Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: The Spiral of Violence - Page 55







Post#1351 at 09-03-2010 05:05 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-03-2010, 05:05 PM #1351
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Debol19
I guess you just dont like the word "higher" because it makes you uncomfortable. Ok, we will use omniscient because that is neither higher nor lower, its all at once.
Um. That's actually much worse for what you are trying to argue. 'Higher' and 'lower' imply other-ness. The reason you conflate the concept of 'nature' with that of a 'creator' is because you are unwilling to see that 'nature' is not exclusive of anything. It cannot be the creator of itself, and there's nothing else for it to be the creator of.

As for 'omniscient' -- do you even know what that word means? It means 'all-knowing'. It necessarily presupposes a consciousness capable of knowing. To claim that nature is all-knowing is, while an interesting philosophiocal question, in no way related to what we're talking about.
I suspect you were looking for one of the other two Big-O's: Omnipotent (all-powerful), or Omnipresent (existing everywhere). Depending on which you actually meant, we can work to the end of this particular line.

Thomas Jefferson was a "deist" which ,even by your description, puts the rights of man into omniscient "Nature" (hmmm sort of like omniscient "god")
You keep misrepresenting both what Jefferson said, and the meanings of the words he used to describe himself. Why do you do that? The words are pretty straightforward ones; there's no reason to stretch or invent mechanisms by which they mean whatever makes you comfortable -- they already mean something.

It is the very basis of American Liberty. That all men were created by something, whether that be God or Nature (omniscient of course). We are all born equal. And we have human rights that are in-alienable because they were given to us by said "omniscient entity", not Man(government or king).
Of course, your train makes two unjustified jumps.

Your third sentence is, in fact, a point at -- as you call it -- the basis of American Liberty. Your second sentence is pure irrelevance and is in fact not a point made in arguing the case for liberty (no one ever claimed that "All men are created by something, therefore... Liberty!) And your final sentence attempts to make #3 reliant on #2. Logically, it is a simple non-sequitor.

It's also not at all what those guys, you know, said. So there's that, too. Some -- heck, most of them might have been religious. Lots of them may actually have believed that there is a connection between your #3 and #2 (that is, have shared your faith on #4). But when you read what they wrote and said in an official capacity, they were pretty careful not to put that part in. Because it is both logically incoherent, and, ultimately unnecessary. Why introduce an unnecessary weakness into something as important as what they were doing?
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1352 at 09-03-2010 05:35 PM by TnT [at joined Feb 2005 #posts 2,005]
---
09-03-2010, 05:35 PM #1352
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
2,005

Wolfram's [U]A New Kind of Science[/U]

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
People who explain evolution often say that evolution gives the appearance of design. They explain the appearance of design using evolution. But of course, evolution itself is evidence of design if you think about it.
James50
There's a very interesting book, Wolfram's A New Kind of Science, that I'd highly recommend. In it he shows how a very, very simple algorithm, when repeated will generate patterns that go on and on. Most random algorithms terminate themselves or become trivially repeating. But occasionally one will take off and keep going.

One of the fascinating aspects of this is that the patterns that evolve have the shape of many patterns exhibited in nature, like leaves, and insect shapes, etc.

When I read the book I set up similar experiments using a simple Excel spreadsheet, starting up a simple random algorithm that I just made up and then copied it down for many rows, and was able to see similar results. Obviously he does a better job of it in his book's examples.

What it seems to show, bottom line, is that much complexity and much pattern can evolve from the simplest origins of "logic" that exist in the system. IMO it's worth the read.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."







Post#1353 at 09-03-2010 06:14 PM by Tone70 [at Omaha joined Apr 2010 #posts 1,473]
---
09-03-2010, 06:14 PM #1353
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Omaha
Posts
1,473

Quote Originally Posted by The Grey Badger View Post
I think you mean Nehemiah Scudder, don't you?
why yes yes I did If This Goes On—Thanks GB.
"Freedom is not something that the rulers "give" the population...people have immense power potential. It is ultimately their attitudes, behavior, cooperation, and obedience that supply the power to all rulers and hierarchical systems..." - Gene Sharp

"The Occupy protesters are acting like citizens, believing they have the power to change things...that humble people can acquire power when they convince themselves they can." - William Greider







Post#1354 at 09-03-2010 06:29 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
09-03-2010, 06:29 PM #1354
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
People who explain evolution often say that evolution gives the appearance of design. They explain the appearance of design using evolution. But of course, evolution itself is evidence of design if you think about it.
That depends on what you mean by "design," and the nature of what you consider to be the "designer." There is so much waste, pain, and suffering involved in evolution, so many dead ends, and so much cruel death inherent in natural selection, that it could not be the design of any being with compassion.

As for "the appearance of design," I think that arises from the underlying nature of cognition itself, and of how we, as thinking beings, design things. Consider.

The most basic type of "thinking" is trial and error. Try A, entirely at random. Does it work? Yes -- good. Keep going. No -- too bad, you're dead. Next! Given enough trials over enough time, amazingly complex developments can be manifested through this very simple process.

Next level of thinking involves very simple learning. Try A, entirely at random. Does it work? Yes -- good. Next time something similar comes up, do A again.

Next level up from that is to do a lot of the trial and error in the imagination rather than in reality. A problem presents itself. Imagine doing A. Is that likely to work? Yes -- good, let's try it for real. No -- um, let's not do that. It's really at this stage that you get something resembling what we normally call intelligence, but it's still just an embellishment on the basic trial-and-error process that is the root of all intelligence. The use of language and symbol, the construction of theories, the scientific method, all of that sort of thing is further embellishment of the trial and error process.

Any complex system capable of engaging in large numbers of multiple trials is capable of exhibiting results over time that resemble the product of intelligence, because it IS the product of the root process of intelligence. But that doesn't mean it is employing the embellishments of that process that we use as improvements on the basic trial-and-error method. It doesn't mean that a quasi-human or superhuman mind is imagining the outcome and making conscious choices. There is no evidence of that at all.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1355 at 09-03-2010 07:21 PM by Debol1990 [at joined Jul 2010 #posts 734]
---
09-03-2010, 07:21 PM #1355
Join Date
Jul 2010
Posts
734

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Your second sentence is pure irrelevance and is in fact not a point made in arguing the case for liberty (no one ever claimed that "All men are created by something, therefore... Liberty!) And your final sentence attempts to make #3 reliant on #2. Logically, it is a simple non-sequitor.

It's also not at all what those guys, you know, said. So there's that, too. Some -- heck, most of them might have been religious. Lots of them may actually have believed that there is a connection between your #3 and #2 (that is, have shared your faith on #4). But when you read what they wrote and said in an official capacity, they were pretty careful not to put that part in. Because it is both logically incoherent, and, ultimately unnecessary. Why introduce an unnecessary weakness into something as important as what they were doing?
It is not pure irrelevance. The point of the creator weather that be evolution, or a divine being, is simply to remove the responsibility of rights away from humans, to an authority more superior, for the one an only purpose of protecting those rights.

I have already articulated this clearly. The problem you have with this is that you wont allow yourself to see the belief in natural law, philosophy, deism is just as much a religious belief as Judaism or Hinduism. It is simply the explanation of the world that you most agree with.

The funny thing is , if we were just talking ,straight up, if God is real or not, you and I would agree. Because like you, and Jefferson the cycles of nature and evolution satisfy me in an explanation of the universe.

But, this is just another form of a religion. Especially since, even today, the best we can say about how the Big Bang happened is...it just did. The reasoning behind this, which you have trouble understanding is simple:

You ---->governed by----> Natural Law----> law = rules/authority-----> Nature is your authority or your "higher power"

Replace nature with God and Law with Will and bingo-bango-bongo: you have organized religion. IN the end it's the same message, just two separate paths to arrive their.

You are going to respond with "nature has no authority" so there is really nothing more I can do.

P.S your right I should have used omnipresent







Post#1356 at 09-03-2010 07:51 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-03-2010, 07:51 PM #1356
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Debol1990 View Post
It is not pure irrelevance. The point of the creator weather that be evolution, or a divine being, is simply to remove the responsibility of rights away from humans, to an authority more superior, for the one an only purpose of protecting those rights.
Very true. However, the natural law philosophy does not pretend that humans are not the ones responsible for their rights.... In fact, that's sort of one of the core tenets of the whole natural law worldview -- that rights are things of people.

Maybe we've come to the core of your misunderstanding... Did you think that it meant that Rules of human existence were quasi-arbitrarily imposed on human beings by something? That's not what it is at all -- though your continuing viewpoint of nature-as-outside explains pretty well why you would make that mistake.

The concept for natural law in human affairs is absolutely no different from the concept of Newtons' laws of motion in physics. We observe that the universe (or some sub-component of the universe, in whatever context) behaves in a certain way. We deduce patterns in that behavior. Said patterns allow us to make predictions about the behavior of other systems; results tending to match predictions let us name the patterns 'laws'.

"Rights" in natural law are really just one set of initial and ongoing conditions -- to continue the metaphor -- which are expected to result in an outcome of the system of "people" to exhibit the behavior "thriving". Since we're all people and as such understandably biased towards that outcome, we tend to choose to take that set of conditions as an 'ought'.
Ultimately, if someone or someones chose to aim for another set of outcomes (perhaps better might be 'operating states', since there's no endpoint), then natural law would ideally offer him another set of initial and ongoing conditions.

So you see, there's absolutely nothing non-person about it at all.

Does it make sense to you now?
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1357 at 09-04-2010 03:29 AM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
09-04-2010, 03:29 AM #1357
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Very true. However, the natural law philosophy does not pretend that humans are not the ones responsible for their rights.... In fact, that's sort of one of the core tenets of the whole natural law worldview -- that rights are things of people.

Maybe we've come to the core of your misunderstanding... Did you think that it meant that Rules of human existence were quasi-arbitrarily imposed on human beings by something? That's not what it is at all -- though your continuing viewpoint of nature-as-outside explains pretty well why you would make that mistake.

The concept for natural law in human affairs is absolutely no different from the concept of Newtons' laws of motion in physics. We observe that the universe (or some sub-component of the universe, in whatever context) behaves in a certain way. We deduce patterns in that behavior. Said patterns allow us to make predictions about the behavior of other systems; results tending to match predictions let us name the patterns 'laws'.

"Rights" in natural law are really just one set of initial and ongoing conditions -- to continue the metaphor -- which are expected to result in an outcome of the system of "people" to exhibit the behavior "thriving". Since we're all people and as such understandably biased towards that outcome, we tend to choose to take that set of conditions as an 'ought'.
Ultimately, if someone or someones chose to aim for another set of outcomes (perhaps better might be 'operating states', since there's no endpoint), then natural law would ideally offer him another set of initial and ongoing conditions.

So you see, there's absolutely nothing non-person about it at all.

Does it make sense to you now?
I would say that yes, it is entirely possible to have a classically liberal/libertarian philosophy that does not require the existence of a higher power.

But to suggest that the philosophy of the founders of the U.S. did not revolve around a belief in God is simply counter-factual.







Post#1358 at 09-04-2010 12:07 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-04-2010, 12:07 PM #1358
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
But to suggest that the philosophy of the founders of the U.S. did not revolve around a belief in God is simply counter-factual.
Some did, some didn't. I believe the one we were talking about that kicked this whole thing off was Jefferson. He pretty clearly -- at least, if you believe that the things he said about himself, his beliefs, and his philosophy, were true -- was one of the "didn't"s.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1359 at 09-04-2010 12:43 PM by jamesdglick [at Clarksville, TN joined Mar 2007 #posts 2,007]
---
09-04-2010, 12:43 PM #1359
Join Date
Mar 2007
Location
Clarksville, TN
Posts
2,007

Quote Originally Posted by Weave View Post
Of course you [Odin] would say next....of course, if he was a right winger you'd be blaming Beck, Limbaugh or some other talk show host for fanning the flames of hate and ginning up a guy like this...
-We've already got the documentation:

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
I am almost speechless. Republican TERRORISM, that is what this is. Send Limbaugh, Beck, Bachmann, and Palin to Gitmo!
...Didn't happen- a LIE:

Quote Originally Posted by jamesdglick View Post
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/11/census_worker_killing_probe_ne.html

The Census Bureau employee found dead in September killed himself and staged his death to look like a homicide, state and federal law enforcement officials said Tuesday...
Quote Originally Posted by jamesdglick View Post
...While I'm poking you in the eye, I give you the opportunity to re-examine your thoughts and feelings, allowing you the opportunity to grow and learn. Classic Gadfly stuff.

I'm sure I'll find an example...
-Well. That didn't take long:

1335tone ...I stand corrected. My comparison was inapt. You were right. I'm wrong...[/QUOTE]

-Glad to be the Gadfly!

Quote Originally Posted by Tone70 View Post
...However I often scroll through his worst diatribes without reading...
-I can only assume that you did not consider that to be one of my "worst" diatribes. Perhaps only an "ordinary" diatribe?

Quote Originally Posted by Tone70 View Post
...He said Scudder was an insurgent, which pricked up my ears...
-Oops:

Quote Originally Posted by jamesdglick View Post
...Heinlein wrote something similar in 1940 titled If This Goes On, with the recurring charachter of Jeremiah Scudder. THAT at least had a good understanding of how insurgencies work...
...I was unclear there. Scudder was what we would now call a Christian Fundamentalist with a tilt to the KKK. The insurgency in If this Goes On was against the regime he set up. IIRC, Scudder is long dead when the revolt begins.

Quote Originally Posted by The Grey Badger View Post
I think you mean Nehemiah Scudder, don't you?
-Oops!

1335tone ...Jeremiah Scudder? I have that book, might have to read it now...[/QUOTE]

-FWIW, besides If this goes on-, Nehemiah Scudder seems to be a recurring Heinlein charachter, or more precisely, a reference (I don't think you ever actually see him):

http://www.ask.com/wiki/If_This_Goes_On

BTW, Tone, what are you doing with books which you DON't read?

Quote Originally Posted by haymarket martyr View Post
WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.
...So cry many Boomers like Haymarket whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows!







Post#1360 at 09-04-2010 12:57 PM by Tone70 [at Omaha joined Apr 2010 #posts 1,473]
---
09-04-2010, 12:57 PM #1360
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Omaha
Posts
1,473

Quote Originally Posted by jamesdglick View Post
-

...I was unclear there. Scudder was what we would now call a Christian Fundamentalist with a tilt to the KKK. The insurgency in If this Goes On was against the regime he set up. IIRC, Scudder is long dead when the revolt begins.


1335tone ...Jeremiah Scudder? I have that book, might have to read it now...

-FWIW, besides If this goes on-, Nehemiah Scudder seems to be a recurring Heinlein charachter, or more precisely, a reference (I don't think you ever actually see him):

http://www.ask.com/wiki/If_This_Goes_On

BTW, Tone, what are you doing with books which you DON't read?

Picked it up when I was reading fiction but switched to non-fiction before I had a chance. Also his stuff is "classic" so I though what the heck when I could get it for 50 cents.

By my research yesterday, yes he was in other stories and was the planned character in at least one that wasn't written. The character is not entirely contiguous though. In one story he's apparently stopped from taking power by "libertarians". On a side note, I had no idea Heinlein was such a sex freak! Stranger in a strange land, I remember, opened my eyes to the social construction of jealousy but this book is, to me, beyond the pale.
"Freedom is not something that the rulers "give" the population...people have immense power potential. It is ultimately their attitudes, behavior, cooperation, and obedience that supply the power to all rulers and hierarchical systems..." - Gene Sharp

"The Occupy protesters are acting like citizens, believing they have the power to change things...that humble people can acquire power when they convince themselves they can." - William Greider







Post#1361 at 09-05-2010 06:09 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-05-2010, 06:09 PM #1361
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Montana Tea Party President Condones Violence Against Gays in Facebook Post Supporting Traditional Marriage

So much for "we don't hate gay people, we just support traditional marriage".
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1362 at 09-07-2010 11:45 AM by jamesdglick [at Clarksville, TN joined Mar 2007 #posts 2,007]
---
09-07-2010, 11:45 AM #1362
Join Date
Mar 2007
Location
Clarksville, TN
Posts
2,007

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/09/montana-tea-party-president-condones-violence-against-gays-in-facebook-post-supporting-traditional-m.html

This seems to have been posted in late July, but several people have brought it to my attention today. Tim Ravndal, the President of Montana's Big Sky Tea Party Association, expressed his views that marriage should be between a man and a woman in a Facebook posting. The post was in response to an ACLU lawsuit in Montana brought by seven gay couples who want to get married.

Then Ravndal expressed support for a commenter who (in apparent reference to the Matthew Shepard murder) said, "I think fruits are decorative. Hang up where they can be seen and appreciated. Call Wyoming for display instructions."

Answered Ravndal: "Where can I get that Wyoming printed instruction manual?"



-Again, you seem to be very concerned about acts of violence which don't occur, but strangley silent of those which do:

Quote Originally Posted by jamesdglick View Post
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/10/have_you_heard_ken_gladneys_story_97836.html

...Last week, a black gentleman named Kenneth Gladney went to a town-hall meeting hosted by Rep. Russ Carnahan, Missouri Democrat. While passing out "Don't Tread on Me" flags, he was viciously attacked by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members. One called him a "nigger."
...or...

Quote Originally Posted by jamesdglick View Post
-http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20100409hate_speech_hypocrisy_from_afl-cio_chief/

“Union protester attacks Tea Partier at Fort Lauderdale Townhall Meeting.”
...or...

Quote Originally Posted by Tone70 View Post
...By my research yesterday, yes he was in other stories and was the planned character in at least one that wasn't written. The character is not entirely contiguous though. In one story he's apparently stopped from taking power by "libertarians"...
-Us, the Living.

The charachters are sort of contiguous- they're just in different "alternate timelines", as explained in To Sail into the Sunset. For example, FDR was a president in 6 different timelines, but in one, he died in late 1940 while playing tennis. However, if you believe this:

Quote Originally Posted by Tone70 View Post
...I had no idea Heinlein was such a sex freak! Stranger in a strange land, I remember, opened my eyes to the social construction of jealousy but this book is, to me, beyond the pale.
...then I'd stay away from To Sail into the Sunset . That IS freaky. Which, of course, means you'll go right out and read it.







Post#1363 at 09-07-2010 12:41 PM by Debol1990 [at joined Jul 2010 #posts 734]
---
09-07-2010, 12:41 PM #1363
Join Date
Jul 2010
Posts
734

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post

The concept for natural law in human affairs is absolutely no different from the concept of Newtons' laws of motion in physics.
The problem with Human laws being constants is that they are not constants. They are arbitrary. True natural law does not require liberty at all, only that you can try to survive long enough to reproduce.

And that philosophy self defeats in the process of creating inalienable human rights. Dare I say it we hold human life and free will in a 'spiritual way' and consider it sacred above the lives of almost all other living things. People who do not are considered somewhat crazy or radical.

The basic premise of the declaration means nothing without some form of authority, because it is arbitrary. Their is no freedom, or private property, or any of that stuff; we created it, and that is ok as long as your philosophy does not allow human beings to take that away from you.

Most human beings have lived their lives in bondage, subservient to a form of alpha-male. (king/emperor/ the state). A state of "natural law" reverts to that animalistic hierarchy without the belief in some form of higher authority.

Do you see why I find that philosophy self defeating? Im sure Jefferson, even if he believed in "natural law" would have understood this. And I assume he did because he used God while creating the declaration. Obviously, most of the founding fathers were intelligent guys. But they didn't have the availability of knowledge and understanding of today. Since they could not look to evolution as the cause for our greatness in 1770, they choose the most logical answer at the time, which is a divine creator.

That doesn't make our country bad, or anti-intellectual. It was very advanced and forward thinking for the time.







Post#1364 at 09-07-2010 02:21 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-07-2010, 02:21 PM #1364
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Debol1990 View Post
The problem with Human laws being constants is that they are not constants. They are arbitrary. True natural law does not require liberty at all, only that you can try to survive long enough to reproduce.
Factually untrue.

Human beings are a certain way. There are certain conditions which are conducive, objectively, to our sustained success. Those conditions are not arbitrary (any moreso than the universe in general is arbitrary). One of the ways that human beings are is not just purely organisms. We can reproduce not only the information in our genes, but the information of our environment.

----tangent warning----
In fact, it is the nature of our environment which truly sets us apart from 'the rest' of the animal kingdom. Consider this fact: People are social animals. The words in this sentence have the exact same relation to each other and to reality as do the ones in the sentence: Fish are aquatic animals. That is, the environment in which people are able to exist and thrive is, before anything else, society. As with fish, which can be salt-water, fresh-water, a-bit-of-both-water, or salmon -- as well as having optimum qualities of temperature, light, pressure, and other non-salt mineral concentrations -- the qualities of a society in which a people find themselves can be more or less conducive to their thriving. But what is truly unique is that, while fish have their environment imposed on them, people can to a very large extent make and control their environment. Nevertheless, it remains to people just as water is to fish.
----end tangent----

The assumption that genetic information is somehow superior to the other forms of information which people exist to perpetuate is baseless. Once you look at people for what they are, instead of simplifying them down to 'animals', you can begin to see how the assumption upon which that last sentence of yours I quoted is based is completely wrong.

The rest of your post is you simply reiterating your tragic misunderstanding of what the hell people are talking about when they use the concept 'natural law'. I'd suggest that you educate yourself on the matter, but I fear that might go against your inclination -- at least as hinted at by the discussion so far.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1365 at 09-07-2010 02:48 PM by Debol1990 [at joined Jul 2010 #posts 734]
---
09-07-2010, 02:48 PM #1365
Join Date
Jul 2010
Posts
734

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Factually untrue.

The assumption that genetic information is somehow superior to the other forms of information which people exist to perpetuate is baseless. Once you look at people for what they are, instead of simplifying them down to 'animals', you can begin to see how the assumption upon which that last sentence of yours I quoted is based is completely wrong.

You have just agreed with my point. We hold Human Beings in "spiritual light" We are indeed just animals. Our only reason for existence is to reproduce, to claim we are anything more than exceptionally smart apes is, to some degree, a religious belief.

I don't know much of natural law(but, this has certainly peaked my interest and ill check it out), but from what you have explained (especially just now) is that even "natural law" considers Humans to be something more then 'Just animals'

This goes against the idea of nature not being higher or lower. Their must be a hirearchy if Humans are 'more' then other organisms. What has decided that human beings are "better" in some way? Evolution, of course! Evolution is nature (how it works on a long term basis) thus it is your authority or, "higher power"

So as I said before, Natural Law, Deism, Catholicism, they are all religious beliefs and are all just as much representations of a "creator" as the others. you simply refuse to see it that way, you don't like the idea of a divine entity being your spiritual authority. You are more comfortable with "nature".

And your analogy of People are social animals as fish are aquatic animals is flawed. Fish require water to survive, Humans do not require society to survive. We do better in society, just a fish would do better in a school. But People are land animals is a more accurate analogy in this case.







Post#1366 at 09-07-2010 03:03 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-07-2010, 03:03 PM #1366
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Debol1990 View Post
We are indeed just animals. Our only reason for existence is to reproduce, to claim we are anything more than exceptionally smart apes is, to some degree, a religious belief.
For fuck's sake.

Go back to my post.

Read it. Use your brain and your eyes when you do so.

There's nothing 'religious' or 'spiritual' about recognizing that people are perpetuators not only of genetic information, but of several other forms of information. Homo sap is arguably "just" an animal. People, on the other hand, are not.
And your analogy of People are social animals as fish are aquatic animals is flawed. Fish require water to survive, Humans do not require society to survive. We do better in society, just a fish would do better in a school. But People are land animals is a more accurate analogy in this case.
You are doing what all religionists do in this case -- conflating homo sapiens with 'people'. There is some degree of overlap between the categories, but they are most emphatically not the same thing. Homo sap is a terrestrial animal (they actually do pretty well in wet areas as well as in deserts and up way high in the mountains and in trees, etc, etc... they've got a pretty damn wide range). But ethics isn't about animals -- it's about people. And People are social animals. People cannot exist outside of a social context. In the exact way the analogy was stated.

---another aside---
What is the difference between 'people' and 'homo sap'? Easily enough demonstrated. I presume (this being the Inter Nets and all) that you have seen Star Wars. Was Chewbacca in the context of that story a 'person'? Then you yourself see how persons are more than just homo sap. How about C3PO? Then you yourself see how persons potentially encompass even inorganic stuff. This is not a religious concept, or anything that relies on a 'spirit' or 'soul'. It is simply an observation of the way a thing interacts with other things. One need not believe in souls to observe that some things interact with volitional actors as a volitional actor themselves, and other things as animate or inanimate objects. The 'why' of that simply-observable fact is irrelevant. People have been making up stories about the 'why' for as long as there have been people -- maybe they always will do the same. But ANY 'why' would be potentially compatible with an understanding of the laws governing the thriving of persons. It's a self-serving myth on the part of some superstitions that their "why" is more fundamental and/or more true than any others.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1367 at 09-09-2010 03:00 AM by Debol1990 [at joined Jul 2010 #posts 734]
---
09-09-2010, 03:00 AM #1367
Join Date
Jul 2010
Posts
734

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
For fuck's sake.

Go back to my post.

Read it. Use your brain and your eyes when you do so.
I have read your posts and understand them!

I have explained this before. I am not religious. In fact through this discussion you have uncovered my opinion. Which is that Humans are exceptionally smart animals, the best to have evolved on earth thus far. The only religion I follow is that of science and evolution.

You dislike the notion, personally, that certain thinkers of the enlightenment era were religious. Specifically Diests, for whatever reason you feel like these men being of a religious persuasion somehow hurts their message and/or your personal philosophy.

As someone with no religion I say it does not. And based on your opinion of humans being more then animals, you have a more religious belief then myself. This is certainly ironic considering I am less spiritual then you, yet arguing on the behalf of religion.

Which brings me back to the assertion I had earlier, which is you simply don't like that christian beliefs were responsible for the foundation of the country. Which is why I asked if it would have been better for some other form (like natural law, the one you prefer).

Obviously we are at an impasse, where you cannot or will not separate your own bias from historical fact.

I will gladly keep talking to you because I like having my opinions challenged and what-not but I'd prefer to stop hijacking this thread so PM me if you want

-Thanks!







Post#1368 at 09-30-2010 08:43 PM by jpatrick [at Venice Beach CA joined Dec 2009 #posts 228]
---
09-30-2010, 08:43 PM #1368
Join Date
Dec 2009
Location
Venice Beach CA
Posts
228

Time 'zine article
Locked and Loaded: The Secret World of Extreme Militias
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...022516,00.html

Within a complex web of ideologies, most of today's armed radicals are linked by self-described Patriot beliefs, which emphasize resistance to tyranny by force of arms and reject the idea that elections can fix what ails the country. Among the most common convictions is that the Second Amendment — the right to keep and bear arms — is the Constitution's cornerstone, because only a well-armed populace can enforce its rights. Any form of gun regulation, therefore, is a sure sign of intent to crush other freedoms. The federal government is often said in militia circles to have made wholesale seizures of power, at times by subterfuge.
Investigators are keeping a wary eye on a related trend, which has yet to progress beyond words, in which law officers and military service members vow to refuse or resist orders they deem unconstitutional. About a dozen county sheriffs and several candidates for sheriff in the midterm elections have threatened to arrest federal agents in their jurisdictions.












Post#1369 at 10-02-2010 12:59 AM by Poodle [at Doghouse joined May 2010 #posts 1,269]
---
10-02-2010, 12:59 AM #1369
Join Date
May 2010
Location
Doghouse
Posts
1,269

Quote Originally Posted by Tone70 View Post
On a side note, I had no idea Heinlein was such a sex freak! Stranger in a strange land, I remember, opened my eyes to the social construction of jealousy but this book is, to me, beyond the pale.
You *just* discovered this?

This, and his Elite Warrior Fallacy are among his many failings.







Post#1370 at 10-05-2010 12:30 AM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
10-05-2010, 12:30 AM #1370
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Islamophobes go nuts

The construction of a community center and mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, has garnered more attention due to the extreme rhetoric and actions of the project’s opponents. The ARF and FBI are investigating an arson attack, a Republican congressional candidate dubbed it an “Islamic training center,” protesters said Muslims “are out to overthrow this government and this country” and another detractor shouted at a Muslim woman, “our constitution doesn’t apply to you.”

And now opponents are asking a judge to overrule the zoning board, claiming Muslims do not have the right to build houses of worship since Islam is not in fact a religion but a traitorous, anti-American political movement.

This radical argument echoes the statements of Tennessee’s Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey, who said that “could even argue whether that being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, cult or whatever you want to call it.”

The Tennessean reports on the novel and radical arguments of the mosque’s opponents:
Mosque opponents say that Islam is not a real religion. Instead, they argued in a Rutherford County courthouse last week that the world's second largest faith, with its 1.6 billion followers, is actually a political movement.

Opponents say local Muslims want to replace the Constitution with an Islamic legal code called Shariah law. Joe Brandon Jr., a Smyrna attorney representing a group of mosque opponents, argued that the proposed mosque is not a house of worship. He said the Rutherford County Planning Commission erred on May 24 when it approved the mosque.

Brandon wants Chancellor Robert Corlew of the 16th Judicial District to issue an injunction stopping the mosque.

"Shariah law is pure sedition," said Brandon in his opening statement Monday.
This crap is getting out of hand.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1371 at 10-05-2010 12:39 AM by Rose1992 [at Syracuse joined Sep 2008 #posts 1,833]
---
10-05-2010, 12:39 AM #1371
Join Date
Sep 2008
Location
Syracuse
Posts
1,833

Reminds me of the WWII anti-Japanese sentiment in the Seattle area that I'm researching for part of my IB paper.







Post#1372 at 10-05-2010 10:17 AM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
10-05-2010, 10:17 AM #1372
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Quote Originally Posted by Rose1992 View Post
Reminds me of the WWII anti-Japanese sentiment in the Seattle area that I'm researching for part of my IB paper.
Rose, may I have some more information on that? Was there actually anti-Japanese violence? My impression was that the internment owed a lot of California politicians and to genuine (if not accurate) military fears about sabotage, not that it was mob-driven like today's anti-Muslim riots. But I certainly could be wrong! Thanks;







Post#1373 at 10-05-2010 10:30 AM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
10-05-2010, 10:30 AM #1373
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
Rose, may I have some more information on that? Was there actually anti-Japanese violence? My impression was that the internment owed a lot of California politicians and to genuine (if not accurate) military fears about sabotage, not that it was mob-driven like today's anti-Muslim riots. But I certainly could be wrong! Thanks;
I have some anecdotal information. My mother (born 1922) grew up in Seattle. She went to the University of Washington when she was 16, graduated in 1942, and married my father (in the Navy from Atlanta) in August, 1942.

My grandfather was a physician in Seattle. They had a Japanese housekeeper. She was interned after Pearl Harbor. My mother said years later that it was a great injustice and that this lady was as American as could be. She was simply dumbfounded the way events unfolded. They tried to help her, but to no avail. Based on this story, I think it is probably accurate to say it was more an issue in CA than WA.

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#1374 at 10-05-2010 01:35 PM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
10-05-2010, 01:35 PM #1374
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

(In response to Odin's article)

Ridiculous... absolutely ridiculous...

~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#1375 at 10-05-2010 07:18 PM by Rose1992 [at Syracuse joined Sep 2008 #posts 1,833]
---
10-05-2010, 07:18 PM #1375
Join Date
Sep 2008
Location
Syracuse
Posts
1,833

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
Rose, may I have some more information on that? Was there actually anti-Japanese violence? My impression was that the internment owed a lot of California politicians and to genuine (if not accurate) military fears about sabotage, not that it was mob-driven like today's anti-Muslim riots. But I certainly could be wrong! Thanks;
Not exactly violent, but those that advocated for Japanese removal used similar rhetoric to justify it.
-----------------------------------------