Name something good religion has caused

AssHatZombie said:
Has he? what is his position on valuing life, or survival?

So you're saying codes of behavior are not based on how they effect survival of the group? They demonstrably are. What goes on amongst academic dishonest wankers is of little interest to me.

I disagree. Pro survival behavioral codes are not crude or irrelevant. And adultery doesn't have nearly as many meanings as you wish.
Click to expand...
Your problem -- or one of them, anyway -- is that you don't want to look at what constitutes a survival trait, you simply want to decide it. Survival traits are determined by what survives, not by what you think will improve survival.

The only cultural universals that the field can truly agree upon are so very general as to be meaningless, in the view of many. They include such things as art, social organization, family, government, history and a few others. Not any particular form of family, mind you, just family in general. Not any given form of social organization, just some social organization.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Your problem -- or one of them, anyway -- is that you don't want to look at what constitutes a survival trait, you simply want to decide it. Survival traits are determined by what survives, not by what you think will improve survival.

The only cultural universals that the field can truly agree upon are so very general as to be meaningless, in the view of many. They include such things as art, social organization, family, government, history and a few others. Not any particular form of family, mind you, just family in general. Not any given form of social organization, just some social organization.
Click to expand...


Let's examine them together. Fuck the field. It's corrupted by military industrial complex lackeys. Is allowing individuals to steal from other individuals instead of providing a value in exchange for another value pro survival or anti-survival?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Let's examine them together. Fuck the field. It's corrupted by military industrial complex lackeys. Is allowing individuals to steal from other individuals instead of providing a value in exchange for another value pro survival or anti-survival?
Click to expand...
Who the fuck cares? All of you monkeys end up in pretty much the same place anyway. Sooner; later; have it your own way.
 
"It is not the immorality of relativism that I find appalling. What is astounding and degrading is the dogmatism with which we accept such relativism, and our easygoing lack of concern of about what that means for our lives." Allan Bloom, The Closing of The American Mind, p. 239
 
AssHatZombie said:
"It is not the immorality of relativism that I find appalling. What is astounding and degrading is the dogmatism with which we accept such relativism, and our easygoing lack of concern of about what that means for our lives." Allan Bloom, The Closing of The American Mind, p. 239
Click to expand...
Yes, well, what can you expect from a PNAC pervert?

Relativism, as Bloom misunderstands it, stands in direct opposition to Platonism. Neither is perfect but at least Relativism isn't perverted, oppressive and elitist. If I had to choose one or the other -- a false dichotomy, but what the heck -- I'd be chucking Plato down the crapper.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Yes, well, what can you expect from a PNAC pervert?

Relativism, as Bloom misunderstands it, stands in direct opposition to Platonism. Neither is perfect but at least Relativism isn't perverted, oppressive and elitist. If I had to choose one or the other -- a false dichotomy, but what the heck -- I'd be chucking Plato down the crapper.
Click to expand...


Ad hominem attack masquerading as an argument? WHy am I not suprised?:rolleyes:
 
The strawman, is the idea of "natural rights being those enumerated".

The concept that I present in this thread is different than the concept you describe in your rant against "natural rights".

I have specifically kept my definition of "rights" within your description of what "natural rights" would be. The ability to assert yourself onto others...

You are rejecting another's position, but attempting to assign it to me.

You definition of right was any act one has the freedom, and thus can, act. I've not argued that you state natural rights are ones that need to be enumerated, that is what I'm arguing, in the form of a contract, although not necessarily codified.

I am unsure how you could have kept your definition of rights within my description of natural rights because I reject the notion of natural rights as a rhetorical tool used during the Age of Enlightenment to batter autocrats into submission. What is described as natural rights I call simply freedom, or the ability to act.

I'm not rejecting another's position, I am arguing that 'rights', as defined by the notion of 'natural rights, or defined as simply freedom to act as it is in the US, is wrong, baseless, an exercise in replacing the term 'freedom to act' with 'right to act'.
 
You don't decide. You say individuals place their own value on things. But i still don't know if you personally value life. You're an individual, not a disembodied group consensus machine.

You want my personal opinion on if I value life? Of course I value life. Else I'd have topped myself. Muppet.

A society can tolerate a certain amount of individual violation of the established mores. rome eventuall did fall. through sinking into tyranny and allowing too many immigrants.

Rome fell because of over-extension and tyranny, not through adultery or the breaking of your 'golden rules' for society.

They believed homosexuality enhanced army solidarity and commitment to the battle. It was a survivalistic thing.

But homosexuality does reduce the numbers of producing pairs, which is contrary to survival in a society where maximum production of new generations was essential because of the numbers of 'barbarians' at the gates such as the Macedonians and Persians.

Morality isn't dictated entirely by social survival, it is far more complex than such a simplistic notion. Morality is a negotiation by which we live together. It isn't about the survival of the society itself, a society isn't a singular entity in that way.
 
AnyOldIron said:
You definition of right was any act one has the freedom, and thus can, act. I've not argued that you state natural rights are ones that need to be enumerated, that is what I'm arguing, in the form of a contract, although not necessarily codified.

I am unsure how you could have kept your definition of rights within my description of natural rights because I reject the notion of natural rights as a rhetorical tool used during the Age of Enlightenment to batter autocrats into submission. What is described as natural rights I call simply freedom, or the ability to act.
Click to expand...

Which is where I have kept my definition.

I'm not rejecting another's position, I am arguing that 'rights', as defined by the notion of 'natural rights, or defined as simply freedom to act as it is in the US, is wrong, baseless, an exercise in replacing the term 'freedom to act' with 'right to act'.
Click to expand...

This isn't how they define it in the US, it is how I have defined it thoughout the thread. And have found it amazingly easy to back up with historical reference as to what has actually happened.

Natural rights, coupled with ethics and a consensus among those governed brings you what you have today. That they take certain rights and present them as enumerated doesn't change what I have said, nor the practice in actual reality.
 
"It is not the immorality of relativism that I find appalling. What is astounding and degrading is the dogmatism with which we accept such relativism, and our easygoing lack of concern of about what that means for our lives." Allan Bloom, The Closing of The American Mind, p. 239

What point are you trying to make here? Attempt at Truth by Authority? All this chap is saying is that he thinks moral relativism is bad for society and that it is wrong that people recognise that reality. Do that thus make it true?
 
AnyOldIron said:
"It is not the immorality of relativism that I find appalling. What is astounding and degrading is the dogmatism with which we accept such relativism, and our easygoing lack of concern of about what that means for our lives." Allan Bloom, The Closing of The American Mind, p. 239

What point are you trying to make here? Attempt at Truth by Authority? All this chap is saying is that he thinks moral relativism is bad for society and that it is wrong that people recognise that reality. Do that thus make it true?
Click to expand...

blah blah blah.
 
This isn't how they define it in the US, it is how I have defined it thoughout the thread.

Apparently it is quite common for academics in the US to interchange the notions of 'free to act' and 'rights'.

And have found it amazingly easy to back up with historical reference as to what has actually happened. Natural rights, coupled with ethics and a consensus among those governed brings you what you have today. That they take certain rights and present them as enumerated doesn't change what I have said, nor the practice in actual reality.

The notion of natural rights, that, for whatever reason presented, are innate in us all, was created as a rhetorical tool. That rhetorical tool might have brought into play social contracts that limited autocratic power, but the notion that we all have innate rights outside any contract isn't true. Even the best philosophers, such as Hobbes have struggled to form arguments to support the notion.

This is because to define rights as the freedom to act is obscurum per obscurius, it doesn't really explain anything, aside from assigning another word to describe freedom to act. What you have is a scenerio without rights or duties, without a social contract. I have the 'right' (freedom to) do as my will dictates, the only censure being vengence from society as it exercises its 'right' (freedom to act) to use its will.

It brings no corresponding duties, simply will. It is a Darwinian scenerio. Morality is what rises us above our Darwinian instincts to act only according to our will, by placing frustration on that will so that social existence is possible. We organise a contract, partially codified in law, partly not, that presents us with duties to frustrate our will in exchange for rights to exercise in other situations.

People talk, for example, of the right to life. The right to life only exists because it is agreed that individuals will exchange their freedom to kill (the duty) in exchange for the the freedom not to be killed (the right).

Freedom is expression of will, rights, duties and morality are how we control that freedom to exist in a social scenerio.
 
Apparently it is quite common for academics in the US to interchange the notions of 'free to act' and 'rights'.
Click to expand...

And this means the entire US defines it this way? Come on... You are better than this.
 
People talk, for example, of the right to life. The right to life only exists because it is agreed that individuals will exchange their freedom to kill (the duty) in exchange for the the freedom not to be killed (the right).
Click to expand...

Hence my quotation remarks around "rights" in such a context. You act as if you haven't participated in this conversation and that it is suddenly starting here. I do not wish to repeat the entire thing, including the start and premise of working from the "natural rights" as you described them... a will to act.
 
And this means the entire US defines it this way?

Well know, but when I talk of things I am obviously refering to US academics, and not Billy Joe the peanut farmer.

Apparently, and I say apparently because it is just information I got from a couple of UK academics, is that it is common in the US to... etc
 
AnyOldIron said:
And this means the entire US defines it this way?

Well know, but when I talk of things I am obviously refering to US academics, and not Billy Joe the peanut farmer.

Apparently, and I say apparently because it is just information I got from a couple of UK academics, is that it is common in the US to... etc
Click to expand...
And "common" means that it is defined that way among academics?

Seriously, you heard one guy say that US Academics "commonly" refer to rights as freedoms interchangeably and this means that natural rights are defined by all the US that way?

I posted, when beginning this, that I was not referring to "rights" other than what you had earlier posted as a definition of natural rights. I then proceeded to see how they fit, and found them amazingly easy to apply when comparing the rights of Society and the Individual and how they are applied in reality regardless of high ideals.
 
Hence my quotation remarks around "rights" in such a context. You act as if you haven't participated in this conversation and that it is suddenly starting here. I do not wish to repeat the entire thing, including the start and premise of working from the "natural rights" as you described them... a will to act.

It was yourself who described rights as freedom to act. I simply expanded on 'freedom' to mean 'expression of will according to capability'.

The points I am making are simply....

Interchanging the terms 'freedom to act' and 'rights' is not valid &

The notion of natural rights was designed as a rhetorical tool to alleviate the problem of autocrats, and isn't valid as a realistic explanation of rights and duties, because it relies on obscurum per obscurius arguments such as 'we are all innately endowed'. &

Rights are created only by contract, either codified or not, and are not innate, and have corresponding duties and are designed as a frustration of will to allow maximum possible freedom (hence the seperation from the notion of rights) for members of society.
 
Seriously, you heard one guy say that US Academics "commonly" refer to rights as freedoms interchangeably and this means that natural rights are defined by all the US that way?

Calm yourself Damo, its not a major point.

I wrote apparently because I have heard that is it prevalent in US academics to interchange the two terms...

That's all.....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top