Religious Typology Quiz

[Commander Dutch]

I am born and raised in the modern world so obviously to me, as a modern human, slavery is wrong. But clearly that wasn't believed by previous humans. EVEN SOME OF THE GREAT THINKERS CITED ON THIS VERY THREAD! Like Thomas Jefferson.

I would love to think that in an absolute sense "slavery is wrong" because it fails to achieve maximum safety for all members of our social group.



The same reasoning applies. Why is rape wrong? Because it endangers some members of our social group and destabilizes the social HUMAN network. "Animal Coercive Sex" is the name for "rape" in the animal kingdom and some animals like geese and ducks and some dolphins and some chimps do it. Is it "wrong" for them?

I should think that if this question was as big as it sounds: "Is rape wrong?" it would have to be somewhat more universal and not selectively applied in different ways based on which animal you are talking about.

Rape is VERY bad among humans. Our social group does not allow that. Rape appears to be just one of those things for some unfortunate ducks, but I'm guessing no one would say we need to enforce rational anti-rape laws on ducks.

Are you admitting science doesn't cover all areas? Still waiting for your scientific answers on the questions, not a philosophical discussion.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I have no reason to assume one person does deserve freedom more than another. But I can definitely tell you that if you live in a social group in which some members are arbitrarily given fewer constraints than other members of the group then it is possible to see a threat to the stability of that social group.

But let's talk "dog packs" for a change. Obviously the younger dogs in the dog pack are more constrained in their activities than the "alphas" (realizing that the alpha dog is largely a myth but rather the breeding couple or "parents" in the pack but this will serve as an example anyway).

The dogs that are NOT the leaders of the pack are constrained (given less "freedom" than the alphas). If "freedom" has a universal value that transcends the physical context then surely those dog packs are "wrong" for lacking freedom. But they aren't. Because what counts as freedom and even fairness is rather different for dogs. There is no universal "good" for the dog to see the world as an ideal equal playing field for all.

Their social groups developed such that freedom was not universally allowed, and that a certain degree of lack of freedom for SOME enhances the structure of their social network. Keeps the group safe.

Interesting analogy. It made me think of police officers and firearms. We've been free to own firearms as private citizens for a couple of hundred years. But for most of our history, only trained LEOs were allowed to carry them around openly. So less "freedom" for us but more safety as well. Now, in most places, untrained idiots are allowed to openly carry firearms. More "freedom" for them, less for the majority of us who feel uneasy if we see some bubba with his bang-bang in Walmart or McDonald's or walking past a school. When did the gun freaks' "freedom" become more important than yours or mine?

 

[Commander Dutch]

The reason I raise dogs as an example is that it shows a lack of universality to these concepts. They are appreciated by the human mind and elevated to some high level of importance as if they are some universal truth. Clearly the dog, another social animal like us (and from whom early humans may have learned how to hunt in groups etc.), the dog doesn't conform to the same ideas as we do. Hence the lack of universality to all these high-minded concepts.

Comparative Psychology is a good field, but it has limitations. Still waiting for a scientific answer on slavery and rape.

Let's talk mass murder too. There are many starving people on this planet. Why not just gas them and put them out of their misery? Wouldn't that be most efficient and most humane? Please give me your scientific response. TIA

 

[Commander Dutch]

Interesting analogy. It made me think of police officers and firearms. We've been free to own firearms as private citizens for a couple of hundred years. But for most of our history, only trained LEOs were allowed to carry them around openly. So less "freedom" for us but more safety as well. Now, in most places, untrained idiots are allowed to openly carry firearms. More "freedom" for them, less for the majority of us who feel uneasy if we see some bubba with his bang-bang in Walmart or McDonald's or walking past a school. When did the gun freaks' "freedom" become more important than yours or mine?

How does me carrying a gun in a holster make you less free? It doesn't. What happens is that your fear and paranoia that I'll suddenly "whip this out" push you to restrict the freedom of others.

The irony being that you have no problem with me doing 55MPH in the opposite lane of a two-lane blacktop where I could suddenly "whip this out" and take you down head on with a combined closure rate of 110MPH. Why aren't you afraid of me there?

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Let's talk mass murder too. There are many starving people on this planet. Why not just gas them and put them out of their misery? Wouldn't that be most efficient and most humane? Please give me your scientific response. TIA

I believe I have already, at length, discussed why mass murder would be wrong. It all comes back to relative safety provided by the social network.

If I was part of a network in which certain people were randomly killed I would feel less safe than in a society in which there were no mass murders of the starving.

I will turn it around: is one duck raping another duck "evil"? Is the raping duck acting immorally or evil?

 

[Cypress]

Why do you think it would require testtubes and microscopes? That isn't all of science.

But again, these "definitions" don't imply any sort of deeper feature to nature. They are all just restating the concept of "lack of constraint"

One could conceivably measure freedom of the press by counting up how many censored newspapers there are.

That doesn't even remotely do justice to the rich variety
and sophistication of innate human conceptions of freedom, which was underlying point of my previous post.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

How does me carrying a gun in a holster make you less free? It doesn't. What happens is that your fear and paranoia that I'll suddenly "whip this out" push you to restrict the freedom of others.

The irony being that you have no problem with me doing 55MPH in the opposite lane of a two-lane blacktop where I could suddenly "whip this out" and take you down head on with a combined closure rate of 110MPH. Why aren't you afraid of me there?

Why should you have the right to make someone else feel uneasy and troubled in public because you're fearful yourself and thus need a firearm with you at all times? By "you" I mean anyone who thinks they should have the right to openly carry in a peaceful civilian setting like a grocery store or a church service. You're still free to own all the firearms you can afford, which is what the Constitution says. No where though does it say that you should have the right to lug them around with you and disturb the peace and pursuit of happiness of others by their presence.

Cars are not the same as guns. Strawman argument there.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

One could conceivably measure freedom of the press by counting up how many censored newspapers there are.

That doesn't even remotely do justice to the rich variety
and sophistication of innate human conceptions of freedom, which was underlying point of my previous post.

But again, those concepts are nothing more than applications of the original "Lack of Constraint".

Which do you think came first: the concept of "freedom" or observations by people who had constraints put on them by others which led them to develop the concept of freedom?

And how is freedom of speech fundamentally different from freedom of movement?

 

[Commander Dutch]

I believe I have already, at length, discussed why mass murder would be wrong. It all comes back to relative safety provided by the social network.

If I was part of a network in which certain people were randomly killed I would feel less safe than in a society in which there were no mass murders of the starving.

I will turn it around: is one duck raping another duck "evil"? Is the raping duck acting immorally or evil?

That's completely lacking in any scientific evidence.

Here's some facts: https://www.actionagainsthunger.org...-hunger-facts/the-worlds-hungriest-countries/

Gassing all 49M starving people wouldn't be necessary, but at some point, gassing most of them allows those remaining to survive. Culling the deer population has been proved to be scientific and humane. Why should human beings be any different from a scientific point of view?

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_h...lf/downloads/beef97/Beef97_is_CullingPrac.pdf
Culling Practices

Eugenics is scientific, "morality' is relative and not scientific: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22411125/
"Culling the herd": eugenics and the conservation movement in the United States, 1900-1940

Re duck "rape". Exactly my point. Claiming duck rape is evil is not scientific. It's morality.

 

[Commander Dutch]

Why should you have the right to make someone else feel uneasy and troubled in public because you're fearful yourself and thus need a firearm with you at all times? By "you" I mean anyone who thinks they should have the right to openly carry in a peaceful civilian setting like a grocery store or a church service. You're still free to own all the firearms you can afford, which is what the Constitution says. No where though does it say that you should have the right to lug them around with you and disturb the peace and pursuit of happiness of others by their presence.

Cars are not the same as guns. Strawman argument there.

You're questions are making me uneasy and I'd like you to stop, please. <---See how that works?

The question should be "Are they acting reasonably?" Waving a gun around is against the law. It doesn't matter if I'm dressed like Yosemite Sam at Walmart, if I pull a gun without good reason, I've broken the law. Yes, even in Texas.

Again, why don't you fear that I'm a drunk driver about to cross over into your lane and take out your entire family with a head-on collision at 110MPH+

 

[Cypress]

But again, those concepts are nothing more than applications of the original "Lack of Constraint".

Which do you think came first: the concept of "freedom" or observations by people who had constraints put on them by others which led them to develop the concept of freedom?

And how is freedom of speech fundamentally different from freedom of movement?

So would you let a laboratory experiment or mathmatical model dictate to you what freedom and equality means, and how much you can have?

Or would you rather as an individual decide for yourself what freedom and equality mean to you, and allow humans to institute freedom and equality.

I don't have the slightest doubt you would leave freedom and it's scope and implantation to the human mind, which is basically proof that even you believe innate human ideas and intuition are better than laboratory experiments when it comes to freedom, equality, and justice.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

You're questions are making me uneasy and I'd like you to stop, please. <---See how that works?

The question should be "Are they acting reasonably?" Waving a gun around is against the law. It doesn't matter if I'm dressed like Yosemite Sam at Walmart, if I pull a gun without good reason, I've broken the law. Yes, even in Texas.

Again, why don't you fear that I'm a drunk driver about to cross over into your lane and take out your entire family with a head-on collision at 110MPH+

Again, guns and cars are not equivalent. Besides, we have laws to protect us against morons who drink and then get behind the wheel. We used to have laws against carrying firearms openly, too. You haven't explained to me yet why your "freedom" to bring your pop gun into Walmart should trump my freedom to shop w/o concern that that idiot over there with an AR slung over his shoulder is going to start shooting at the customers.

 

[Cypress]

You're questions are making me uneasy and I'd like you to stop, please. <---See how that works?

The question should be "Are they acting reasonably?" Waving a gun around is against the law. It doesn't matter if I'm dressed like Yosemite Sam at Walmart, if I pull a gun without good reason, I've broken the law. Yes, even in Texas.

Again, why don't you fear that I'm a drunk driver about to cross over into your lane and take out your entire family with a head-on collision at 110MPH+

To me, the distinction is that we as a society collectively agreed to accept the risk of driving cars. That collective decision has been set in stone for 100 years.

We didn't collectively agree to accept the risk of being threatened by people with anger management issues packing 9 mm heat.

 

[Commander Dutch]

Again, guns and cars are not equivalent. Besides, we have laws to protect us against morons who drink and then get behind the wheel. We used to have laws against carrying firearms openly, too.

You haven't explained to me yet why your "freedom" to bring your pop gun into Walmart should trump my freedom to shop w/o concern that that idiot over there with an AR slung over his shoulder is going to start shooting at the customers.

Just as deadly. Laws against shooting people too. This is an emotional issue, not a logical one.

The same reason why you have the freedom to drive 55MPH and frightening all the drivers in the opposite lane.

How many Americans, including children, die each year from car accidents? I guarantee you it's more than those murdered by guns. Suicides don't count.

 

[Commander Dutch]

To me, the distinction is that we as a society collectively agreed to accept the risk of driving cars. That collective decision has been set in stone for 100 years.

We didn't collectively agree to accept the risk of being threatened by people with anger management issues packing 9 mm heat.

Sooo....by your definition, rights are what society claims? Slavery by popular vote? Subjugation of women by the collective social will? Put "White Privilege" up to a vote?

Do we collectively agree to accept the risk of drivers with anger management issues?

Auto fatalities outnumber gun murders by over 2 to 1. If the purpose is to save lives, why not focus on the biggest cause of fatalities?

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/auto-accident/car-accident-deaths/

Car accidents are annually responsible for approximately 1.3 million deaths worldwide, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). In the United States, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) projects there were an estimated 42,915 traffic fatalities in 2021, a 10.5 percent increase compared to 2020 and the highest annual percentage increase in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System’s history.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

Though they tend to get less public attention than gun-related murders, suicides have long accounted for the majority of U.S. gun deaths. In 2020, 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (24,292), while 43% were murders (19,384), according to the CDC. The remaining gun deaths that year were unintentional (535), involved law enforcement (611) or had undetermined circumstances (400).

 

[Commander Dutch]

So would you let a laboratory experiment or mathmatical model dictate to you what freedom and equality means, and how much you can have?

Or would you rather as an individual decide for yourself what freedom and equality mean to you, and allow humans to institute freedom and equality.

I don't have the slightest doubt you would leave freedom and it's scope and implantation to the human mind, which is basically proof that even you believe innate human ideas and intuition are better than laboratory experiments when it comes to freedom, equality, and justice.

That's what he was trying to say but he failed to prove it much less show his work.

 

[Cypress]

That's what he was trying to say but he failed to prove it much less show his work.

I would let engineering principles tell me if a bridge was safe.

I would trust mathmatical models to tell me the properties of gravity.

There is not a snowball's chance in hell anyone on this thread would allow an equation or a mathematical model tell us what freedom is and how much we can have.

It's self evident that there are values, moral principles, and virtues that we are going to reserve to the innate and intuitive ideas of the human mind, and never reduce them to a mechanistic scientific project.

 

[Cypress]

Sooo....by your definition, rights are what society claims? Slavery by popular vote? Subjugation of women by the collective social will? Put "White Privilege" up to a vote?

Do we collectively agree to accept the risk of drivers with anger management issues?

Auto fatalities outnumber gun murders by over 2 to 1. If the purpose is to save lives, why not focus on the biggest cause of fatalities?

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/auto-accident/car-accident-deaths/


https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

Slavery is a violation of natural and civil rights.

Driving a car is not.

There is right to own a pistol or rifle.

There is no constitutional right to conceal and carry.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Just as deadly. Laws against shooting people too. This is an emotional issue, not a logical one.

The same reason why you have the freedom to drive 55MPH and frightening all the drivers in the opposite lane.

How many Americans, including children, die each year from car accidents? I guarantee you it's more than those murdered by guns. Suicides don't count.

Of course it is an emotional issue. You're* terrified of everything so you must bring your gun with you everywhere, even to church. The presence of your gun creates uneasiness and fear in your fellow parishioners, who just wanted to worship in peace**. Why should your fear be more important than theirs?

* Generic you, not you in particular

** Their First Amendment right

 

[Commander Dutch]

I would let engineering principles tell me if a bridge was safe.

I would trust mathmatical models to tell me the properties of gravity.

There is not a snowball's chance in hell anyone on this thread would allow an equation or a mathematical model tell us what freedom is and how much we can have.

It's self evident that there are values, moral principles, and virtues that we are going to reserve to the innate and intuitive ideas of the human mind, and never reduce them to a mechanistic scientific project.

Agreed. While concepts like Freedom and Morality can be studied, trying to scientifically prove them quickly devolves into areas like putting a value on human life, eugenics and the ending starvation by mass murder.