Litmus
Verified User
No, sick fuck portraying his hate as rationality.
Name something good religion has caused
- Thread starter robdastud
- Start date
No, sick fuck portraying his hate as rationality.
Litmus
Verified User
No. I'm not the one dehumanizing babies. He is. His little word games are a joke.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
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.
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.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
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.
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.
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.
The irony of your making this assertion is really delicious.
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?
Shorn of the ridiculous "satanic" blather, I agree with this. I expect we'd take it in very different directions, however.
Litmus
Verified User
If it has a will, is it subject to the same right/responsiblities considerations regarding it's behavior that individuals are?
Do you include not fully developed human beings in this number?
I actually don't agree that maximum human biomass is the highest good.
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.
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".The irony of your making this assertion is really delicious.
At last, a question with some merit! I guess miracles can indeed happen.
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
Watermelon
No, because it is not an individual. It simply exists. It is what we make of it, in effect.
I make no categorical statement on that at all. It would depend on how "fully developed" we're talking about in each individual case.
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.
Good. You try that. We need good mulch.
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.
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.
Litmus
Verified User
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.
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.
Ok. Not highest good. Purpose of society. the purpose of society is not strictly to increase human biomass.
I will. I will stand up to your lies until my dying breath. And don't threaten me, ape-face.Good. You try that. We need good mulch.
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.
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
Watermelon
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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!
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
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.
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
Atheist Missionary
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.....
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
Atheist Missionary
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?
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
Atheist Missionary
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.
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.
Litmus
Verified User
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.
And when it behaves, it should be held to the same moral standards as individuals.
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.
Yes it can. We all know what behaviors inspire trust and cooperation, instead of mistrust and divisiveness.
You belief is disputable. see above.
Yes there is . Your fallacious statement is based on your wrong belief that morality cannot be objectively determined.
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.
Because you believe fetuses are not infants. Again with the word games. That's lame.
More word games. More lameness.
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.
And behaviors and codes which promote survivability (cooperation, in social species, like man) are determinable, thus, are the basis for morality.
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).
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.
No it's not. Moral relativism had it's heyday in the seventies - early eighties. It's over.
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.
It has worked and is working quite successfully. The divorce rate is going down and has been going down for many years.
Your wishful thinking is not fact.
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.
It's going down.
And finally, no, "concensus" (sic) is actually consensus. Buy a dictionary you lazy degenerate!
I whipped your ass again. It was great.
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.
Agreed. See above.
I never forget this, however those who are not capable of reason still can lose freedom/rights because of their action.
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.
Litmus
Verified User
And as the sum of individual will, it is held to the same standards of behavior as individuals.
No. Societies have rights and duties in relation to the treatment of individuals within that society.
Which is why increasing survivability is the basis for determining morality.
No. We just agreed that what is good is increasing survivability. Focus, Corky!
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.
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.
Litmus
Verified User
That's mid upper. Upper Upper wives still don't work. Get real.