an exercise in politics and social control.
What if a person had personal experience that caused them to have faith in what you perceive as unproveable? Would that be considered "blind" faith?

Hermes Thoth
05-09-2007, 09:31 AM
I am not anti-religion per se. I am, however, anti-faith. Blind faith is a very bad thing, in my view. It's demeaning and dangerous.

Should toddlers develop blind faith about playing in traffic? Or should they assess the effects of a garbage truck on their cranium firsthand?

OrnotBitwise
05-09-2007, 09:40 AM
What if a person had personal experience that caused them to have faith in what you perceive as unproveable? Would that be considered "blind" faith?I am such a person myself, if you're using "faith" as a synonym for "belief." I wasn't.

To me, the word "faith" implies a firm and unshakable belief. It is more than just belief, it is dogmatic belief.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/faith

We can't avoid believing in things for which there is no conclusive proof. As AOI so patiently points out, absolute knowledge is impossible, yet we all accept certain things as "true" simply in order to get on with our lives.

We are not, however, compelled to elevate our beliefs to the status of Divine Revelation. That's where so many religious fall from grace, as it were.

BTW, I've told you all often that I'm not an atheist. I'm really not. I had my own religious epiphany a few years ago, much to my surprise. I'm also not a deist, though I feel more kindly toward them than most other monotheists. :pke:

OrnotBitwise
05-09-2007, 09:42 AM
Should toddlers develop blind faith about playing in traffic? Or should they assess the effects of a garbage truck on their cranium firsthand?Blind faith is a childish trait, so it's entirely appropriate for children to express it.

Hermes Thoth
05-09-2007, 09:46 AM
Blind faith is a childish trait, so it's entirely appropriate for children to express it.

People who attack religion generally do so because they want to do things to people which are considered "wrong". you're not bothered by blind faith, you want to do evil things, like enacting genocidal/racist plans. You've already revealed your support of racial discrimination. What else will bubble out of your dementia?

uscitizen
05-09-2007, 09:49 AM
do people who attack AA also want to do something "wrong" AHZ ?

OrnotBitwise
05-09-2007, 10:00 AM
People who attack religion generally do so because they want to do things to people which are considered "wrong". you're not bothered by blind faith, you want to do evil things, like enacting genocidal/racist plans. You've already revealed your support of racial discrimination. What else will bubble out of your dementia?As the false prophet Ronald Reagan used to say, there you go again. You're imputing motives when you've not the least idea why I believe what I do. In this particular instance, I've no real agenda, though I doubt you'll accept that.

In fact, I object to certain sects of Christianity -- by no means all, but some -- because they are completely immoral and corrupt. Not only do they want to do evil things but they actively practice them. They abuse their own children horribly, oppress women, stiffle disssent and are violently anti-intellectual. They brutalize people for recreational sex yet have no problem with slavery, racism or plutocratic oppression. There's nothing decent or moral about them.

You see, morality is not necessarily founded in religious belief. Indeed, morality probably predates religious belief. Religion is an insitution evolved to enforce moral conformity and to suppress dissent. It's very effective.

OrnotBitwise
05-09-2007, 10:02 AM
do people who attack AA also want to do something "wrong" AHZ ?
Of course they do. They want to be free to discriminate against whomever they wish, whenever they wish.

uscitizen
05-09-2007, 10:10 AM
Of course they do. They want to be free to discriminate against whomever they wish, whenever they wish.

My thought as well. AA was put into effect for a reason...I am not sure the reason is yet passed.

Hermes Thoth
05-09-2007, 10:33 AM
As the false prophet Ronald Reagan used to say, there you go again. You're imputing motives when you've not the least idea why I believe what I do. In this particular instance, I've no real agenda, though I doubt you'll accept that.

In fact, I object to certain sects of Christianity -- by no means all, but some -- because they are completely immoral and corrupt. Not only do they want to do evil things but they actively practice them. They abuse their own children horribly, oppress women, stiffle disssent and are violently anti-intellectual. They brutalize people for recreational sex yet have no problem with slavery, racism or plutocratic oppression. There's nothing decent or moral about them.

You see, morality is not necessarily founded in religious belief. Indeed, morality probably predates religious belief. Religion is an insitution evolved to enforce moral conformity and to suppress dissent. It's very effective.


Right. Morality is not exclusively founded in religion. But generally, religion knockers seek to undo the moral teaching by debunking the supernatural aspect.

And people who fight against AA are fighting against wrong, not seeking to perpetuate it.

you're just as hypocritical as those christians gone foul, because you believe some racial discrimination is ok.

OrnotBitwise
05-09-2007, 11:22 AM
Right. Morality is not exclusively founded in religion. But generally, religion knockers seek to undo the moral teaching by debunking the supernatural aspect.
That's an . . . interesting opinion, I suppose, but I don't see any evidence to suggest that it's true. In fact, I very rarely see anyone attacking religion at all. Around here there's only AOI and he does it for reasons entirely different from what you're asserting.

And people who fight against AA are fighting against wrong, not seeking to perpetuate it.
i don't care why they think they're doing it. I only care about the effect of their evil, selfish, childish actions. As my grandmother used to say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions . . . and the anti-AA crowd are pounding that pavement at a fast pace.

There is no good reason to oppose affirmative action. It's a profoundly and irredeemably bigoted stance.

you're just as hypocritical as those christians gone foul, because you believe some racial discrimination is ok.I believe that without some acknowledgment that there is a problem and some attempt to offset it, racist beliefs will be perpetuated almost indefinitely. Your way of doing things would make you free to not only hate whomever you want but also free to keep them in their place as you so clearly want.

Hermes Thoth
05-09-2007, 11:26 AM
That's an . . . interesting opinion, I suppose, but I don't see any evidence to suggest that it's true. In fact, I very rarely see anyone attacking religion at all. Around here there's only AOI and he does it for reasons entirely different from what you're asserting.

i don't care why they think they're doing it. I only care about the effect of their evil, selfish, childish actions. As my grandmother used to say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions . . . and the anti-AA crowd are pounding that pavement at a fast pace.

There is no good reason to oppose affirmative action. It's a profoundly and irredeemably bigoted stance.
I believe that without some acknowledgment that there is a problem and some attempt to offset it, racist beliefs will be perpetuated almost indefinitely. Your way of doing things would make you free to not only hate whomever you want but also free to keep them in their place as you so clearly want.

AA guarantees racial discrimination. I'm against it. And it's not so evil white men can keep discriminating. It's not a bigoted stance, it's actual respect for the civil rights of all people. Look into it, you self-deceiving, dishonest, windbag.

AnyOldIron
05-10-2007, 02:29 AM
What if a person had personal experience that caused them to have faith in what you perceive as unproveable? Would that be considered "blind" faith?

All things are 'unproveable'. Absolute knowledge outside a priori analytics is impossible.

If someone had a person experience that they attributed to the transcendental, then they are probably doing just that... attributing. Don't forget that the transcendental, like horoscopes etc are hangovers from the Aristotelian perspective of the universe that was so comprehensively overturned by the Newtonian revolution.

Faith is the belief, despite what a posteriori evidence might present. It is the suspension of thought, acceptence of dead dogma on the basis of truth by authority.

IMO, the teaching of the use of 'faith' to children constitutes a mild form of child abuse.

AnyOldIron
05-10-2007, 02:47 AM
Should toddlers develop blind faith about playing in traffic? Or should they assess the effects of a garbage truck on their cranium firsthand?

That's not blind faith. Blind faith is a toddler playing in the road, despite the a posteriori evidence that playing in the road is bad for toddler.

Faith is the belief in something despite all evidence.

AnyOldIron
05-10-2007, 03:17 AM
People who attack religion generally do so because they want to do things to people which are considered "wrong".

you're not bothered by blind faith, you want to do evil things, like enacting genocidal/racist plans. You've already revealed your support of racial discrimination. What else will bubble out of your dementia?

What is it with you and the BS ad hominem attacks?

Can you name one incident where someone, motivated by atheism, blew up, or flew a plane into a buidling? Or killed someone?

Now, I'd imagine you'd come up with Stalin or Mao, but keep in mind I said motivated by atheism, not just 'is an atheist'.

Pinochet was a catholic, but his crimes weren't motivated by his religion, but politics...

AnyOldIron
05-10-2007, 03:49 AM
Right. Morality is not exclusively founded in religion. But generally, religion knockers seek to undo the moral teaching by debunking the supernatural aspect.

Hey, WM, you used to have such potential as a debator, its shocking to see you use such weak ad hominems....

I must be one of those religious knockers you mentioned. I don't seek to undo any moral teaching, just put it on a sounder ethical basis than 'truth by authority'.

I debunk the supernatural aspect because it is bunkem, a throwback to the pre-Newtonian Aristotelian perspective of the universe.

And people who fight against AA are fighting against wrong, not seeking to perpetuate it.

This demonstrates that 'right and wrong' aren't absolutes. They are a judgement call on a situation, and according to the position of the person doing the judging...

AnyOldIron
05-10-2007, 03:51 AM
AA guarantees racial discrimination. I'm against it. And it's not so evil white men can keep discriminating. It's not a bigoted stance, it's actual respect for the civil rights of all people. Look into it, you self-deceiving, dishonest, windbag.

AA isn't racial discrimination if it addresses an existing racial discrimination.

Hermes Thoth
05-10-2007, 05:07 AM
AA guarantees racial discrimination. I'm against it. And it's not so evil white men can keep discriminating. It's not a bigoted stance, it's actual respect for the civil rights of all people. Look into it, you self-deceiving, dishonest, windbag.

AA isn't racial discrimination if it addresses an existing racial discrimination.


No. It's still racial discrimination. You may feel it's good racial discrimination , but it's still racial disrimination. The Civil Rights act does not leave room for "good" racial discrimination.

Many times the racial discrimination it is intended to address is merely speculative anyway.

AnyOldIron
05-10-2007, 05:20 AM
No. It's still racial discrimination. You may feel it's good racial discrimination , but it's still racial disrimination. The Civil Rights act does not leave room for "good" racial discrimination.

Taking people's things is bad, correct?

If a criminal took your things, would it be then wrong if, when caught, the court took the things back from the criminal and gave them back to you?

Hermes Thoth
05-10-2007, 05:33 AM
No. It's still racial discrimination. You may feel it's good racial discrimination , but it's still racial disrimination. The Civil Rights act does not leave room for "good" racial discrimination.

Taking people's things is bad, correct?

If a criminal took your things, would it be then wrong if, when caught, the court took the things back from the criminal and gave them back to you?


That's returning stolen property. There's a direct connection between that property and the victim.

The racial discrimination of AA intentionally creates a victim, who has nothing to do with other acts of discrimination which may or may not exist.

You want to guarantee a white victim, to guarantee there can be no other victim. Fuck you and your racism.

AnyOldIron
05-10-2007, 05:37 AM
So if discrimination has occurred, it isn't right to address that?

Imagine if had been whites that had suffered discrimination, would you not want the situation rectified?

That isn't racism, its called justice.

Hermes Thoth
05-10-2007, 06:29 AM
So if discrimination has occurred, it isn't right to address that?

Imagine if had been whites that had suffered discrimination, would you not want the situation rectified?

That isn't racism, its called justice.

It's not right to address it by creating a new victim which had nothing to do with the initial offense. racial revenge is not a good basis for public policy.

Damocles
05-10-2007, 06:41 AM
What if a person had personal experience that caused them to have faith in what you perceive as unproveable? Would that be considered "blind" faith?

All things are 'unproveable'. Absolute knowledge outside a priori analytics is impossible.

If someone had a person experience that they attributed to the transcendental, then they are probably doing just that... attributing. Don't forget that the transcendental, like horoscopes etc are hangovers from the Aristotelian perspective of the universe that was so comprehensively overturned by the Newtonian revolution.

Faith is the belief, despite what a posteriori evidence might present. It is the suspension of thought, acceptence of dead dogma on the basis of truth by authority.

IMO, the teaching of the use of 'faith' to children constitutes a mild form of child abuse.
Hence the word "perceive", oh glorious word-splicer.

Hermes Thoth
05-10-2007, 06:55 AM
people like anyoldiron seek to undo the layer of culture which makes humanity different than animals. They want to reduce humanity to animalistic reaction patterns, highly amenable to manipulation by the new global elite.



http://www.scripturesforamerica.org/html2/jm0011.htm
The roots of Communist thinking can be found in their own textbook, PSYCHOPOLITICS, which was published in 1933 and taught in the Lenin School of Psychopolitical Warfare, University of Moscow. It states: "The first thing to be degraded in any nation under conquest must be the state of man himself. Nations which have a high ethical tone are difficult to conquer. Their loyalties are hard to shake . . . It is not efficient to attack a nation in such a frame of mind. It is the basic purpose of Psychopolitics to reduce this state of mind to the point where it can be ordered and then enslaved. Thus the first target must be man himself. He must be degraded from a spiritual being to an animalistic reaction pattern. He must think of himself as an animal, capable only of animalistic reactions. He must no longer think of himself, or his fellows, as capable of spiritual endurance or nobility . . . as a result, religion must become unfashionable, by demonstrating . . . that the soul is non-existent, and that man is an animal."

AnyOldIron
05-10-2007, 07:07 AM
people like anyoldiron seek to undo the layer of culture which makes humanity different than animals. They want to reduce humanity to animalistic reaction patterns, highly amenable to manipulation by the new global elite.

Watermark, you are certifiable.

Firstly, I am not a communist, nor have I ever been one, even in my hard left days.

I do not have any particular agenda, I am not part of a global elite, I am not trying to reduce humanity to anything.

If you want to differentiate between humans and other animals, then fine, let's have the debate, but you can't sulk if reason or evidence goes against your position. You can't decry reason as being manipulated...

Now, your article is claiming that one thing that differentiates us from the other animals is the notion that we have a 'soul'.

Let's start by examining this....

1. What do you mean by 'soul' &
2. Where do you think the notion of the 'soul' comes from?

AnyOldIron
05-10-2007, 07:09 AM
Hence the word "perceive", oh glorious word-splicer.

Just defining my perception....lol

Hermes Thoth
05-10-2007, 07:12 AM
people like anyoldiron seek to undo the layer of culture which makes humanity different than animals. They want to reduce humanity to animalistic reaction patterns, highly amenable to manipulation by the new global elite.

Watermark, you are certifiable.

Firstly, I am not a communist, nor have I ever been one, even in my hard left days.

I do not have any particular agenda, I am not part of a global elite, I am not trying to reduce humanity to anything.

If you want to differentiate between humans and other animals, then fine, let's have the debate, but you can't sulk if reason or evidence goes against your position. You can't decry reason as being manipulated...

Now, your article is claiming that one thing that differentiates us from the other animals is the notion that we have a 'soul'.

Let's start by examining this....

1. What do you mean by 'soul' &
2. Where do you think the notion of the 'soul' comes from?

Religion gives man a focus, a drive, an identity, a feeling of purpose. It may very well all be "fake", but it's survivalistic. you attack this layer of purpose because you seek to animalize man. You probably don't even understand your own indoctrination.

AnyOldIron
05-10-2007, 07:29 AM
Religion gives man a focus, a drive, an identity, a feeling of purpose. It may very well all be "fake", but it's survivalistic.

This is something that I state, that religion is a method by which man derives meaning, in an existence where none is innate. And I don't call it fake, I call it shallow, weak and unsubstantial.

you attack this layer of purpose because you seek to animalize man.

And you are making the claim that humans aren't animals because.....

You probably don't even understand your own indoctrination.

In what way have I been indoctrinated? I don't attend meetings, nor churches, nor temples. I don't have others informing me of my perspective or how to interpret it. So how am I indoctrinated?

As for whether I understand or not, lets put that to the test....

The 'soul'...

What is it? Where did the notion originate?

Hermes Thoth
05-10-2007, 07:36 AM
Religion gives man a focus, a drive, an identity, a feeling of purpose. It may very well all be "fake", but it's survivalistic.

This is something that I state, that religion is a method by which man derives meaning, in an existence where none is innate. And I don't call it fake, I call it shallow, weak and unsubstantial.

you attack this layer of purpose because you seek to animalize man.

And you are making the claim that humans aren't animals because.....

You probably don't even understand your own indoctrination.

In what way have I been indoctrinated? I don't attend meetings, nor churches, nor temples. I don't have others informing me of my perspective or how to interpret it. So how am I indoctrinated?

As for whether I understand or not, lets put that to the test....

The 'soul'...

What is it? Where did the notion originate?

We're animals with an extra layer of evolved sociality and morality which makes us more effective at working together, thus benefitting every individual. There are people who want to UNDO this, and reduce whole nations to a lower behavioral state, and thus weaken the nation. You're helping them.

AnyOldIron
05-10-2007, 07:40 AM
We're animals with an extra layer of evolved sociality and morality which makes us more effective at working together, thus benefitting every individual.

So you agree that we are animals?


There are people who want to UNDO this, and reduce whole nations to a lower behavioral state, and thus weaken the nation. You're helping them.

Who are???? What 'lower behavioural state' are you refering to? In what way am I helping them?


Reasoning involves giving your conclusion AND the reasons why you believe it....


And you still haven't addressed the 'soul' thing.....

Hermes Thoth
05-10-2007, 07:52 AM
We're animals with an extra layer of evolved sociality and morality which makes us more effective at working together, thus benefitting every individual.

So you agree that we are animals?


There are people who want to UNDO this, and reduce whole nations to a lower behavioral state, and thus weaken the nation. You're helping them.

Who are???? What 'lower behavioural state' are you refering to? In what way am I helping them?


Reasoning involves giving your conclusion AND the reasons why you believe it....


And you still haven't addressed the 'soul' thing.....

Yes, we're animals, but with the relevant evolved sociality i spoke of.

The lower behavioral state is immorality, lying, cheating, stealing, backstabbing, all the things which keep us from the higher goals we can achieve when we put these sorts of behaviors outside the realm of acceptability.

AnyOldIron
05-10-2007, 08:05 AM
Yes, we're animals, but with the relevant evolved sociality i spoke of.

The lower behavioral state is immorality, lying, cheating, stealing, backstabbing, all the things which keep us from the higher goals we can achieve when we put these sorts of behaviors outside the realm of acceptability.

Do you believe that what is morality is fixed? That wrong is absolute? That lying, for example, is always wrong?

Consider this, if certain lies hadn't been told during WWII, the Germans would have gained a significant advantage and could have won.

Would those lies have kept us from the higher goal of defeating naziism?


And on the other issues...Who are these people you are accusing, and how am I, by constant questioning, helping them?

AnyOldIron
05-10-2007, 08:07 AM
You have agreed that we are animals.

So what differentiates us from other animals?

And how are lying, cheating etc aspects of other animals' natures?

When was the last time you were cheated by a cow, or lied to by a dog?

Damocles
05-10-2007, 08:21 AM
You have agreed that we are animals.

So what differentiates us from other animals?

And how are lying, cheating etc aspects of other animals' natures?

When was the last time you were cheated by a cow, or lied to by a dog?
He gave, already, an explanation why he thought humans to be above other animals.

AnyOldIron
05-10-2007, 08:25 AM
He gave, already, an explanation why he thought humans to be above other animals.

That we are social animals? Ok then, what differentiates between us and other high-order social animals?

I'm trying to draw him into discussing the soul, which he brought up in an article he posted a few posts ago.....

AnyOldIron
05-10-2007, 08:26 AM
And differing is different to being above....

Damocles
05-10-2007, 08:45 AM
And differing is different to being above....
Above or not there is no real tangible reason to deny your own species for another. It becomes extremist ideation to view all life as equal and therefore humans as equals to roaches. How many of us would be in prison if it was termed murder to kill an insect or a plant?

AnyOldIron
05-10-2007, 08:56 AM
Above or not there is no real tangible reason to deny your own species for another. It becomes extremist ideation to view all life as equal and therefore humans as equals to roaches. How many of us would be in prison if it was termed murder to kill an insect or a plant?

I don't subscribe to it, but there is a position that argues that it is ethically wrong to discriminate based purely on species alone....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

They use negative utilitarianism and value-based rights theories to justify their position.

But that isn't my point. I'm trying to draw WM on the notion of a 'soul' that differentiates.....

Damocles
05-10-2007, 08:57 AM
Above or not there is no real tangible reason to deny your own species for another. It becomes extremist ideation to view all life as equal and therefore humans as equals to roaches. How many of us would be in prison if it was termed murder to kill an insect or a plant?

I don't subscribe to it, but there is a position that argues that it is ethically wrong to discriminate based purely on species alone....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

They use negative utilitarianism and value-based rights theories to justify their position.

But that isn't my point. I'm trying to draw WM on the notion of a 'soul' that differentiates.....
AssHat is not Watermark.

AnyOldIron
05-10-2007, 09:13 AM
AssHat is not Watermark.

Didn't he start a thread to claim he was? lol

In that case I apologise to whoever wants an apology.... lol

OrnotBitwise
05-10-2007, 09:21 AM
How about Bach's Mass in B Minor? That's pretty good.

Damocles
05-10-2007, 09:38 AM
AssHat is not Watermark.

Didn't he start a thread to claim he was? lol

In that case I apologise to whoever wants an apology.... lol
He did, but it was to obfuscate the issue more rather than to clear up something. Seriously, they are two separate people.

AnyOldIron
05-10-2007, 09:39 AM
He did, but it was to obfuscate the issue more rather than to clear up something. Seriously, they are two separate people.


lol, He's such a prankster....

OrnotBitwise
05-10-2007, 09:42 AM
He did, but it was to obfuscate the issue more rather than to clear up something. Seriously, they are two separate people.I think you best make that three separate people, at least.

uscitizen
05-10-2007, 09:48 AM
I think you best make that three separate people, at least.

:D Yep and one is a Ghost :rolleyes:

Hermes Thoth
05-10-2007, 01:53 PM
He did, but it was to obfuscate the issue more rather than to clear up something. Seriously, they are two separate people.

To be clear, PeeStain started a thread claiming to be me. He could only dream of being so fan-friggin-tastic.

AnyOldIron
05-11-2007, 02:13 AM
To be clear, PeeStain started a thread claiming to be me. He could only dream of being so fan-friggin-tastic.

I'd rate WM higher than yourself on debating ability..

Hermes Thoth
05-11-2007, 05:03 AM
To be clear, PeeStain started a thread claiming to be me. He could only dream of being so fan-friggin-tastic.

I'd rate WM higher than yourself on debating ability..

Yes, well, you place a premium on being full of shit, as does he. It's not suprising.

AnyOldIron
05-11-2007, 05:30 AM
I'm yet to see you formulate an argument.

Seen you present your conclusion, refuse to support it with reasoning and then bat away any comment on that conclusion by insulting the person bringing it up.

Tell me, are you some kind of preacher?

Hermes Thoth
05-11-2007, 08:09 AM
I'm yet to see you formulate an argument.

Seen you present your conclusion, refuse to support it with reasoning and then bat away any comment on that conclusion by insulting the person bringing it up.

Tell me, are you some kind of preacher?

pointing out what words mean isn't much of an argument, granted, yet it's effective against most on this board. Actual argument is nearly impossible with immature babies who deny the meanings of words when they're losing.

You and your made up distinctions between human and human being. LOL. There's not much to do besides pointing out that you're just inventing new terms and/or false dichotomies out of thin air.

AnyOldIron
05-11-2007, 08:32 AM
pointing out what words mean isn't much of an argument, granted, yet it's effective against most on this board. Actual argument is nearly impossible with immature babies who deny the meanings of words when they're losing.

And again, terms can have different meanings in different contexts...

You and your made up distinctions between human and human being. LOL. There not much to do besides pointing out that you're just inventing new terms and/or false dichotomies out of thin air.

No, I'm not.

I even pointed out the difference between human and human being. Argue the point...

Hermes Thoth
05-11-2007, 08:37 AM
pointing out what words mean isn't much of an argument, granted, yet it's effective against most on this board. Actual argument is nearly impossible with immature babies who deny the meanings of words when they're losing.

And again, terms can have different meanings in different contexts...

You and your made up distinctions between human and human being. LOL. There not much to do besides pointing out that you're just inventing new terms and/or false dichotomies out of thin air.

No, I'm not.

I even pointed out the difference between human and human being. Argue the point...


But it's disingenuous and immature to switch meanings mid discussion, to want to use the word properly in one instance, and then deny that very meaning when it's used to mean the exact same thing regarding a truth you wish to deny. It's transparent, childish and stupid.

And I've already stated, that distinction you made exists only in your mind. It's a distinction without a difference. It's also transparent, childish and stupid.

Damocles
05-11-2007, 08:47 AM
pointing out what words mean isn't much of an argument, granted, yet it's effective against most on this board. Actual argument is nearly impossible with immature babies who deny the meanings of words when they're losing.

And again, terms can have different meanings in different contexts...

You and your made up distinctions between human and human being. LOL. There not much to do besides pointing out that you're just inventing new terms and/or false dichotomies out of thin air.

No, I'm not.

I even pointed out the difference between human and human being. Argue the point...
He did. He argued in the literary sense of one being an adjective describing the origin of something, such as a human toenail, and the other being a noun describing an organism, as in 'a human'.

The distinction isn't "fine". One is a noun and describes an organism, the other simply defines the distinction of origin.

I then went even further and stated how they are used in the fallacy that a cancer is just as "human" as the entire organism of a fetus. One is 'a human life' the other just has an origin that is human but could never be described as 'a human'.

I also asked questions regarding this, and gave one of the methods one could use to identify if something were 'a human' or just of human origin.

AnyOldIron
05-11-2007, 08:50 AM
But it's disingenuous and immature to switch meanings mid discussion, to want to use the word properly in one instance, and then deny that very meaning when it's used to mean the exact same thing regarding a truth you wish to deny. It's transparent, childish and stupid.


Not if it is relevant to the context it is being used.

And I've already stated, that distinction you made exists only in your mind. It's a distinction without a difference. It's also transparent, childish and stupid.

You haven't got an argument then?

Anyone who disagrees with you is transparent, childish and stupid?

Try again, see if you can formulate a coherant argument.

My toenail is human, and it is alive. It isn't a human being...

Hermes Thoth
05-11-2007, 08:55 AM
But it's disingenuous and immature to switch meanings mid discussion, to want to use the word properly in one instance, and then deny that very meaning when it's used to mean the exact same thing regarding a truth you wish to deny. It's transparent, childish and stupid.


Not if it is relevant to the context it is being used.

And I've already stated, that distinction you made exists only in your mind. It's a distinction without a difference. It's also transparent, childish and stupid.

You haven't got an argument then?

Anyone who disagrees with you is transparent, childish and stupid?

Try again, see if you can formulate a coherant argument.

My toenail is human, and it is alive. It isn't a human being...

No. anyone who denies what words mean, or invents new and fraudulent concepts on the fly in childish and stupid. Follow along.

AnyOldIron
05-11-2007, 09:01 AM
I then went even further and stated how they are used in the fallacy that a cancer is just as "human" as the entire organism of a fetus. One is 'a human life' the other just has an origin that is human but could never be described as 'a human'.

Then all he is doing is using the term human to mean a human being, and claiming that because something is human (of human) and living, it must be a human being.

This is circumventing the entire argument by simply stating that a living human IS a human being, when the term human being is used to define something more than simply something 'of human' and living.

You define a fetus as being an 'entire organism', yet it could be argued that the fetus isn't entire or complete. It's attachment to it's host could be described in a similar way to a toenail to its host.

AnyOldIron
05-11-2007, 09:06 AM
No. anyone who denies what words mean, or invents new and fraudulent concepts on the fly in childish and stupid. Follow along.

Well that makes most of the philosophers throughout history childish and stupid. For example, Kant invented many new concepts and terms. Was Kant childish and stupid?

And again, you act as if definitions are fixed, not by mutual agreement, and that definitions of a word can change according to context?

By the way, I have invented no new concepts here....

Damocles
05-11-2007, 09:06 AM
I then went even further and stated how they are used in the fallacy that a cancer is just as "human" as the entire organism of a fetus. One is 'a human life' the other just has an origin that is human but could never be described as 'a human'.

Then all he is doing is using the term human to mean a human being, and claiming that because something is human (of human) and living, it must be a human being.

This is circumventing the entire argument by simply stating that a living human IS a human being, when the term human being is used to define something more than simply something 'of human' and living.

You define a fetus as being an 'entire organism', yet it could be argued that the fetus isn't entire or complete. It's attachment to it's host could be described in a similar way to a toenail to its host.
No, it couldn't. The toenail does not have its own DNA distinction, no heart, no brain, it is not an organism, and is in fact dead tissue.

While it is human in origin it is not an organism at all, not even living.

Much like a fertilized egg could not survive without the chicken who laid it before we were able to create incubators for them, the fact that the fetus is in need of a more complex incubator doesn't change that it is a separate organism from the "host". Internal incubation doesn't change that it is one step in the development of an entirely separate organism.

It isn't an extension of the human who is incubating the organism, it is just reliant on them for sustenance, just as it will be after birth.

Hermes Thoth
05-11-2007, 09:07 AM
I then went even further and stated how they are used in the fallacy that a cancer is just as "human" as the entire organism of a fetus. One is 'a human life' the other just has an origin that is human but could never be described as 'a human'.

Then all he is doing is using the term human to mean a human being, and claiming that because something is human (of human) and living, it must be a human being.

This is circumventing the entire argument by simply stating that a living human IS a human being, when the term human being is used to define something more than simply something 'of human' and living.

You define a fetus as being an 'entire organism', yet it could be argued that the fetus isn't entire or complete. It's attachment to it's host could be described in a similar way to a toenail to its host.

A human (noun) is a human being. You're using the adjectival form to describe a body part, and saying that's the same as the nounal form. It's not. The nounal form is synonymous with human being. You're a retard.

AnyOldIron
05-11-2007, 09:21 AM
So your definition of what makes a human being is its own distinct DNA and organs?

Much like a fertilized egg could not survive without the chicken who laid it before we were able to create incubators for them, the fact that the fetus is in need of a more complex incubator doesn't change that it is a separate organism from the "host". Internal incubation doesn't change that it is one step in the development of that organism.

Is a fertilized egg, a chicken?

And how can something be described as a seperate organism when it is physically attached to, and cannot survive without, its host? It isn't seperate, it is attached.

Hermes Thoth
05-11-2007, 09:22 AM
So your definition of what makes a human being is its own distinct DNA and organs?

Much like a fertilized egg could not survive without the chicken who laid it before we were able to create incubators for them, the fact that the fetus is in need of a more complex incubator doesn't change that it is a separate organism from the "host". Internal incubation doesn't change that it is one step in the development of that organism.

Is a fertilized egg, a chicken?

And how can something be described as a seperate organism when it is physically attached to, and cannot survive without, its host? It isn't seperate, it is attached.


Have you ever heard of a parasite? they're attached, yet considered separate organisms. You suck at science.

Damocles
05-11-2007, 09:28 AM
So your definition of what makes a human being is its own distinct DNA and organs?

Much like a fertilized egg could not survive without the chicken who laid it before we were able to create incubators for them, the fact that the fetus is in need of a more complex incubator doesn't change that it is a separate organism from the "host". Internal incubation doesn't change that it is one step in the development of that organism.

Is a fertilized egg, a chicken?

And how can something be described as a seperate organism when it is physically attached to, and cannot survive without, its host? It isn't seperate, it is attached.
It is one of the stages of the life of a Chicken. It is no other form of organism.

It is separate in placement as well as defined by the DNA. One could remove that fetus from the mother and place it in another "host" and it could survive. And once we have the know-how, we will be able to remove it and incubate it separately without a "host".

It doesn't grow "from" the mother as a toenail does, or cancer would, it grows "within" the mother separately attached solely by a feeding tube.

It would be like defining somebody, who otherwise was still functioning, as part of the machine that kept them alive. Dialysis would suddenly define that person as different than "human" because they had the need of that machine to survive. Or somebody in need of a feeding tube, let's say for a broken jaw, would be that feeding machine because they needed that machine to live.

AnyOldIron
05-11-2007, 09:37 AM
It is one of the stages of the life of a Chicken. It is no other form of organism.

And a fetus is one of the stages of the life of a human being. But just as an egg is not a chicken, a fetus isn't a human being. It is a human symbiant....

Damocles
05-11-2007, 09:41 AM
It is one of the stages of the life of a Chicken. It is no other form of organism.

And a fetus is one of the stages of the life of a human being. But just as an egg is not a chicken, a fetus isn't a human being. It is a human symbiant....
I believe you are speaking of a zygote, not a fetus. The fetus has developed organs, brain, etc. The zygote is also one stage of a human's life.

Saying that stages define the organism is foolish. This would be like saying when one is a tweener, because it is a stage of life, they are not human. Humans would never become 'human' using this criteria, as each stage of life is named.

The egg is not the chicken, the organism inside it is. Just as the mother is not the fetus, or in later times, the fetus incubating inside a machine is not the machine. In each case, they are incubated inside a machine, one just happens to have meat wrappings and be in a different stage of human development.

AnyOldIron
05-11-2007, 09:50 AM
This is basically an argument about what defines a human being.

You define it as an entity with its own human DNA, yet I would describe this as simply human. The capabilities that define a human being, IMO, are a little more complex, and as for the notion of rights, this is even more complex...

Finished for today, getting late, will pick this up monday Damo...

Damocles
05-11-2007, 10:07 AM
This is basically an argument about what defines a human being.

You define it as an entity with its own human DNA, yet I would describe this as simply human. The capabilities that define a human being, IMO, are a little more complex, and as for the notion of rights, this is even more complex...

Finished for today, getting late, will pick this up monday Damo...
That's cool.

OrnotBitwise
05-11-2007, 10:07 AM
This is basically an argument about what defines a human being.

You define it as an entity with its own human DNA, yet I would describe this as simply human. The capabilities that define a human being, IMO, are a little more complex, and as for the notion of rights, this is even more complex...

Finished for today, getting late, will pick this up monday Damo...Have a great weekend. I assume you're already counting down the days to the post-Poodle era. :)

I absolutely refuse to get sucked into another abortion debate . . . BUT I have to add that AOI's once again gotten it exactly right. This is yet another disingenuous use of the ambiguities of natural language. "Human being" is a phrase with multiple meanings. A better choice for this debate would be "person."

Damocles
05-11-2007, 10:22 AM
Have a great weekend. I assume you're already counting down the days to the post-Poodle era. :)

I absolutely refuse to get sucked into another abortion debate . . . BUT I have to add that AOI's once again gotten it exactly right. This is yet another disingenuous use of the ambiguities of natural language. "Human being" is a phrase with multiple meanings. A better choice for this debate would be "person."
I agree with this. I was going to go into a long-winded description of what I perceive as a difference between 'a human life' and 'a human being'. I believe that there is a distinction between those. 'Person' would be another way I would define 'a human being' while 'a human life' can be at a stage where it has yet to be a 'person' or 'a human being'. But I felt I would wait for AOI's return rather than write it all now.

Hermes Thoth
05-11-2007, 12:00 PM
I disagree, person has no significantly different meaning than the word human.

Hermes Thoth
05-11-2007, 12:01 PM
Is it the case that humans can be murdered with impunity and people can't?

Damocles
05-11-2007, 12:20 PM
Is it the case that humans can be murdered with impunity and people can't?
It depends on your context. If you are brain dead must we be forced to keep your body alive on the pretext that it is human?

Hermes Thoth
05-11-2007, 12:29 PM
It depends on your context. If you are brain dead must we be forced to keep your body alive on the pretext that it is human?

But in the case of a fetus developing normally, can it be killed because someone determines it's brain waves make it a human and not a person? though it's nearly 100% likely it's brainwaves WILL be sufficient at a later date to elevate it to PERSON status, can you kill it because you're calling it a human and not a person? These artificially constructed terms are being invented to justify murder.

Damocles
05-11-2007, 12:47 PM
But in the case of a fetus developing normally, can it be killed because someone determines it's brain waves make it a human and not a person? though it's nearly 100% likely it's brainwaves WILL be sufficient at a later date to elevate it to PERSON status, can you kill it because you're calling it a human and not a person? These artificially constructed terms are being invented to justify murder.
Now we are speaking to potential as well. If one becomes brain dead there is no chance of return. In the case of the fetus the death of innocent potential is, IMO, a travesty or a tragedy. In every one of our cases we were at that point, given a chance to thrive so too would that human life exceed all current limitations.

OrnotBitwise
05-11-2007, 12:56 PM
I disagree, person has no significantly different meaning than the word human.
That's because you're a bigot and chauvinist. To say nothing of being closed-minded.

:gives:

Hermes Thoth
05-11-2007, 12:57 PM
That's because you're a bigot and chauvinist. To say nothing of being closed-minded.

:gives:


Go fuck yourself, you anti-human monster who can't argue his way out of a sack.

If open minded means, "forgetting what words mean when I don't want to admit an obviously correct conclusion, even though I use that definition in other situations" I want to stay close minded.

OrnotBitwise
05-11-2007, 01:17 PM
Go fuck yourself, you anti-human monster who can't argue his way out of a sack.

If open minded means, "forgetting what words mean when I don't want to admit an obviously correct conclusion, even though I use that definition in other situations" I want to stay close minded.
An "oviously correct conclusion" forsooth! Are you familiar with the fallacy of initial predication, by chance?

:lolup:

Could a non-human animal -- or hypothetical alien, or artificial life form -- ever be considered a person? According to you, no. I dispute that idea most vehemently.

Hermes Thoth
05-11-2007, 01:23 PM
An "oviously correct conclusion" forsooth! Are you familiar with the fallacy of initial predication, by chance?

:lolup:

Could a non-human animal -- or hypothetical alien, or artificial life form -- ever be considered a person? According to you, no. I dispute that idea most vehemently.


Why don't you explain how that's relevant in the case where some idiot refuses to call racial discrimination racial discrimination.

You can have respect for an alien, or an animal, but that doesn't make them homo sapiens, aka, humans, or people.

OrnotBitwise
05-11-2007, 01:26 PM
You can have respect for an alien, or an animal, but that doesn't make them homo sapiens, aka, humans, or people.See? Chauvinism.

Hermes Thoth
05-11-2007, 01:34 PM
See? Chauvinism.

It's not chauvinism. Again, it's understanding what words mean.

OrnotBitwise
05-11-2007, 02:25 PM
It's not chauvinism. Again, it's understanding what words mean.Oh, but it is, Asshopper. The meaning of words is mutable. Concrete is not. This is why being a blockhead is a bad idea.

If something really bizaare happened and I was somehow made Emperor of the Entire World -- believe me, that's probably even more frightening to me than it would be to you -- I'd extend personhood to at least chimpanzees and gorillas. It's been demonstrated time and againg that they both have a sense of self. They can make the simple declarative statement I am, which is all that really separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. You'd have to give serious consideration to including elephants and dolphins as well.

Hermes Thoth
05-11-2007, 02:31 PM
Oh, but it is, Asshopper. The meaning of words is mutable. Concrete is not. This is why being a blockhead is a bad idea.

If something really bizaare happened and I was somehow made Emperor of the Entire World -- believe me, that's probably even more frightening to me than it would be to you -- I'd extend personhood to at least chimpanzees and gorillas. It's been demonstrated time and againg that they both have a sense of self. They can make the simple declarative statement I am, which is all that really separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. You'd have to give serious consideration to including elephants and dolphins as well.


They change over time, sure. But at any given moment of usage, they are INTENDED to mean a given thing. And communication occurs most effectively if people strive to understand the intended usage, instead of asserting other meanings.

And you can have respect for chimpanzees or give them equal rights, without blurring and changing the meanings of words.

AnyOldIron
05-14-2007, 06:42 AM
Damo, I would accept 'person' as term for a human being in the context to which I refer, as opposed to human.

A human being is a rational (or capable of rational) entity that is capable of entering into the contracts that come with rights and duties.

That doesn't mean that humans who aren't considered 'persons'can be used as we like, we have a duty of compassion to them.

Hermes Thoth
05-14-2007, 06:50 AM
Damo, I would accept 'person' as term for a human being in the context to which I refer, as opposed to human.

A human being is a rational (or capable of rational) entity that is capable of entering into the contracts that come with rights and duties.

That doesn't mean that humans who aren't considered 'persons'can be used as we like, we have a duty of compassion to them.

What about someone who's asleep, and is not rational or responsive at that particular moment? Is he temporarily not a "human being" according to your newly invented definition?

Damocles
05-14-2007, 08:02 AM
Damo, I would accept 'person' as term for a human being in the context to which I refer, as opposed to human.

A human being is a rational (or capable of rational) entity that is capable of entering into the contracts that come with rights and duties.

That doesn't mean that humans who aren't considered 'persons'can be used as we like, we have a duty of compassion to them.
So, in this context an otherwise healthy infant would, as yet, still not be a human being?

I think this definition is unnecessarily limiting. One could see that "Corky" is a person, with personality intact regardless of his limited capacity in brain power.

Hermes Thoth
05-14-2007, 08:05 AM
Anyold logic:

"Birds fly. hatchlings cannot fly. Therefore, hatchlings are not birds."

AnyOldIron
05-14-2007, 08:46 AM
What about someone who's asleep, and is not rational or responsive at that particular moment? Is he temporarily not a "human being" according to your newly invented definition?

When someone is asleep, they still have the capacity to reason....???

AnyOldIron
05-14-2007, 08:58 AM
So, in this context an otherwise healthy infant would, as yet, still not be a human being?

In this context, they would be human, but not a human being, with the rights and duties that entails.

I think this definition is unnecessarily limiting. One could see that "Corky" is a person, with personality intact regardless of his limited capacity in brain power.

Does Corky have the rational capability to fulfill duties as well as exercise rights?

Hermes Thoth
05-14-2007, 08:59 AM
What about someone who's asleep, and is not rational or responsive at that particular moment? Is he temporarily not a "human being" according to your newly invented definition?

When someone is asleep, they still have the capacity to reason....???

I guess that explains most of your posts.

Damocles
05-14-2007, 09:15 AM
So, in this context an otherwise healthy infant would, as yet, still not be a human being?

In this context, they would be human, but not a human being, with the rights and duties that entails.

I think this definition is unnecessarily limiting. One could see that "Corky" is a person, with personality intact regardless of his limited capacity in brain power.

Does Corky have the rational capability to fulfill duties as well as exercise rights?
As I said, I would consider this to be too limiting.

It is the potential of an organism that rights are based on. One has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... Rights are not a gaurantee, it is simiply a recognition that the potential for all of these exist in any human, including those who have yet to reach their full potential.

AnyOldIron
05-14-2007, 09:26 AM
As I said, I would consider this to be too limiting.

It is the potential of an organism that rights are based on. One has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... Rights are not a gaurantee, it is simiply a recognition that the potential for all of these exist in any human, including those who have yet to reach their full potential.

Thank your gods for Damo, someone who can debate...

Ok, Where do these rights originate from? If they are innate in individuals, why are they not exercised in nature? Does a lion consider that a zebra has an innate right to life before pouncing and eating them.

Or do only humans possess this innately and if so, why?

Damocles
05-14-2007, 09:29 AM
As I said, I would consider this to be too limiting.

It is the potential of an organism that rights are based on. One has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... Rights are not a gaurantee, it is simiply a recognition that the potential for all of these exist in any human, including those who have yet to reach their full potential.

Thank your gods for Damo, someone who can debate...

Ok, Where do these rights originate from? If they are innate in individuals, why are they not exercised in nature? Does a lion consider that a zebra has an innate right to life before pouncing and eating them.

Or do only humans possess this innately and if so, why?
Who said they were "innate"?

I said they were the recognition of potential. Does the lion have the ability to recognize the potential of the gazelle?

Rights have never been a gaurantee. People's rights are constitently transgressed by even the entity that we use to protect them.

AnyOldIron
05-14-2007, 09:45 AM
Who said they were "innate"?

Then Mea Culpa. Shall we say innate potential?

I said they were the recognition of potential. Does the lion have the ability to recognize the potential of the gazelle?

Few humans have the ability to recognise the full potential in other humans?? I'm a little confused by what you mean as potential. Could you expand on this? If I have the potential to maim and kill, do I have this right?

Rights have never been a gaurantee. People's rights are constitently transgressed by even the entity that we use to protect them.

In a contractual sense, the only safety net is the retribution of society, but you are right that they are insecure. Rights don't exist in nature, in nature all that exist are will and capability to fulfill that will. Rights are a very human construct....

Damocles
05-14-2007, 09:51 AM
Who said they were "innate"?

Then Mea Culpa. Shall we say innate potential?

I said they were the recognition of potential. Does the lion have the ability to recognize the potential of the gazelle?

Few humans have the ability to recognise the full potential in other humans?? I'm a little confused by what you mean as potential. Could you expand on this? If I have the potential to maim and kill, do I have this right?

Rights have never been a gaurantee. People's rights are constitently transgressed by even the entity that we use to protect them.

In a contractual sense, the only safety net is the retribution of society, but you are right that they are insecure. Rights don't exist in nature, in nature all that exist are will and capability to fulfill that will. Rights are a very human construct....
You have every right to maim and kill, however the society too has potential and realizing that as a whole we have created those contracts, it is with this that we have created a measure, what we call ethics. Together as a whole society lends value to action.

You may exercise your right to maim and kill, however society reserves the right to judge your actions and thus place you in prison, or even value your potential as less than positive and often end that potential entirely in many cases.

AnyOldIron
05-15-2007, 02:54 AM
You have every right to maim and kill, however the society too has potential and realizing that as a whole we have created those contracts, it is with this that we have created a measure, what we call ethics. Together as a whole society lends value to action.

You may exercise your right to maim and kill, however society reserves the right to judge your actions and thus place you in prison, or even value your potential as less than positive and often end that potential entirely in many cases.

So, it is a contract between the individual and society, with corresponding rights and duties? I have rights, but also duties that match them?

But where does that leave those amongst society who cannot understand the contract, who cannot exercise the duties and thus recognise the rights? The mentally ill, those with learning disabilities, the senile, the young? Are they, as I said above, simply existing under the compassion of those with the capacity to reason?

There is a large degree of retribution in the ethics you mentioned above, the killer being killed by society. How do two wrong acts make a right?

Damocles
05-15-2007, 06:31 AM
So, it is a contract between the individual and society, with corresponding rights and duties? I have rights, but also duties that match them?

But where does that leave those amongst society who cannot understand the contract, who cannot exercise the duties and thus recognise the rights? The mentally ill, those with learning disabilities, the senile, the young? Are they, as I said above, simply existing under the compassion of those with the capacity to reason?

There is a large degree of retribution in the ethics you mentioned above, the killer being killed by society. How do two wrong acts make a right?


In those same 'rights' of society we recognize their rights as well, and give them the best possible care. As we become more understanding of such illness it increases, not decreases, in care we provide. Responding that they are not "people" or "a person" and thus relagating them to animal is not a response of a modern society.

It isn't retribution, that is vengeance. Vengeance happens on a personal level, a decision that you are more detrimental to the rights of others than you are a benefit doesn't mean that it is from retribution such punishment is meted. The Justice System is not made to provide retribution.

Hermes Thoth
05-15-2007, 06:34 AM
You have every right to maim and kill, however the society too has potential and realizing that as a whole we have created those contracts, it is with this that we have created a measure, what we call ethics. Together as a whole society lends value to action.

You may exercise your right to maim and kill, however society reserves the right to judge your actions and thus place you in prison, or even value your potential as less than positive and often end that potential entirely in many cases.

So, it is a contract between the individual and society, with corresponding rights and duties? I have rights, but also duties that match them?

But where does that leave those amongst society who cannot understand the contract, who cannot exercise the duties and thus recognise the rights? The mentally ill, those with learning disabilities, the senile, the young? Are they, as I said above, simply existing under the compassion of those with the capacity to reason?

There is a large degree of retribution in the ethics you mentioned above, the killer being killed by society. How do two wrong acts make a right?

Dude, your "education" has made you stupid.

AnyOldIron
05-15-2007, 06:35 AM
Asshat, quiet, adults are talking...

Hermes Thoth
05-15-2007, 06:40 AM
Asshat, quiet, adults are talking...

Yes, damo and I are adults. you're a petulant child, who makes up definitions of words. You look like a fool.

AnyOldIron
05-15-2007, 07:01 AM
In those same 'rights' of society we recognize their rights as well, and give them the best possible care. As we become more understanding of such illness it increases, not decreases, in care we provide. Responding that they are not "people" or "a person" and thus relagating them to animal is not a response of a modern society.

But surely this comes under a Duty of Compassion, rather than the contractual rights brought about by duties and corresponding rights...

Lets take this to the very beginning... From where do you consider these rights of society come from? Are they value based, originating from an idea that all life has value, and thus rights originate from this value? Are they contractually based?

I am not being obtuse, just want to be very clear about where you consider rights to come from.

It isn't retribution, that is vengeance. Vengeance happens on a personal level, a decision that you are more detrimental to the rights of others than you are a benefit doesn't mean that it is from retribution such punishment is meted. The Justice System is not made to provide retribution.

Yet we can establish that killing is morally wrong through a priori analysis of your statement. If it is wrong for an individual to kill, wouldn't it be hypocritical for society to kill as well?

If it is on the basis that killing an individual would reduce the suffering of society because of the killing that they would conduct, are you exercising negative utilitarianism?

AnyOldIron
05-15-2007, 07:02 AM
Ass, I'm bored of squabbling with you. If you come up with a reasoned argument, then we'll talk. Until then, go play in the sand pit...

Damocles
05-15-2007, 07:23 AM
But surely this comes under a Duty of Compassion, rather than the contractual rights brought about by duties and corresponding rights...

Lets take this to the very beginning... From where do you consider these rights of society come from? Are they value based, originating from an idea that all life has value, and thus rights originate from this value? Are they contractually based?

I am not being obtuse, just want to be very clear about where you consider rights to come from.

"Rights" are the individual's ability to effect the outside world, what you call "natural rights". Hence my suggestion that you have a right to assert yourself onto others, but that society also has a right to judge that action as negative and thus act to stop you. The contract is the recognition of certain rights that "will not be infringed except in specific circumstances". This didn't take any rights, or change them in any way. You still have the right to do such things, it will just have a negative effect on your other freedoms if your action is judged as negative.

You have every right to simply not pay taxes, but society judges that to be negative action and if done consistently will likely place you in jail.




Yet we can establish that killing is morally wrong through a priori analysis of your statement. If it is wrong for an individual to kill, wouldn't it be hypocritical for society to kill as well?

If it is on the basis that killing an individual would reduce the suffering of society because of the killing that they would conduct, are you exercising negative utilitarianism?

Killing, per se, is not morally wrong. If an attacker is coming at you with a knife to murder you, it is not morally wrong to kill that attacker in your own defense. There are any number of situations we can determine to be a net positive action for society, or even for the individual, that involve killing another. Justified war would be one, self-defense another. In this case society has judged an individual, by their action, to be detrimental to society and that there is a net positive in their end.

It would not be 'hypocritical' for society to determine when such circumstances exist because it is the very reason societies exist.

Hermes Thoth
05-15-2007, 07:42 AM
Ass, I'm bored of squabbling with you. If you come up with a reasoned argument, then we'll talk. Until then, go play in the sand pit...


So you're slinking away with your tail between your legs. I see. How cowardly. you can't condescend to people who are your intellectual superiors. You can try, but it just doesn't work out.

AnyOldIron
05-15-2007, 07:57 AM
"Rights" are the individual's ability to effect the outside world, what you call "natural rights". Hence my suggestion that you have a right to assert yourself onto others, but that society also has a right to judge that action as negative and thus act to stop you. The contract is the recognition of certain rights that "will not be infringed except in specific circumstances". This didn't take any rights, or change them in any way. You still have the right to do such things, it will just have a negative effect on your other freedoms if your action is judged as negative.

You have every right to simply not pay taxes, but society judges that to be negative action and if done consistently will likely place you in jail.

So natural rights are, summed up, the capability and will to carry out an act? Much akin to what Rousseau described as 'natural freedom'.

Wouldn't this result in society having greater rights than the individual, on the basis that it has greater capability and will to act?

Isn't this the old adage, might makes right?

Please clarify if I am interpreting incorrectly....

Damocles
05-15-2007, 08:02 AM
"Rights" are the individual's ability to effect the outside world, what you call "natural rights". Hence my suggestion that you have a right to assert yourself onto others, but that society also has a right to judge that action as negative and thus act to stop you. The contract is the recognition of certain rights that "will not be infringed except in specific circumstances". This didn't take any rights, or change them in any way. You still have the right to do such things, it will just have a negative effect on your other freedoms if your action is judged as negative.

You have every right to simply not pay taxes, but society judges that to be negative action and if done consistently will likely place you in jail.

So natural rights are, summed up, the capability and will to carry out an act? Much akin to what Rousseau described as 'natural freedom'.

Wouldn't this result in society having greater rights than the individual, on the basis that it has greater capability and will to act?

Isn't this the old adage, might makes right?

Please clarify if I am interpreting incorrectly....
It has the ability to do so, but consensus trends differently. Those stuck in such are considered "backward" to most modern societies who have advanced past that area. Thus evolves society and creates new experiments such as Federalism, and protection of the individual over the majority enforced by those rights exercised by society. To present it as such simplistic, "This means that might makes right." ignores many of the points I made earlier about that evolution of ideas and how society itself changes as it advances those ideas.

Hermes Thoth
05-15-2007, 08:06 AM
Anyold is lying, anti-human monster who twists words to degrade humanity. He's a sick fuck.

AnyOldIron
05-15-2007, 08:17 AM
Killing, per se, is not morally wrong. If an attacker is coming at you with a knife to murder you, it is not morally wrong to kill that attacker in your own defense. There are any number of situations we can determine to be a net positive action for society, or even for the individual, that involve killing another. Justified war would be one, self-defense another. In this case society has judged an individual, by their action, to be detrimental to society and that there is a net positive in their end.

So justice is based on negative utilitarianism, that which brings about the least suffering? Doesn't that lead to a possibility of tyrannical consequences, when what is deemed to bring about the least suffering could dangerously overrule the individual?

And it is intentional, the consequences (ie dead individual) matter less than the intentions? This can also lead to tyrannical consequences. Hate to use a proverb, but the road to hell is paved with intentions...

Those advocates of positive liberty (Stalin, Mao etc), for example, could have hold the best of intentions when implimenting measures for the improvement of society, yet the consequences are negative.

It would not be 'hypocritical' for society to determine when such circumstances exist because it is the very reason societies exist.

Hypocritical is an emotive word, I didn't mean it as such. Should have used contradiction...

Damocles
05-15-2007, 08:27 AM
So justice is based on negative utilitarianism, that which brings about the least suffering? Doesn't that lead to a possibility of tyrannical consequences, when what is deemed to bring about the least suffering could dangerously overrule the individual?


Yes, however, as society advances it creates even more protection of the individual. This has been displayed throughout history. At the point where tyranny has overwhelmed the individual to the point that individuals will no longer stand it, revolutions prevails.



And it is intentional, the consequences (ie dead individual) matter less than the intentions? This can also lead to tyrannical consequences. Hate to use a proverb, but the road to hell is paved with intentions...


It is, and once again this advances evolution within society. Societies change as they see the consequences of their actions. Reasoned response. This separates the action of man from those of animals. One can only understand the consequences with such reason.



Those advocates of positive liberty (Stalin, Mao etc), for example, could have hold the best of intentions when implimenting measures for the improvement of society, yet the consequences are negative.

And hence society evolved here too. They were unable to continue in perpetuity that which goes against the nature of man. Rarely does man say, well this would be good for nobody but let's do it anyway.



Hypocritical is an emotive word, I didn't mean it as such. Should have used contradiction...

And still this ignores the evolution of ideas. When one finds 'contradiction' in action vs. idea they work towards change. New ideas are formed, then implemented. If such action is detrimental then they too create new ideas. Society is only the extension of the individual. Within each individual there are many warring ideas, action is selected by the reason of the individual.

AnyOldIron
05-15-2007, 08:35 AM
It has the ability to do so, but consensus trends differently. Those stuck in such are considered "backward" to most modern societies who have advanced past that area. Thus evolves society and creates new experiments such as Federalism, and protection of the individual over the majority enforced by those rights exercised by society. To present it as such simplistic, "This means that might makes right." ignores many of the points I made earlier about that evolution if ideas and how society itself changes as it advances those ideas.

'Might means right' might seem simplistic for modern societies, but boiling it down, is the basis of rights (in the interpretation that you presented).

An individual's main right is to do as it's will dictates, dependent on capability. Society has a corresponding right, adjudicated by that society's government, to do as its will dictates according to capability on behalf of the society itself. If the society has a will and capacity to go to war, for example, it has that right.

In a way, I agree with this, however, I wouldn't describe it as rights. It is freedom. Freedom is the ability to do as one's will dictates providing one has the capability.

Would you not consider this to simply be freedom?

AnyOldIron
05-15-2007, 08:36 AM
Anyold is lying, anti-human monster who twists words to degrade humanity. He's a sick fuck.

Hey, adults having an adult conversation. Go troll elsewhere moron....

AnyOldIron
05-15-2007, 08:46 AM
Damo, gonna take a while on this one, got a meeting I can't get out of and I wanna take time to consider your answer...

Will reply by the end of the day or tomorrow morning....

Damocles
05-15-2007, 08:50 AM
It has the ability to do so, but consensus trends differently. Those stuck in such are considered "backward" to most modern societies who have advanced past that area. Thus evolves society and creates new experiments such as Federalism, and protection of the individual over the majority enforced by those rights exercised by society. To present it as such simplistic, "This means that might makes right." ignores many of the points I made earlier about that evolution if ideas and how society itself changes as it advances those ideas.

'Might means right' might seem simplistic for modern societies, but boiling it down, is the basis of rights (in the interpretation that you presented).

An individual's main right is to do as it's will dictates, dependent on capability. Society has a corresponding right, adjudicated by that society's government, to do as its will dictates according to capability on behalf of the society itself. If the society has a will and capacity to go to war, for example, it has that right.

In a way, I agree with this, however, I wouldn't describe it as rights. It is freedom. Freedom is the ability to do as one's will dictates providing one has the capability.

Would you not consider this to simply be freedom?

I would consider it freedom, however, rights and responsibilities as well. I believe these to be almost entirely interchangeable.

OrnotBitwise
05-15-2007, 09:12 AM
I would consider it freedom, however, rights and responsibilities as well. I believe these to be almost entirely interchangeable.Oh, now there's some grist for the wheel. This mill is doing quite well without my intereference, however: I'll leave it to the two of you to thrash it out. I'm keen to see his response. :)

AnyOldIron
05-15-2007, 09:23 AM
Yeah, gonna be stuck in a meeting til 5.30 so will print off the thread, formulate a response tonight and then post tomorrow morning..

Good debate....

Hermes Thoth
05-15-2007, 09:27 AM
Society has a will? Does a society have rights independant of the rights of individuals within that society?

From my thinking society exists solely to protect the rights of individuals, and is illegitimate to the extent that it facilitates the violation of those rights.

Does "might make right" in terms of a society protecting it's imagined rights?

Anyold is an elitist who feels he has the right to substitute his own hatefulness for societal will, and call it "concensus".

Does concensus make right? and is concensus SO right that individual rights may be subjugated to it? Democracy can be dangerous, when individualist morality is degraded, as it has been by hateful elitists, pushing their satanic poison.

uscitizen
05-15-2007, 09:28 AM
"Does concensus make right?"

Obviously not always, else we would not be in Iraq.

Hermes Thoth
05-15-2007, 09:31 AM
Anyold is lying, anti-human monster who twists words to degrade humanity. He's a sick fuck.

Hey, adults having an adult conversation. Go troll elsewhere moron....

No, sick fuck portraying his hate as rationality.

uscitizen
05-15-2007, 09:37 AM
Projection ?

Hermes Thoth
05-15-2007, 09:40 AM
Projection ?

No. I'm not the one dehumanizing babies. He is. His little word games are a joke.

uscitizen
05-15-2007, 09:47 AM
I was referring to the hatred aspect....

AnyOldIron
05-15-2007, 09:47 AM
Glad I checked back to the board.

Asshat, you haven't got a clue what my personal opinion on abortion is, because I haven't expressed it.

I argue for the sport of arguing. I sometimes play devil's advocate. I'm not a sad little fat man who comes onto the board to hurl abuse at people who's arguments I hardly understand, simply because they disagree with mine.

You are making an arse of yourself, like the bloke at the party who'se had too much to drink... So please, sober up, stop making an arse of yourself and contribute something useful.

uscitizen
05-15-2007, 09:53 AM
"stop making an arse of yourself and contribute something useful."

And I thought you did not believe in miracles :D

OrnotBitwise
05-15-2007, 09:54 AM
Society has a will? Does a society have rights independant of the rights of individuals within that society?
Of course society has a will. Whether or not you think it should is completely immaterial. And, since no human being can exist for long outside of society, whether society "ought" to have rights is a similarly unimportant question. It does, simply because there's no other practical way to look at it. You may as well wonder about whether the sun has the right to shine.

From my thinking society exists solely to protect the rights of individuals, and is illegitimate to the extent that it facilitates the violation of those rights.That's one way to look at it but it's both very simplistic and a bit childish. Society exists because it must: it's part of the human evolutionary adaptation. To say that it exists "solely" for any one purpose is probably insupportable.

At the most basic level, the purpose of society is to keep as many human beings alive as possible. That's all evolution really cares about: replication of the alleles.

Does "might make right" in terms of a society protecting it's imagined rights?
Whether you think it should or not, no other authority exists for human beings. Societal consensus is all we have by which to set boundaries for ethical and moral behavior.

Anyold is an elitist who feels he has the right to substitute his own hatefulness for societal will, and call it "concensus".
The irony of your making this assertion is really delicious. :D

Does concensus make right? and is concensus SO right that individual rights may be subjugated to it? At last, a question with some merit! I guess miracles can indeed happen.

It's easier to address this question from the other end, I think. If not consensus then what? If the consensus of the members of society is not the arbiter of what is right and just, from whence does right derive?

Naturally individual rights are circumscribed by what society determines to be just. That's what morality is, after all, and law as well. The question is from what source does society learn what the boundaries of acceptable behavior are?

Democracy can be dangerous, when individualist morality is degraded, as it has been by hateful elitists, pushing their satanic poison.Shorn of the ridiculous "satanic" blather, I agree with this. I expect we'd take it in very different directions, however.

Hermes Thoth
05-15-2007, 10:12 AM
Of course society has a will. Whether or not you think it should is completely immaterial. And, since no human being can exist for long outside of society, whether society "ought" to have rights is a similarly unimportant question. It does, simply because there's no other practical way to look at it. You may as well wonder about whether the sun has the right to shine.
That's one way to look at it but it's both very simplistic and a bit childish. Society exists because it must: it's part of the human evolutionary adaptation. To say that it exists "solely" for any one purpose is probably insupportable.

If it has a will, is it subject to the same right/responsiblities considerations regarding it's behavior that individuals are?



At the most basic level, the purpose of society is to keep as many human beings alive as possible. That's all evolution really cares about: replication of the alleles.

Do you include not fully developed human beings in this number?

I actually don't agree that maximum human biomass is the highest good.




Whether you think it should or not, no other authority exists for human beings. Societal consensus is all we have by which to set boundaries for ethical and moral behavior.

No. totally wrong. Concensus can and has been twisted in various times throughout history to be at odds with my notion of good and even your notions of maximum biomass "good". And during those times people who understand the rational and real basis and function of morality, should stand up to the teeming horde.



The irony of your making this assertion is really delicious. :D
At last, a question with some merit! I guess miracles can indeed happen.

You turds just realized that attempting to redefine human to lower the standard of what we consider "human rights" is failing. and now you're just admitting what your really want, the subjugation of western style civil rights to a newly emerging genocidal, anti-human "concensus".



It's easier to address this question from the other end, I think. If not consensus then what? If the consensus of the members of society is not the arbiter of what is right and just, from whence does right derive?

Naturally individual rights are circumscribed by what society determines to be just. That's what morality is, after all, and law as well. The question is from what source does society learn what the boundaries of acceptable behavior are?
Shorn of the ridiculous "satanic" blather, I agree with this. I expect we'd take it in very different directions, however.

Values that strengthen society are empirically determinable. Honesty, not stealing, not murdering, respect for bonds of family, always strengthen (contribute to the extant biomass of) any society. But since you and your ilk seek put vast segments of humanity on extinguish, you rightfully recognize basic morality as an impediment to your goals.

OrnotBitwise
05-15-2007, 10:29 AM
If it has a will, is it subject to the same right/responsiblities considerations regarding it's behavior that individuals are?
No, because it is not an individual. It simply exists. It is what we make of it, in effect.

Do you include not fully developed human beings in this number?
I make no categorical statement on that at all. It would depend on how "fully developed" we're talking about in each individual case.

I actually don't agree that maximum human biomass is the highest good.
That's fine, but it has nothing to do with what I said. I didn't mention anything about the "highest good" or any other such ephemeral jibber-jabber. I said that at the most basic level, the "purpose" (sic) of society is to maximize the number of humans alive at any one time. All evolution works that way, biological as well as social.

No. totally wrong. Concensus can and has been twisted in various times throughout history to be at odds with my notion of good and even your notions of maximum biomass "good". And during those times people who understand the rational and real basis and function of morality, should stand up to the teeming horde.
Good. You try that. We need good mulch. :rolleyes:

You turds just realized that attempting to redefine human to lower the standard of what we consider "human rights" is failing. and now you're just admitting what your really want, the subjugation of western style civil rights to a newly emerging genocidal, anti-human "concensus".
Failing? Hardly. Face it, your granddaughters will be having abortions as a matter of course and probably living with their lesbian lovers. And it will be a Good Thing, too.

Values that strengthen society are empirically determinable.
LOL! Oh, this could be rich.

The values that strengthen society are indeed empirically determined . . . by societal consensus. That's exactly what it means, Bucko. With whackjobs like you out there, who believe in crackpot notions like eugenics and the nuclear family, we have to have a mechanism for filtering out the noise.

Honesty, not stealing, not murdering, respect for bonds of family, always strengthen (contribute to the extant biomass of) any society. But since you and your ilk seek put vast segments of humanity on extinguish, you rightfully recognize basic morality as an impediment to your goals.:lolup:

Hermes Thoth
05-15-2007, 02:09 PM
No, because it is not an individual. It simply exists. It is what we make of it, in effect.


So social duties and obligations only apply to individuals?

I disagree. I believe any willfull entity, whether an individual or aggregate, is still bound by the same social contracts as any individual.
This little slight of hand trick is how you intend to achieve anti-social ends through concensus builiding. Concensus doesn't make right.


I make no categorical statement on that at all. It would depend on how "fully developed" we're talking about in each individual case.

Again, through your dishonest manipulation of words, you deny life to infants, at the very same time you say the function of society is to increase life. you're a fraud.


That's fine, but it has nothing to do with what I said. I didn't mention anything about the "highest good" or any other such ephemeral jibber-jabber. I said that at the most basic level, the "purpose" (sic) of society is to maximize the number of humans alive at any one time. All evolution works that way, biological as well as social.

Ok. Not highest good. Purpose of society. the purpose of society is not strictly to increase human biomass.



Good. You try that. We need good mulch. :rolleyes:

I will. I will stand up to your lies until my dying breath. And don't threaten me, ape-face.



Failing? Hardly. Face it, your granddaughters will be having abortions as a matter of course and probably living with their lesbian lovers. And it will be a Good Thing, too.

No. People are wising up to the destruction your 'morality by concensus' is causing.



LOL! Oh, this could be rich.

The values that strengthen society are indeed empirically determined . . . by societal consensus. That's exactly what it means, Bucko. With whackjobs like you out there, who believe in crackpot notions like eugenics and the nuclear family, we have to have a mechanism for filtering out the noise.
:lolup:


No. Concensus is concensus, but whether or not the concensus morality strengthens society is measurable. And people can recognize failure.

The nuclear family will be here for a long time to come; it's simply a good system for child care and human satisfaction. Your plans to centralize these functions will fail. The one of us closest to espousing eugenics is you, ya nazi freak.

OrnotBitwise
05-16-2007, 12:37 AM
So social duties and obligations only apply to individuals?

I disagree. I believe any willfull entity, whether an individual or aggregate, is still bound by the same social contracts as any individual.
This little slight of hand trick is how you intend to achieve anti-social ends through concensus builiding. Concensus doesn't make right.The will of society is an abstraction: it is the consensus of opinion among the members of society. Society is not an entity in this sense. It often behaves like one and the metaphor of the social organism is frequently very useful but it isn't literal. Most often isn't literal: I guess there are a few people out there who take it literally. It's a very sparse group however.

If consensus does not make Right then what does? I reject any religious authority out of hand, since your religion and mine are quite different. An objective moral code obviously can't be deduced, and I also don't believe you can arrive at one by even the most clever inductive logic. Not an indisputable one.

To be sure, logic can and should be applied to statements of morality. That's for the individual, however. At the social level, there is an objective standard.

Fortunately for us, collective wisdom is frequently more wise than individual wisdom. Not always, of course, but usually.
Again, through your dishonest manipulation of words, you deny life to infants, at the very same time you say the function of society is to increase life. you're a fraud.
Well, now that's a blatant lie. I've never denied life to any infant. Indeed, I've not discussed infants at all.

Ironically, albeit predictably, it is you who redefines words to suit your dishonest agenda. You deliberately conflate infant and fetus despite the fact that a child is not referred to as an infant until after birth. Or that's what I have to assume. Since your statement on the subject makes little or no literal sense I have to interpolate a bit.

You're also misstating when you claim that I said that the function of society is to increase life. What I actually said was that the function of society is, at the most fundamental level, to improve the survival rate of human animals. "Increase life" is a vague and largely nonsensical construction one might expect from a child. I try to avoid those.

Ok. Not highest good. Purpose of society. the purpose of society is not strictly to increase human biomass.
The purpose of society is to increase the number of humans that survive and breed. It is an evolutionary adaptation. That's what evolutionary adaptations do. It is other things as well, naturally, but this is the central point, and the only function that is not subject to interpretation.

I will. I will stand up to your lies until my dying breath. And don't threaten me, ape-face.
I've never threatened you and never will. You're not worth the bother, frankly. I merely point out that elitists and authoritarians frequently end up hated by the rest of us, precisely because they want to impose a moral code that diverges too far from that imposed by consensus.

No. People are wising up to the destruction your 'morality by concensus' is causing.
Typical con. You lot wail and moan about how morality is eroding away before our eyes then turn right around and claim that consensus actually supports your sick and twisted brand of immorality. Make up your minds, already! Sheesh!

It's a simple fact: moral conservatism -- in the sense of resistance to change -- is always a rear-guard action. It's also always a losing proposition if you insist on stasis.

No. Concensus is concensus, but whether or not the concensus morality strengthens society is measurable. And people can recognize failure.
You constantly claim that it's measurable yet you never once set forth how you plan to measure it.

Yes, people can recognize failure. The Cleaver Family Dream is a failure, for example. It just doesn't work, for a large number of reasons. Strict monogamy, in which marriages cannot be undone even when they become destructive, has failed completely. You've failed to restrict sex to marriage so badly that most people can't even imagine wanting to do so.

The world of 2057 is not going to be either your Utopia or mine, but it's going to resemble mine more closely. Count on it.

The nuclear family will be here for a long time to come; it's simply a good system for child care and human satisfaction. Your plans to centralize these functions will fail. The one of us closest to espousing eugenics is you, ya nazi freak.That's highly debatable. The nuclear family is a relatively recent innovation and I think it's dying out even now. The number of single parent families grows every year, as do the number of families in which more than two adults participate in raising children. As for satisfaction, well, I think the divorce rate almost speaks for itself.


And finally, no, "concensus" (sic) is actually consensus. Buy a dictionary you lazy degenerate!

:whip:

AnyOldIron
05-16-2007, 05:00 AM
I would consider it freedom, however, rights and responsibilities as well. I believe these

to be almost entirely interchangeable.

I see these as two distinct notions (three, but rights and duties are two sides of the

same coin.) Freedom is not something that can be defined in binary inasmuch as you either

have it or you don't. It is a sliding scale, with absolute freedom on one side and absolute

lack of freedom on another, in which will (according to capability) is either unfettered or

restricted.

Absolute freedom only occurs in man's 'natural state', a state outside society and the moral

confines that social living brings about. Solitary individuals, the conduct themselves only

according to their will and capability to carry out that will. This absolute freedom is

unattainable, however, as soon as the individual joins a family unit, where morality comes

into play.

The opposite side of this, absolute lack of freedom, would be where the individual's will

bares no play on their actions, or even to the extent where will is removed. Orwell's 1984

provides an example of this, or maybe some of the more extreme religions.

In between these, we plot a point on the sliding scale.

Rights and freedoms, IMO, don't exist innately. Rights, a human has a right to life, for

example, isn't found in the natural state, they are a consequence of our living in social

groups. It is a contract made (unwittingly by consequence of birth) in which we agree to

frustrate some of our will, in exchange for the capability to exercise other area's of one's

will.

For example, imagine I had the will to kill my neighbour. In the natural state, provided I

had the capability, I would go ahead and kill him. But in a social environment, I exchange

frustration of my will to kill my neighbour (duty) for the promise that I won't be killed

(right).

Rights and duties are the social mechanism by which I frustrate certain areas of freedom in

exchange for other areas of freedom, for the priviledge of living in a social environment.

Inter-related, yes. Closely connected, yes. Interchangeable, no...

Now, if the duties that come with rights require a frustration of will, to consider to whom

rights and duties apply, one must look at what it takes to frustrate ones will. This is an

empirical matter, off which a debate is required, but I would put it that it requires the

use of reasoning to frustrate will.

If this is used as an axiom (and I emphasize that this is an empirical matter open to

dispute) then an entitlement to rights and duties is dependent upon the ability to exercise

reason.

Now, there are many groups that fall outside this, of which I would divide into two

sections. The first is those with the potential to exercise reasoning, the young, the

temporarily insane (for want of the PC term) etc. The second are those who are incapable of

reason, incapable of exercising rights and duties independently, nor have the potential to

do so.

It might be taken that, as these individuals aren't capable, or not capable at the minute,

of taking up rights and duties, this means that they are at our disposal, we can treat them

as we will. But don't forget that rights and duties aren't, as you said, guaranteed.

And morality is more than just rights and duties. Compassion is a human emotion that plays

heavily on our moral outlook and with those not capable of taking up rights and duties, a duty of compassion applies.

AnyOldIron
05-16-2007, 05:09 AM
On the matter of humans....

What, Damocles, do you consider constitutes a human, the self, the I.

Obviously, Descartes would describe the I as that that thinks, but moving past the nonsense of mind/body dualism, where would you go?

It can't be the heart, or the lungs, or other organs, simply because these can be transplanted and the individual doesn't become another self.

I suppose most would say the brain, but the brain itself is simply another organ, doing a job in the same way that the heart or lungs are.....

AnyOldIron
05-16-2007, 05:48 AM
Values that strengthen society are empirically determinable. Honesty, not stealing, not murdering, respect for bonds of family, always strengthen (contribute to the extant biomass of) any society.

Empirically determined? I don't think so.

You claim, for example, honesty as one of these 'empirically determined' moral factors.

Yet society often conceils or lies about things that, if it didn't, could be detrimental to social cohesion. If releasing a piece of information results in panic, and thus physical harm, then it isn't beneficial to be honest.

You claim not murdering (killing) is beneficial to social cohesion, yet nothing brings a society together more than war, which is simply killing with moral relativity used. Similar with state executions.

The truth is, there is no moral absolutes. Good and evil are subjective descriptions, according to the adjudicator, not entities or absolutes.

You claim murder, theft etc as absolutely evil because you claim most people exercise them as evil, yet they are only evil because there is a consensus amongst most people that they are.

But look at it from a practical example. A man steals bread to feed his starving family. Where is the moral wrong? The theft?

AnyOldIron
05-16-2007, 06:15 AM
If it has a will, is it subject to the same right/responsiblities considerations regarding it's behavior that individuals are?

No, because it doesn't have its own independent will (outside dictatorship) but is the sum of the individual's will.

Societies only have rights and duties in relation to other societies.

I actually don't agree that maximum human biomass is the highest good.

That's because 'good' is a subjective term of description. It is innate within humanity to create the maximum human biomass, just as it is with any species. This is the fundemental element of natural selection....

Concensus can and has been twisted in various times throughout history to be at odds with my notion of good and even your notions of maximum biomass "good".

That's because what is deemed 'good' is subjective.

Hermes Thoth
05-16-2007, 06:43 AM
The will of society is an abstraction: it is the consensus of opinion among the members of society.

and as such, it should be held to the same moral standards as all individuals are. Crime committed in a group doesn't cease to be crime.



Society is not an entity in this sense. It often behaves like one and the metaphor of the social organism is frequently very useful but it isn't literal.

And when it behaves, it should be held to the same moral standards as individuals.



Most often isn't literal: I guess there are a few people out there who take it literally. It's a very sparse group however.

If consensus does not make Right then what does?

Behaviors and codes which contribute to effectiveness and ability to cooperate in pursuit of higher purposes are right. When we can stop fighting over mates and meat, we can simmer down an build a better hut together.



I reject any religious authority out of hand, since your religion and mine are quite different. An objective moral code obviously can't be deduced,

Yes it can. We all know what behaviors inspire trust and cooperation, instead of mistrust and divisiveness.




and I also don't believe you can arrive at one by even the most clever inductive logic. Not an indisputable one.

You belief is disputable. see above.



To be sure, logic can and should be applied to statements of morality. That's for the individual, however. At the social level, there is an objective standard.


Yes there is . Your fallacious statement is based on your wrong belief that morality cannot be objectively determined.



Fortunately for us, collective wisdom is frequently more wise than individual wisdom. Not always, of course, but usually.


Lately it hasn't been. What you believe is wisdom, is just the acceptance of baseness, and anti-social behavior by individuals, cloaked, they believe, in the anonymity of the group.


Well, now that's a blatant lie. I've never denied life to any infant. Indeed, I've not discussed infants at all.

Because you believe fetuses are not infants. Again with the word games. That's lame.



Ironically, albeit predictably, it is you who redefines words to suit your dishonest agenda. You deliberately conflate infant and fetus despite the fact that a child is not referred to as an infant until after birth. Or that's what I have to assume. Since your statement on the subject makes little or no literal sense I have to interpolate a bit.


More word games. More lameness.




You're also misstating when you claim that I said that the function of society is to increase life. What I actually said was that the function of society is, at the most fundamental level, to improve the survival rate of human animals. "Increase life" is a vague and largely nonsensical construction one might expect from a child. I try to avoid those.

Oh i see, since in utero babies are not yet living beings, their death is not an instance of death to you , so does not count against the survival rate. That's lame.



The purpose of society is to increase the number of humans that survive and breed. It is an evolutionary adaptation. That's what evolutionary adaptations do. It is other things as well, naturally, but this is the central point, and the only function that is not subject to interpretation.

And behaviors and codes which promote survivability (cooperation, in social species, like man) are determinable, thus, are the basis for morality.



I've never threatened you and never will. You're not worth the bother, frankly. I merely point out that elitists and authoritarians frequently end up hated by the rest of us, precisely because they want to impose a moral code that diverges too far from that imposed by consensus.

you substitue concensus for rational derivation of moral codes, hence, your code is irrational, and is, in my opinion, contrary to your above stated goal of increasing the surivivability of humans, (but not in utero babies).



Typical con. You lot wail and moan about how morality is eroding away before our eyes then turn right around and claim that consensus actually supports your sick and twisted brand of immorality. Make up your minds, already! Sheesh!

Im saying concensus will soon swing back to a pro survival basis, as many realize your "morality by concensus" is just a meme propagated by anti-western agents to destroy our societies.



It's a simple fact: moral conservatism -- in the sense of resistance to change -- is always a rear-guard action. It's also always a losing proposition if you insist on stasis.

No it's not. Moral relativism had it's heyday in the seventies - early eighties. It's over.



You constantly claim that it's measurable yet you never once set forth how you plan to measure it.

It's easy. just imagine how someone would have to act for you to trust them and cooperate with them. Pretend you're a human or a human being.


Yes, people can recognize failure. The Cleaver Family Dream is a failure, for example. It just doesn't work, for a large number of reasons.

It has worked and is working quite successfully. The divorce rate is going down and has been going down for many years.



Strict monogamy, in which marriages cannot be undone even when they become destructive, has failed completely. You've failed to restrict sex to marriage so badly that most people can't even imagine wanting to do so.

Your wishful thinking is not fact.



The world of 2057 is not going to be either your Utopia or mine, but it's going to resemble mine more closely. Count on it.

I count on you being wrong. There is no "clear direction of humanity towards collectivism and moral relativism" we're just going through a phase of history where elitists are trying to take control by weaking the societies they dominate with their moral relativism and anti-family thinking. They will be toppled. Count on that.


That's highly debatable. The nuclear family is a relatively recent innovation and I think it's dying out even now. The number of single parent families grows every year, as do the number of families in which more than two adults participate in raising children. As for satisfaction, well, I think the divorce rate almost speaks for itself.

It's going down.



And finally, no, "concensus" (sic) is actually consensus. Buy a dictionary you lazy degenerate!

:whip:


I whipped your ass again. It was great.

Damocles
05-16-2007, 06:44 AM
I see these as two distinct notions (three, but rights and duties are two sides of the

same coin.) Freedom is not something that can be defined in binary inasmuch as you either

have it or you don't. It is a sliding scale, with absolute freedom on one side and absolute

lack of freedom on another, in which will (according to capability) is either unfettered or

restricted.

Absolute freedom only occurs in man's 'natural state', a state outside society and the moral

confines that social living brings about. Solitary individuals, the conduct themselves only

according to their will and capability to carry out that will. This absolute freedom is

unattainable, however, as soon as the individual joins a family unit, where morality comes

into play.

The opposite side of this, absolute lack of freedom, would be where the individual's will

bares no play on their actions, or even to the extent where will is removed. Orwell's 1984

provides an example of this, or maybe some of the more extreme religions.

In between these, we plot a point on the sliding scale.

Rights and freedoms, IMO, don't exist innately. Rights, a human has a right to life, for

example, isn't found in the natural state, they are a consequence of our living in social

groups. It is a contract made (unwittingly by consequence of birth) in which we agree to

frustrate some of our will, in exchange for the capability to exercise other area's of one's

will.

For example, imagine I had the will to kill my neighbour. In the natural state, provided I

had the capability, I would go ahead and kill him. But in a social environment, I exchange

frustration of my will to kill my neighbour (duty) for the promise that I won't be killed

(right).

Rights and duties are the social mechanism by which I frustrate certain areas of freedom in

exchange for other areas of freedom, for the priviledge of living in a social environment.

Inter-related, yes. Closely connected, yes. Interchangeable, no...


Hence the word "almost" that you seem to have just 'missed'. However I believe your separation of right and freedom to be too distinct. I believe that rights and freedoms are even closer to the same thing than responsibility and rights which are interconnected in such a way that conversing on the one cannot be done without speaking of the other.

However your "natural state freedom" denies recognition of the rights of another, which creates the need for the "responsibility" portion. This gives rise to society itself, the fact that we recognize the rights of others. And as I said you still have the right to simply ignore the law, but there is an understanding that it may negatively impact your freedom, or even your life in some areas. You choose to frustrate your own rights/freedoms because of either negative action that may be taken against you or because of the recognition of the aspects of freedom/rights I have given earlier.




Now, if the duties that come with rights require a frustration of will, to consider to whom

rights and duties apply, one must look at what it takes to frustrate ones will. This is an

empirical matter, off which a debate is required, but I would put it that it requires the

use of reasoning to frustrate will.

If this is used as an axiom (and I emphasize that this is an empirical matter open to

dispute) then an entitlement to rights and duties is dependent upon the ability to exercise

reason.


Agreed. See above.



Now, there are many groups that fall outside this, of which I would divide into two

sections. The first is those with the potential to exercise reasoning, the young, the

temporarily insane (for want of the PC term) etc. The second are those who are incapable of

reason, incapable of exercising rights and duties independently, nor have the potential to

do so.

It might be taken that, as these individuals aren't capable, or not capable at the minute,

of taking up rights and duties, this means that they are at our disposal, we can treat them

as we will. But don't forget that rights and duties aren't, as you said, guaranteed.


I never forget this, however those who are not capable of reason still can lose freedom/rights because of their action.



And morality is more than just rights and duties. Compassion is a human emotion that plays

heavily on our moral outlook and with those not capable of taking up rights and duties, a duty of compassion applies.

Reason created ethics/morality as much as responsibility. That recognition of freedom and the unique ability to understand the position of others. Do unto others wasn't solely a religious "morality" reason will bring you to this conclusion without need of a religious authority. Exercise of the freedom of morality or religion is just another of the reasons I say that responsibility too can be sometimes interchangeable with freedom.... by exercising one of the rights/freedoms we necessarily practice this aspect of human life.

Hermes Thoth
05-16-2007, 06:52 AM
If it has a will, is it subject to the same right/responsiblities considerations regarding it's behavior that individuals are?

No, because it doesn't have its own independent will (outside dictatorship) but is the sum of the individual's will.


And as the sum of individual will, it is held to the same standards of behavior as individuals.



Societies only have rights and duties in relation to other societies.

No. Societies have rights and duties in relation to the treatment of individuals within that society.



I actually don't agree that maximum human biomass is the highest good.

That's because 'good' is a subjective term of description. It is innate within humanity to create the maximum human biomass, just as it is with any species. This is the fundemental element of natural selection....

Which is why increasing survivability is the basis for determining morality.



Concensus can and has been twisted in various times throughout history to be at odds with my notion of good and even your notions of maximum biomass "good".

That's because what is deemed 'good' is subjective.

No. We just agreed that what is good is increasing survivability. Focus, Corky!

Cancel7
05-16-2007, 06:55 AM
Ornot: "Yes, people can recognize failure. The Cleaver Family Dream is a failure, for example. It just doesn't work, for a large number of reasons. "

AHZ: "It has worked and is working quite successfully. The divorce rate is going down and has been going down for many years."

It's been dropping among the highly educated, not the rest of the population. And by highly educated, I mean, highly educated couples, both of whom work. Once you introduce a highly educated, working woman into the mix, you no longer have a Cleaver family, and the dream family of the right wing in this country. In fact, that family has failed. It's been confined to the dustbin of history.

Divorce is alive, well, and thriving among high school graduates and lower. And of course, it's still doing pretty well even among the well-educated. I mean, high-powered divorce lawyers, which high school drop-outs are not hiring, aren't crying for lack of business.

I always feel a little sorry for such a young man, a boy really, who hasn't even had sex yet, and who attaches such hopes on an old-fashioned type marriage. I suppose that would be your only real hope of ever having regular sex, and I get that. But, there is something slightly pathetic and desperate about it.

Try Utah. You might find what you're looking for there. I suppose if it exists anywhere, it would be Utah.

Hermes Thoth
05-16-2007, 06:57 AM
Ornot: "Yes, people can recognize failure. The Cleaver Family Dream is a failure, for example. It just doesn't work, for a large number of reasons. "

AHZ: "It has worked and is working quite successfully. The divorce rate is going down and has been going down for many years."

It's been dropping among the highly educated, not the rest of the population. And by highly educated, I mean, highly educated couples, both of whom work. Once you introduce a highly educated, working woman into the mix, you no longer have a Cleaver family, and the dream family of the right wing in this country. In fact, that family has failed. It's been confined to the dustbin of history.

Divorce is alive, well, and thriving among high school graduates and lower. And of course, it's still doing pretty well even among the well-educated. I mean, high-powered divorce lawyers, which high school drop-outs are not hiring, aren't crying for lack of business.

I always feel a little sorry for such a young man, a boy really, who hasn't even had sex yet, and who attaches such hopes on an old-fashioned type marriage. I suppose that would be your only real hope of ever having regular sex, and I get that. But, there is something slightly pathetic and desperate about it.

Try Utah. You might find what you're looking for there. I suppose if it exists anywhere, it would be Utah.

That's mid upper. Upper Upper wives still don't work. Get real.

Hermes Thoth
05-16-2007, 07:01 AM
So much for the 'inevitability' of the destruction of the nuclear family.


http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/divorce.html


http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/divorce.jpg

Cancel7
05-16-2007, 07:04 AM
That's mid upper. Upper Upper wives still don't work. Get real.

You don't know what you are talking about you poor child.

Nowhere did I use the phrase "mid upper" or "upper upper". I spoke of highly educated women, and honey, you ain't never had a real life conversation with one.

Highly educated women work. And there are a significant number of them who are the sole-breadwinners, and whose husbands stay home and raise the children and take care of things "roudn the house". you know, house boys, we used to call them. But often, these men will be highly creative and artistic. Very talented in other words, but without the earning power of their wives. So I don't see it as a gig you're going to get.

Most of them of course, are married to male high-earners and/or high achievers, if they marry at all. A number of them will cohabitate but not marry. Many of these women, will divorce much later in life and we see the numbers trending that way, with most divorces over the age of 50 being initiated by the woman, but they have not yet significantly affected the divorce rates. These are educated, dual-career couples, and they do not conform to your dream family and never will. With more women now graduating college than men, this trend will only grow. There is no going back. Get used to it.

Hermes Thoth
05-16-2007, 07:06 AM
You don't know what you are talking about you poor child.

Nowhere did I use the phrase "mid upper" or "upper upper". I spoke of highly educated women, and honey, you ain't never had a real life conversation with one.

Highly educated women work. And there are a significant number of them who are the sole-breadwinners, and whose husbands stay home and raise the children and take care of things "roudn the house". you know, house boys, we used to call them. But often, these men will be highly creative and artistic. Very talented in other words, but without the earning power of their wives. So I don't see it as a gig you're going to get.

Most of them of course, are married to male high-earners and/or high achievers, if they marry at all. A number of them will cohabitate but not marry. Many of these women, will divorce much later in life and we see the numbers trending that way, with most divorces over the age of 50 being initiated by the woman, but they have not yet significantly affected the divorce rates. These are educated, dual-career couples, and they do not conform to your dream family and never will. With more women now graduating college than men, this trend will only grow. There is no going back. Get used to it.


The numbers show otherwise.

AnyOldIron
05-16-2007, 07:15 AM
Hence the word "almost" that you seem to have just 'missed'. However I believe your separation of right and freedom to be too distinct. I believe that rights and freedoms are even closer to the same thing than responsibility and rights which are interconnected in such a way that conversing on the one cannot be done without speaking of the other.

However your "natural state freedom" denies recognition of the rights of another, which creates the need for the "responsibility" portion. This gives rise to society itself, the fact that we recognize the rights of others. And as I said you still have the right to simply ignore the law, but there is an understanding that it may negatively impact your freedom, or even your life in some areas. You choose to frustrate your own rights/freedoms because of either negative action that may be taken against you or because of the recognition of the aspects of freedom/rights I have given earlier.

Rights, without the corresponding duties, are empty. In the natural state, you could claim that a human has the right to life but this is essentially the same as saying he has life. Without a social contract, the human has no more right to life than a wild rabbit, he simply has life. There are no rights involved. It is only when the the individual enters a social grouping, where he exchanges certain freedoms for other freedoms, he takes on duties and thus corresponding rights.

I'm still not sure that freedom and rights can be described as being interchangeable. The absolute of freedom is to do as one's will dictates, according to ability. If one's will dictates that the individual should execute most of his neighbours, could it be said that he has a right to do so?

Hermes Thoth
05-16-2007, 07:17 AM
Hence the word "almost" that you seem to have just 'missed'. However I believe your separation of right and freedom to be too distinct. I believe that rights and freedoms are even closer to the same thing than responsibility and rights which are interconnected in such a way that conversing on the one cannot be done without speaking of the other.

However your "natural state freedom" denies recognition of the rights of another, which creates the need for the "responsibility" portion. This gives rise to society itself, the fact that we recognize the rights of others. And as I said you still have the right to simply ignore the law, but there is an understanding that it may negatively impact your freedom, or even your life in some areas. You choose to frustrate your own rights/freedoms because of either negative action that may be taken against you or because of the recognition of the aspects of freedom/rights I have given earlier.

Rights, without the corresponding duties, are empty. In the natural state, you could claim that a human has the right to life but this is essentially the same as saying he has life. Without a social contract, the human has no more right to life than a wild rabbit, he simply has life. There are no rights involved. It is only when the the individual enters a social grouping, where he exchanges certain freedoms for other freedoms, he takes on duties and thus corresponding rights.

I'm still not sure that freedom and rights can be described as being interchangeable. The absolute of freedom is to do as one's will dictates, according to ability. If one's will dictates that the individual should execute most of his neighbours, could it be said that he has a right to do so?

Does your will dictate to you? Do you hear voices in your head? Get thee to a psychiatric professional.:D

Cancel7
05-16-2007, 07:18 AM
So much for the 'inevitability' of the destruction of the nuclear family.


http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/divorce.html


http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/divorce.jpg

You are so stupid. What is the graph for? No one has disputed that the divorce rate has dropped.

Guess what? So has the marriage rate, during the same period. Dropped by over 25% I believe was included in the latest report on the lower divorce rate. Less marriages, less divorces. Gosh, that seems surprising. And the number of couples living together instead of marrying? Ten times as many in that period.

Further, the drop has taken place mainly among college-educated couples, there is an education and class divide here. And college educated couples are of course, marrying later than their less educated counterparts. They may divorce later too. The more educated women become, the less afraid they are to initiate the divorce later in life, when traditionally, the less-educated woman would hang onto the marriage, no matter how unsatisfying and even actively unhappy, because she could not at that point, support herself.

Cancel7
05-16-2007, 07:20 AM
The numbers show otherwise.

No, they do not. You see otherwise when you look at the numbers. However, the people reporting these numbers, acknowledge every point made. We call what you are doing "magical thinking"

Hermes Thoth
05-16-2007, 07:20 AM
You are so stupid. What is the graph for? No one has disputed that the divorce rate has dropped.

Guess what? So has the marriage rate, during the same period. Dropped by over 25% I believe was included in the latest report on the lower divorce rate. Less marriages, less divorces. Gosh, that seems surprising. And the number of couples living together instead of marrying? Ten times as many in that period.

Further, the drop has taken place mainly among college-educated couples, there is an education and class divide here. And college educated couples are of course, marrying later than their less educated counterparts. They may divorce later too. The more educated women become, the less afraid they are to initiate the divorce later in life, when traditionally, the less-educated woman would hang onto the marriage, no matter how unsatisfying and even actively unhappy, because she could not at that point, support herself.

I doubt it.

your vision of the day when old women rule the world is amusing to me.

Cancel7
05-16-2007, 07:23 AM
You can doubt it all you want to. The majority of divorces which take place between long-time married couples over the age of 50, are initiated by women.

You find that threatening, but that doesn't change the facts. Sorry.

Hermes Thoth
05-16-2007, 07:27 AM
You can doubt it all you want to. The majority of divorces which take place between long-time married couples over the age of 50, are initiated by women.

You find that threatening, but that doesn't change the facts. Sorry.

Ok. But the nuclear family will around for a while, though the elitist statists wish to destroy it. That's really the point here.

You sticking up for your weaker half is touching though.