Where does morality come from? Does our duty to support the continuance of the human race dictate our morality? Is there some universal moral code? Is it simply a product of culture? Discuss.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 31 2012, 03:23 PM)
Where does morality come from? Does our duty to support the continuance of the human race dictate our morality? Is there some universal moral code? Is it simply a product of culture? Discuss.
O.K. you have little snips at the end of the d.n.a. chain like a punch card . When they are all punched out you stop reproduction of your self . The best way to prolong the inevitable using up of these punch cards is by living in more relaxed states of being like you get from mediation. You slow the rate of the punching of the cards
That was a simplistic view .
When you reach a certain age your body slows down its replication abilities . Now there is a compound that will excite the cells into reproducing like a young person but it has not been figured out how to incorporate into the human body yet or we would have vastly extended lives by this compound . It mimics the bodies natural ability to send the signal to reproduce cells . It is to toxic and would eat the lining out of you stomach if ingested so you can see the problem that has to be over come still .
That information was from a medical journal in a doctors office in the early eighties . I read medical journals too you know . When I got time on my hands that is
O.K. you have little snips at the end of the d.n.a. chain like a punch card . When they are all punched out you stop reproduction of your self . The best way to prolong the inevitable using up of these punch cards is by living in more relaxed states of being like you get from mediation. You slow the rate of the punching of the cards
That was a simplistic view .
When you reach a certain age your body slows down its replication abilities . Now there is a compound that will excite the cells into reproducing like a young person but it has not been figured out how to incorporate into the human body yet or we would have vastly extended lives by this compound . It mimics the bodies natural ability to send the signal to reproduce cells . It is to toxic and would eat the lining out of you stomach if ingested so you can see the problem that has to be over come still .
That information was from a medical journal in a doctors office in the early eighties . I read medical journals too you know . When I got time on my hands that is
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 31 2012, 01:10 PM)
O.K. you have little snips at the end of the d.n.a. chain like a punch card . When they are all punched out you stop reproduction of your self . The best way to prolong the inevitable using up of these punch cards is by living in more relaxed states of being like you get from mediation. You slow the rate of the punching of the cards
Has this user said anything that is not insane?
Has this user said anything that is not insane?
Morality? 
I view the aforementioned as merely a subjective mindframe. At it's core, is survival .... anything which generally enhances human survival we label good, anything opposed, evil.
Yup, that simple.
I view the aforementioned as merely a subjective mindframe. At it's core, is survival .... anything which generally enhances human survival we label good, anything opposed, evil.
Yup, that simple.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 31 2012, 05:33 PM)
Has this user said anything that is not insane?
I did not make that up . Go talk to the 12ers . It was on a documentary on the discovery channel .
I may have polluted it a little by my own twist but the information is still in tact . Except it should say meditation instead of mediation . Although it might take some mediation to get the job done
Im not insane ! quit saying that . Your insane . How do you like it . Being insane that is
I can see you have not discovered the hidden language predicated by circles of influence yet . That probably sounds insane to you too . You know the Memetic Genius Brodie who helped make Micro Soft Great is my dog . Yeah ! or I should say rather that my dogs name was Brodie . 2 Brandings in one post . I am on a roll today
But you probably have no clue what I am talking about when I say Branding either . Your education has to be at a certain level to understand that . Course you probably know nothing about marketing and triggers that torment consumers either . I imagine you are one of the tormented consumers
I did not make that up . Go talk to the 12ers . It was on a documentary on the discovery channel .
I may have polluted it a little by my own twist but the information is still in tact . Except it should say meditation instead of mediation . Although it might take some mediation to get the job done
Im not insane ! quit saying that . Your insane . How do you like it . Being insane that is
I can see you have not discovered the hidden language predicated by circles of influence yet . That probably sounds insane to you too . You know the Memetic Genius Brodie who helped make Micro Soft Great is my dog . Yeah ! or I should say rather that my dogs name was Brodie . 2 Brandings in one post . I am on a roll today
But you probably have no clue what I am talking about when I say Branding either . Your education has to be at a certain level to understand that . Course you probably know nothing about marketing and triggers that torment consumers either . I imagine you are one of the tormented consumers
QUOTE (Lady Elizabeth+May 31 2012, 02:06 PM)
I view the aforementioned as merely a subjective mindframe. At it's core, is survival .... anything which generally enhances human survival we label good, anything opposed, evil.
How does philanthropy fit into that? What about moral prohibitions against sexuality? I don't think it's as clear as plain survival. What about group survival at the expense of other groups?
What about eugenics?
How does philanthropy fit into that? What about moral prohibitions against sexuality? I don't think it's as clear as plain survival. What about group survival at the expense of other groups?
What about eugenics?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 31 2012, 06:22 PM)
How does philanthropy fit into that? What about moral prohibitions against sexuality? I don't think it's as clear as plain survival. What about group survival at the expense of other groups?
What about eugenics?
You are going to be so surprised to find out there really is an underground culture that exists in plain sight . An alternate existence that will blow your mind and they crowned Me king of that Culture. We live among you every where . Watch out one of us might jump out in front of you and say boo . Don't run us over with your car please
What about eugenics?
You are going to be so surprised to find out there really is an underground culture that exists in plain sight . An alternate existence that will blow your mind and they crowned Me king of that Culture. We live among you every where . Watch out one of us might jump out in front of you and say boo . Don't run us over with your car please
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 31 2012, 06:22 PM)
How does philanthropy fit into that? What about moral prohibitions against sexuality? I don't think it's as clear as plain survival. What about group survival at the expense of other groups?
What about eugenics?
What do you mean by "moral prohibition of sexuality" ?
Do you mean to say sexuality is not moral ?
Sexual prohibition is over . If you don't think so try googling " Sex Pron Hub and go watch a bunch of black men pull a train on a pregnant white girl . Then tell Me there is still moral prohibition . Na I say , or join the Granni wants it site and talk to a few Grannies that need some loving.
Your insane . Not Me . I didn't invent that stuff and I certainly don't believe in prohibition of any thing except maybe stealing and murder with out just cause. Certainly not Sexual Prohibition .
Are you one of those Homo Haters or something ?
Strike King and put in Queen .
I give in women . Except I only like to have sex full blown penetration with girls , not Men . The whole going to California to look for a girl with flowers in her hair is a miss interpretation of Gal . Like Frag did @ Sciforum when he first encountered Me .
He thought I was a woman because of my name . He hit on me . To funny . You should not have let them ban Me frag . Your never going to live that down now . I had pretty much let that go until now . Never now
What about eugenics?
What do you mean by "moral prohibition of sexuality" ?
Do you mean to say sexuality is not moral ?
Sexual prohibition is over . If you don't think so try googling " Sex Pron Hub and go watch a bunch of black men pull a train on a pregnant white girl . Then tell Me there is still moral prohibition . Na I say , or join the Granni wants it site and talk to a few Grannies that need some loving.
Your insane . Not Me . I didn't invent that stuff and I certainly don't believe in prohibition of any thing except maybe stealing and murder with out just cause. Certainly not Sexual Prohibition .
Are you one of those Homo Haters or something ?
Strike King and put in Queen .
I give in women . Except I only like to have sex full blown penetration with girls , not Men . The whole going to California to look for a girl with flowers in her hair is a miss interpretation of Gal . Like Frag did @ Sciforum when he first encountered Me .
He thought I was a woman because of my name . He hit on me . To funny . You should not have let them ban Me frag . Your never going to live that down now . I had pretty much let that go until now . Never now
To give an example, consider the moral makeup of the United States. There are at least two moral frameworks competing with each other. You have the American sense of personal liberty, which states that people can do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't adversely affect others. You also have the Christian moral framework, which emphasizes charity, piety and a distaste for sexuality that is not solely the purpose of procreation.
Can anyone think of other notable moral frameworks?
Can anyone think of other notable moral frameworks?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 2 2012, 01:58 PM)
To give an example, consider the moral makeup of the United States. There are at least two moral frameworks competing with each other. You have the American sense of personal liberty, which states that people can do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't adversely affect others. You also have the Christian moral framework, which emphasizes charity, piety and a distaste for sexuality that is not solely the purpose of procreation.
Not exactly, on the procreation thing, unless you're talking about the catholic church or some weird fringe elements.
Even the Bible most certainly does NOT go that far at all.
1 Corinthians 7;3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
Look at that, Paul was the first male FEMINIST. Seriously. *Gasp* the original church teaching was equality in marriage. The existing paradigm for about the past 1800 years SINCE THEN has been a heresy...
5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
In fact, that pretty well says the opposite. Defraud not except by consent for fasting and prayer....Wow.
Nowhere in here is anyone required to have as many offspring as possible, or forbid measures to lower the rate of offspring for reasonable sized families. That is a heretical teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
"Wisdom is the principle thing, therefore get wisdom and with all your getting, get understanding."
If that's the case, it is not wise to have more children than you can reasonably afford to raise, whether that is zero, one, or 5 or more, it depends on the couple.
Not exactly, on the procreation thing, unless you're talking about the catholic church or some weird fringe elements.
Even the Bible most certainly does NOT go that far at all.
1 Corinthians 7;3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
Look at that, Paul was the first male FEMINIST. Seriously. *Gasp* the original church teaching was equality in marriage. The existing paradigm for about the past 1800 years SINCE THEN has been a heresy...
5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
In fact, that pretty well says the opposite. Defraud not except by consent for fasting and prayer....Wow.
Nowhere in here is anyone required to have as many offspring as possible, or forbid measures to lower the rate of offspring for reasonable sized families. That is a heretical teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
"Wisdom is the principle thing, therefore get wisdom and with all your getting, get understanding."
If that's the case, it is not wise to have more children than you can reasonably afford to raise, whether that is zero, one, or 5 or more, it depends on the couple.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 31 2012, 10:23 AM)
Where does morality come from? Does our duty to support the continuance of the human race dictate our morality? Is there some universal moral code? Is it simply a product of culture? Discuss.
I believe it is possible to eventually show that "natural morality" and "spiritual morality" are one and the same, or perhaps aspects of the same, even if you cannot see so on the surface.
Love? or more generally Altruism in macroscopic life?
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
"Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends".
these are actually very much the same concepts, both in terms of organisms within the same species, as well as individual cells within the same organism. They work together, they do "good" to one another to benefit the collective, in some cases individual cells or individual organisms give up their life for the collective...
Immune cells die fighting bacteria.
Heros die saving the families from a burning building.
Soldiers die fighting an invading army.
A man might die to save his wife from a rapist, or his children from some assailant.
And so the "Golden Rule" applies for all life, or very nearly all life, within the same species.
anyway, conceptually in nature, a LOT of things within the same species do in fact fall under those definitions or aspects of love, even in a purely natural context.
Although I also admit some things are not so easily fit into that category of love or morality.
Moreover, since everyone agrees that there actually are such things as "good" and "evil" then we know that not everything that happens in nature is "good" and therefore judging what good and evil is in a purely naturalistic manner is more complicated than over-simplifications, and YET it is more pure than necessarily always resorting to reading a man-made law or holy book.
The problem with all holy books are many;
1) You have to believe the author actually existed and the book is not a fraud.
2) You have to believe the real God spoke to the author.
3) You have to believe the author heard properly.
4) You have to believe the author wrote what he heard.
5) You have to believe the scribes and historians preserved the texts accurately and precisely through re-writes and translations over thousands of years.
6) You have to believe your translation is one of those accurate ones and not one of the mistakes.
7) You have to believe your interpretation of the translation is the right one, as opposed to other people's interpretations. The constitution works the same way, as people argue over the INTENT of the laws in the constitution...and everyone has their own opinion, and nobody really knows what to believe most of the time.
8) you have to believe the real God does not fundamentally contradict himself (changing his mind or giving someone a second chance is not a fundamental contradiction unless it otherwise requires such a contradiction *ahem* hard to explain).
I believe it is possible to eventually show that "natural morality" and "spiritual morality" are one and the same, or perhaps aspects of the same, even if you cannot see so on the surface.
Love? or more generally Altruism in macroscopic life?
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
"Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends".
these are actually very much the same concepts, both in terms of organisms within the same species, as well as individual cells within the same organism. They work together, they do "good" to one another to benefit the collective, in some cases individual cells or individual organisms give up their life for the collective...
Immune cells die fighting bacteria.
Heros die saving the families from a burning building.
Soldiers die fighting an invading army.
A man might die to save his wife from a rapist, or his children from some assailant.
And so the "Golden Rule" applies for all life, or very nearly all life, within the same species.
anyway, conceptually in nature, a LOT of things within the same species do in fact fall under those definitions or aspects of love, even in a purely natural context.
Although I also admit some things are not so easily fit into that category of love or morality.
Moreover, since everyone agrees that there actually are such things as "good" and "evil" then we know that not everything that happens in nature is "good" and therefore judging what good and evil is in a purely naturalistic manner is more complicated than over-simplifications, and YET it is more pure than necessarily always resorting to reading a man-made law or holy book.
The problem with all holy books are many;
1) You have to believe the author actually existed and the book is not a fraud.
2) You have to believe the real God spoke to the author.
3) You have to believe the author heard properly.
4) You have to believe the author wrote what he heard.
5) You have to believe the scribes and historians preserved the texts accurately and precisely through re-writes and translations over thousands of years.
6) You have to believe your translation is one of those accurate ones and not one of the mistakes.
7) You have to believe your interpretation of the translation is the right one, as opposed to other people's interpretations. The constitution works the same way, as people argue over the INTENT of the laws in the constitution...and everyone has their own opinion, and nobody really knows what to believe most of the time.
8) you have to believe the real God does not fundamentally contradict himself (changing his mind or giving someone a second chance is not a fundamental contradiction unless it otherwise requires such a contradiction *ahem* hard to explain).
Under "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"...
That could actually justify quite a few things which were literally "banned" under the other parts of the Bible, for example.
That could actually justify quite a few things which were literally "banned" under the other parts of the Bible, for example.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jun 2 2012, 05:52 PM)
Not exactly, on the procreation thing, unless you're talking about the catholic church or some weird fringe elements.
Note that I didn't say Biblical morality, just Christian morality. In the USA, Christian morality is heavily influenced by the country's Puritan heritage, to the point where parents refuse to educate their children about sex. Sure, it varies church-by-church, but the Christian zeitgeist holds that depictions of and discussions about sex are practically taboo.
Paul's writings have been used to justify misogyny for as long as the Church has existed. Even if that's not what Paul truly felt, he certainly wasn't very careful with his wording.
Note that I didn't say Biblical morality, just Christian morality. In the USA, Christian morality is heavily influenced by the country's Puritan heritage, to the point where parents refuse to educate their children about sex. Sure, it varies church-by-church, but the Christian zeitgeist holds that depictions of and discussions about sex are practically taboo.
QUOTE
Even the Bible most certainly does NOT go that far at all.
1 Corinthians 7;3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
Look at that, Paul was the first male FEMINIST. Seriously. *Gasp* the original church teaching was equality in marriage. The existing paradigm for about the past 1800 years SINCE THEN has been a heresy...
1 Corinthians 7;3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
Look at that, Paul was the first male FEMINIST. Seriously. *Gasp* the original church teaching was equality in marriage. The existing paradigm for about the past 1800 years SINCE THEN has been a heresy...
Paul's writings have been used to justify misogyny for as long as the Church has existed. Even if that's not what Paul truly felt, he certainly wasn't very careful with his wording.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jun 2 2012, 06:18 PM)
I believe it is possible to eventually show that "natural morality" and "spiritual morality" are one and the same, or perhaps aspects of the same, even if you cannot see so on the surface.
Trying to insist that they are one and the same is going to get you in trouble. What happens when someone tries to take the "naturally moral" survival of the fittest and try to argue that it's spiritual as well?
I think it's important to pick these things apart, instead of trying to wrap them all in some kind of divine wrapper. Different people have different moral codes, and it helps to know why.
Trying to insist that they are one and the same is going to get you in trouble. What happens when someone tries to take the "naturally moral" survival of the fittest and try to argue that it's spiritual as well?
I think it's important to pick these things apart, instead of trying to wrap them all in some kind of divine wrapper. Different people have different moral codes, and it helps to know why.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jun 2 2012, 06:27 PM)
Under "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"...
That could actually justify quite a few things which were literally "banned" under the other parts of the Bible, for example.
Like homosexuality?
That could actually justify quite a few things which were literally "banned" under the other parts of the Bible, for example.
Like homosexuality?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 2 2012, 07:35 PM)
Like homosexuality?
I didn't say that.
put it this way, without context one cannot determine an absolute.
Even absolute morality has "exceptions" in the form of if/then/else sort of situations.
Also, the "survival of the fittest" argument doesn't work because that is a cross-species situation, moreover, altruism often benefits the species as much or more than competition within the species. Just look at humans, war is usually a waste of resources. Unfortunately, even war can produce a net good, in the case of ousting an evil dictator who oppresses his own people (which was a near miss in my thinking and caused me to rewrite what I was saying.)
It also seems unlikely for higher intelligence to exist without "animals," as there's no evidence of any plants having such attributes, and a mobile plant would require tremendous amounts of energy, therefore "animals" who eat plants and other animals are probably necessary for mobile, higher intelligence to exist, because you need mitochondria to power muscle groups, including the heart, even if you could somehow get a brain without an animal body.
The brain runs on Oxygen. Running a brain on CO2 might be possible, theoretically, but it would seem to be limited to the solar energy available to the plant or plant-like animal, which is limited to daylight and surface area. Therefore, a "plant-like animal," or rather, an "animal-like plant," like in science fiction, is probably impossible, since photosynthesis probably could not keep the brain alive at night time.
THEREFORE in order for intelligence to exist it must be at LEAST an animal herbivore.
Therefore the destruction of some organisms by others for food is a necessity for intelligent, mobile life to exist and to be maintained.
You could have an intelligent plant species, I suppose, but they'd need to be able to grow very, very huge surface area and live a very long time, since their experiences would be limited to their location of birth, they would not grow in knowledge or experience much at all, even over very long times, which prevents any "selection" based on such intelligence anyway, because it's questionable in what way an intelligent plant would apply that intelligence to benefit it's own survival, unless it had limbs or acid glands or some crap it could consciously use to defend itself intelligently, through foresight, as opposed to simple stimuli.
====
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
If I was a Syrian opposition member right now, I'd wish somebody in the outside world would give a damn and help me.
I hate to say this, but I've been around gay guys on a few occasions before, and it completely creeps me out. It is not "homophobia" it is a complete natural revulsion, that works almost like some sixth sense or something.
I'm not "afraid" of a gay guy. I am utterly disgusted by it at some primal level of conscience. It offends me.
It's worse than the 400lbs obese woman who thinks she's attractive, when in reality she's absolutely repulsive and delusional.
I'm at 210 to 215lbs right now, depending on clothing and fluid levels, and when I look in the mirror I hate the way my fat belly exists and wish I could lose 25 to 30 lbs of fat and fluid ASAP, because it's bad thing..
...it's like that.
When a person is ill, telling them the truth is what they need, just as when I was ill my doctor gave me a piece of his mind about my blood pressure and cholesterol.
As it happens, my having said this offends you.
So we both offend one another, and this is a case where "do unto others..." fails by itself, and needs further qualification, because I would "have" someone tell me the truth about their position, even if it offended me.
If gays were instead straight, neither of us would be offended, and the natural productive order of humanity would be preserved.
If straights were instead gay, maybe nobody is offended, but the natural productive order would not exist, and humanity would die out. Now you tried to counter that by pointing out bisexuality and stuff, but the point is still true.
If Gays were instead truly straight equals nobody offended and no problems.
The same cannot be said for the reverse scenario.
Therefore, a combination of naturalism and the "golden rule" still shows heterosexuality to be strictly superior to homosexuality.
Homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder, just like psychosis and psychopathy, but the political correctness movement gradually broke down that standard.
If I was ill, I'd want someone to cure me, and since homosexuality was always considered a sin and / or illness for countless generations, you should see the point.
It's kind of like commercial ads on television. You can tell any lie you want to about your product in order to sell it in the modern world, just as long as it isn't true! If your claim is not true, the FDA won't bother you. If your claim is true and the product works, you will eventually get sued over it's side effects.
example:
Raspberry Keytone does not cause weight loss in humans, yet it's perfectly legal for companies to make a product of Raspberry keytone and market it as a weight loss product with that being the alleged active ingredient, even though it is absolutely known to be a complete lie.
or
"Seven in ten doctors prescribe product X over product Y," and their competitor says the opposite is true!
Moral of the story is lying to yourself or others about your "product" or your condition also doesn't meet the Golden Rule.
So again, if all the gays were instead truly straight, there would be no offense, and the Golden Rule would be maintained by everyone.
I didn't say that.
put it this way, without context one cannot determine an absolute.
Even absolute morality has "exceptions" in the form of if/then/else sort of situations.
Also, the "survival of the fittest" argument doesn't work because that is a cross-species situation, moreover, altruism often benefits the species as much or more than competition within the species. Just look at humans, war is usually a waste of resources. Unfortunately, even war can produce a net good, in the case of ousting an evil dictator who oppresses his own people (which was a near miss in my thinking and caused me to rewrite what I was saying.)
It also seems unlikely for higher intelligence to exist without "animals," as there's no evidence of any plants having such attributes, and a mobile plant would require tremendous amounts of energy, therefore "animals" who eat plants and other animals are probably necessary for mobile, higher intelligence to exist, because you need mitochondria to power muscle groups, including the heart, even if you could somehow get a brain without an animal body.
The brain runs on Oxygen. Running a brain on CO2 might be possible, theoretically, but it would seem to be limited to the solar energy available to the plant or plant-like animal, which is limited to daylight and surface area. Therefore, a "plant-like animal," or rather, an "animal-like plant," like in science fiction, is probably impossible, since photosynthesis probably could not keep the brain alive at night time.
THEREFORE in order for intelligence to exist it must be at LEAST an animal herbivore.
Therefore the destruction of some organisms by others for food is a necessity for intelligent, mobile life to exist and to be maintained.
You could have an intelligent plant species, I suppose, but they'd need to be able to grow very, very huge surface area and live a very long time, since their experiences would be limited to their location of birth, they would not grow in knowledge or experience much at all, even over very long times, which prevents any "selection" based on such intelligence anyway, because it's questionable in what way an intelligent plant would apply that intelligence to benefit it's own survival, unless it had limbs or acid glands or some crap it could consciously use to defend itself intelligently, through foresight, as opposed to simple stimuli.
====
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
If I was a Syrian opposition member right now, I'd wish somebody in the outside world would give a damn and help me.
I hate to say this, but I've been around gay guys on a few occasions before, and it completely creeps me out. It is not "homophobia" it is a complete natural revulsion, that works almost like some sixth sense or something.
I'm not "afraid" of a gay guy. I am utterly disgusted by it at some primal level of conscience. It offends me.
It's worse than the 400lbs obese woman who thinks she's attractive, when in reality she's absolutely repulsive and delusional.
I'm at 210 to 215lbs right now, depending on clothing and fluid levels, and when I look in the mirror I hate the way my fat belly exists and wish I could lose 25 to 30 lbs of fat and fluid ASAP, because it's bad thing..
...it's like that.
When a person is ill, telling them the truth is what they need, just as when I was ill my doctor gave me a piece of his mind about my blood pressure and cholesterol.
As it happens, my having said this offends you.
So we both offend one another, and this is a case where "do unto others..." fails by itself, and needs further qualification, because I would "have" someone tell me the truth about their position, even if it offended me.
If gays were instead straight, neither of us would be offended, and the natural productive order of humanity would be preserved.
If straights were instead gay, maybe nobody is offended, but the natural productive order would not exist, and humanity would die out. Now you tried to counter that by pointing out bisexuality and stuff, but the point is still true.
If Gays were instead truly straight equals nobody offended and no problems.
The same cannot be said for the reverse scenario.
Therefore, a combination of naturalism and the "golden rule" still shows heterosexuality to be strictly superior to homosexuality.
Homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder, just like psychosis and psychopathy, but the political correctness movement gradually broke down that standard.
If I was ill, I'd want someone to cure me, and since homosexuality was always considered a sin and / or illness for countless generations, you should see the point.
It's kind of like commercial ads on television. You can tell any lie you want to about your product in order to sell it in the modern world, just as long as it isn't true! If your claim is not true, the FDA won't bother you. If your claim is true and the product works, you will eventually get sued over it's side effects.
example:
Raspberry Keytone does not cause weight loss in humans, yet it's perfectly legal for companies to make a product of Raspberry keytone and market it as a weight loss product with that being the alleged active ingredient, even though it is absolutely known to be a complete lie.
or
"Seven in ten doctors prescribe product X over product Y," and their competitor says the opposite is true!
Moral of the story is lying to yourself or others about your "product" or your condition also doesn't meet the Golden Rule.
So again, if all the gays were instead truly straight, there would be no offense, and the Golden Rule would be maintained by everyone.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jun 2 2012, 10:56 PM)
I hate to say this, but I've been around gay guys on a few occasions before, and it completely creeps me out. It is not "homophobia" it is a complete natural revulsion, that works almost like some sixth sense or something.
Congratulations, you're homophobic.
Sounds like you need to grow up.
Congratulations, you're homophobic.
QUOTE
I'm not "afraid" of a gay guy. I am utterly disgusted by it at some primal level of conscience. It offends me.
Sounds like you need to grow up.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jun 3 2012, 02:56 AM)
I hate to say this, but I've been around gay guys on a few occasions before, and it completely creeps me out. It is not "homophobia" it is a complete natural revulsion, that works almost like some sixth sense or something.
Me thinks thou doth protest too much
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....den-homosexuals
QUOTE
If straights were instead gay, maybe nobody is offended, but the natural productive order would not exist, and humanity would die out. Now you tried to counter that by pointing out bisexuality and stuff, but the point is still true.
Completely false. We already covered this in another discussion. Exchange of resources and services is a fundamental survival characteristic of all cultures. Gays and lesbians would no doubt take advantage of one another’s unique qualities to ensure that adequate procreation would continue.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If straights were instead gay, maybe nobody is offended, but the natural productive order would not exist, and humanity would die out. Now you tried to counter that by pointing out bisexuality and stuff, but the point is still true. |
Completely false. We already covered this in another discussion. Exchange of resources and services is a fundamental survival characteristic of all cultures. Gays and lesbians would no doubt take advantage of one another’s unique qualities to ensure that adequate procreation would continue.
Homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder, just like psychosis and psychopathy, but the political correctness movement gradually broke down that standard.
If I was ill, I'd want someone to cure me, and since homosexuality was always considered a sin and / or illness for countless generations, you should see the point.
Former political and scientific standards used to classify psychological fitness according to such reliable characteristics as head shape, facial symmetry, and race. Should we long for the return of those standards as well?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 31 2012, 03:23 PM)
Where does morality come from? Does our duty to support the continuance of the human race dictate our morality? Is there some universal moral code? Is it simply a product of culture? Discuss.
Morality is a formalized expression of a particular species of data. Its origin is evolutionary, and like other evolved species, as long as its function is fitting, its existence is perpetual.
Morality is a formalized expression of a particular species of data. Its origin is evolutionary, and like other evolved species, as long as its function is fitting, its existence is perpetual.
Morality comes from the same place math does. Originally, the intuitions evolve, and then we start pro-actively using those intuitions for our benefit. After that, we can figure out how 'morality' works, and learn ways to build upon it that actually needn't ever have real-world applicatin
Previous to that, though, we also evolved instincts. Those instincts evolved to improve our reproductive success. *Some* of those instincts are shoe-horned into moral calculations, and sometimes people don't realise that they're just shoe-horning in instincts when they think they're creating moral reasoning.
Previous to that, though, we also evolved instincts. Those instincts evolved to improve our reproductive success. *Some* of those instincts are shoe-horned into moral calculations, and sometimes people don't realise that they're just shoe-horning in instincts when they think they're creating moral reasoning.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 31 2012, 05:33 PM)
Has this user said anything that is not insane?
You should learn to listen
This user knows what he is talking about
These things are learned from life experience
Harmony is a good life style
Live a stressful life and your jeans will let you know
You should learn to listen
This user knows what he is talking about
These things are learned from life experience
Harmony is a good life style
Live a stressful life and your jeans will let you know
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jun 3 2012, 05:49 PM)
You should learn to listen
This user knows what he is talking about
These things are learned from life experience
Harmony is a good life style
Live a stressful life and your jeans will let you know
You're not one to talk, you have enough communication problems to worry about.
Mekigal's posts can be deciphered given enough time and patience, but that's already a failure on his part. I could write to you in riddles, but that would be an a-hole thing to do.
This user knows what he is talking about
These things are learned from life experience
Harmony is a good life style
Live a stressful life and your jeans will let you know
You're not one to talk, you have enough communication problems to worry about.
Mekigal's posts can be deciphered given enough time and patience, but that's already a failure on his part. I could write to you in riddles, but that would be an a-hole thing to do.
QUOTE (Capracus+Jun 3 2012, 04:59 AM)
Gays and lesbians would no doubt take advantage of one another’s unique qualities to ensure that adequate procreation would continue.
Oh God.
I lol'd at that. Good for some laughs anyway.
So you believe "economics" and the "invisible hand" rule would turn child bearing into a commodity even if everyone was homosexual....
Oh God.
I lol'd at that. Good for some laughs anyway.
So you believe "economics" and the "invisible hand" rule would turn child bearing into a commodity even if everyone was homosexual....
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 3 2012, 10:01 PM)
You're not one to talk, you have enough communication problems to worry about.
Mekigal's posts can be deciphered given enough time and patience, but that's already a failure on his part. I could write to you in riddles, but that would be an a-hole thing to do.
I have no problem communicating why write a book when only a few words are necessary.
I would assume the readers on the other end are intelligent human beings.
If I where talking to a computer then I would have to write specific instructions.
As for Mekigal I just graze over his ramblings and I know he is no idiot!
Mekigal's posts can be deciphered given enough time and patience, but that's already a failure on his part. I could write to you in riddles, but that would be an a-hole thing to do.
I have no problem communicating why write a book when only a few words are necessary.
I would assume the readers on the other end are intelligent human beings.
If I where talking to a computer then I would have to write specific instructions.
As for Mekigal I just graze over his ramblings and I know he is no idiot!
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jun 3 2012, 08:26 PM)
So you believe "economics" and the "invisible hand" rule would turn child bearing into a commodity even if everyone was homosexual....
Gay and lesbian couples often do want children, is this news to you? Ever heard of in-vitro fertilization? Surrogates? The market already exists, albeit for different reasons.
Gay and lesbian couples often do want children, is this news to you? Ever heard of in-vitro fertilization? Surrogates? The market already exists, albeit for different reasons.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jun 4 2012, 12:26 AM)
Oh God.
I lol'd at that. Good for some laughs anyway.
So you believe "economics" and the "invisible hand" rule would turn child bearing into a commodity even if everyone was homosexual....
Who could imagine that a theoretical exclusively homosexual society would resort to behavior that is currently practiced in reality?
Give these agencies a call and give them a chuckle when you attempt to dazzle them with your anthropological and economic wisdom.
http://www.gaysurrogacyagency.com/?_oskwdi...CFcoHRQodSWIoag
http://novaivf.com/gay-lesbian-baby.htm
I lol'd at that. Good for some laughs anyway.
So you believe "economics" and the "invisible hand" rule would turn child bearing into a commodity even if everyone was homosexual....
Who could imagine that a theoretical exclusively homosexual society would resort to behavior that is currently practiced in reality?
Give these agencies a call and give them a chuckle when you attempt to dazzle them with your anthropological and economic wisdom.
http://www.gaysurrogacyagency.com/?_oskwdi...CFcoHRQodSWIoag
http://novaivf.com/gay-lesbian-baby.htm
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jun 3 2012, 08:31 PM)
I have no problem communicating why write a book when only a few words are necessary.
You have so little to say that you could reduce your words even further. Why post at all then?
You're welcome to make yourself look like an idiot. It looks like you've been pretty thorough in that regard.
You're welcome to make yourself look like an idiot. It looks like you've been pretty thorough in that regard.
As for Mekigal I just graze over his ramblings and I know he is no idiot!
You just described his posts as "ramblings" which is precisely the point.
I would say you two are at about the same level of intelligence.
You have so little to say that you could reduce your words even further. Why post at all then?
QUOTE
I would assume the readers on the other end are intelligent human beings.
If I where talking to a computer then I would have to write specific instructions.
If I where talking to a computer then I would have to write specific instructions.
You're welcome to make yourself look like an idiot. It looks like you've been pretty thorough in that regard.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I would assume the readers on the other end are intelligent human beings. If I where talking to a computer then I would have to write specific instructions. |
You're welcome to make yourself look like an idiot. It looks like you've been pretty thorough in that regard.
As for Mekigal I just graze over his ramblings and I know he is no idiot!
You just described his posts as "ramblings" which is precisely the point.
I would say you two are at about the same level of intelligence.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 4 2012, 02:58 PM)
You have so little to say that you could reduce your words even further. Why post at all then?
You're welcome to make yourself look like an idiot. It looks like you've been pretty thorough in that regard.
You just described his posts as "ramblings" which is precisely the point.
I would say you two are at about the same level of intelligence.
Yes for once in your life your right.
Our intelligence is obviously superior to yours.
But it's all right if you tag along maybe you will eventually learn something.
You're welcome to make yourself look like an idiot. It looks like you've been pretty thorough in that regard.
You just described his posts as "ramblings" which is precisely the point.
I would say you two are at about the same level of intelligence.
Yes for once in your life your right.
Our intelligence is obviously superior to yours.
But it's all right if you tag along maybe you will eventually learn something.
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jun 4 2012, 11:05 AM)
Yes for once in your life your right.
*you're
*you're
" What Is The Source Of Morality?, Naturalism? Divinity? Culture? ",
maybe pure willingness ??
maybe pure willingness ??
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+May 31 2012, 03:23 PM)
Where does morality come from? Does our duty to support the continuance of the human race dictate our morality? Is there some universal moral code? Is it simply a product of culture? Discuss.
Evolution. Those that hurt others were removed (by injury or death) from those that formed a cohesive relation. It is in our (most of us, anyway) genes.
Evolution. Those that hurt others were removed (by injury or death) from those that formed a cohesive relation. It is in our (most of us, anyway) genes.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 3 2012, 10:01 PM)
You're not one to talk, you have enough communication problems to worry about.
Mekigal's posts can be deciphered given enough time and patience, but that's already a failure on his part. I could write to you in riddles, but that would be an a-hole thing to do.
I am dyslexic . I don't try to talk in riddles . That is just the way it comes out . Heads up !!! I am severally dyslexic . I don't think like you and there is no cure . Every thing has a backwards effect like a friggen hill billy . Backwards . Up side down and acroos the bridge
The simplest things for you are very difficult for me . Things you take for granted
Mekigal's posts can be deciphered given enough time and patience, but that's already a failure on his part. I could write to you in riddles, but that would be an a-hole thing to do.
I am dyslexic . I don't try to talk in riddles . That is just the way it comes out . Heads up !!! I am severally dyslexic . I don't think like you and there is no cure . Every thing has a backwards effect like a friggen hill billy . Backwards . Up side down and acroos the bridge
The simplest things for you are very difficult for me . Things you take for granted
QUOTE (Mekigal+Jun 5 2012, 04:47 PM)
I am dyslexic . I don't try to talk in riddles . That is just the way it comes out . Heads up !!! I am severally dyslexic . I don't think like you and there is no cure . Every thing has a backwards effect like a friggen hill billy . Backwards . Up side down and acroos the bridge
The simplest things for you are very difficult for me . Things you take for granted
I'm sorry if I've been mean with regard to the style of your writing, BUT I do have objections to the lack of content in what you post.
For example:
The simplest things for you are very difficult for me . Things you take for granted
I'm sorry if I've been mean with regard to the style of your writing, BUT I do have objections to the lack of content in what you post.
For example:
QUOTE (Mekigal+)
You are going to be so surprised to find out there really is an underground culture that exists in plain sight . An alternate existence that will blow your mind and they crowned Me king of that Culture. We live among you every where . Watch out one of us might jump out in front of you and say boo . Don't run us over with your car please
QUOTE (Mekigal+)
What do you mean by "moral prohibition of sexuality" ?
Do you mean to say sexuality is not moral ?
Sexual prohibition is over . If you don't think so try googling " Sex Pron Hub and go watch a bunch of black men pull a train on a pregnant white girl . Then tell Me there is still moral prohibition . Na I say , or join the Granni wants it site and talk to a few Grannies that need some loving.
Your insane . Not Me . I didn't invent that stuff and I certainly don't believe in prohibition of any thing except maybe stealing and murder with out just cause. Certainly not Sexual Prohibition .
Are you one of those Homo Haters or something ?
Strike King and put in Queen .
I give in women . Except I only like to have sex full blown penetration with girls , not Men . The whole going to California to look for a girl with flowers in her hair is a miss interpretation of Gal . Like Frag did @ Sciforum when he first encountered Me .
He thought I was a woman because of my name . He hit on me . To funny . You should not have let them ban Me frag . Your never going to live that down now . I had pretty much let that go until now . Never now
Off topic and pointless. And that's just this thread.
Do you mean to say sexuality is not moral ?
Sexual prohibition is over . If you don't think so try googling " Sex Pron Hub and go watch a bunch of black men pull a train on a pregnant white girl . Then tell Me there is still moral prohibition . Na I say , or join the Granni wants it site and talk to a few Grannies that need some loving.
Your insane . Not Me . I didn't invent that stuff and I certainly don't believe in prohibition of any thing except maybe stealing and murder with out just cause. Certainly not Sexual Prohibition .
Are you one of those Homo Haters or something ?
Strike King and put in Queen .
I give in women . Except I only like to have sex full blown penetration with girls , not Men . The whole going to California to look for a girl with flowers in her hair is a miss interpretation of Gal . Like Frag did @ Sciforum when he first encountered Me .
He thought I was a woman because of my name . He hit on me . To funny . You should not have let them ban Me frag . Your never going to live that down now . I had pretty much let that go until now . Never now
Off topic and pointless. And that's just this thread.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 5 2012, 09:02 PM)
I'm sorry if I've been mean with regard to the style of your writing, BUT I do have objections to the lack of content in what you post.
For example:
For example:
QUOTE (Mekigal+)
You are going to be so surprised to find out there really is an underground culture that exists in plain sight . An alternate existence that will blow your mind and they crowned Me king of that Culture. We live among you every where . Watch out one of us might jump out in front of you and say boo . Don't run us over with your car please
QUOTE (Mekigal+)
What do you mean by "moral prohibition of sexuality" ?
Do you mean to say sexuality is not moral ?
Sexual prohibition is over . If you don't think so try googling " Sex Pron Hub and go watch a bunch of black men pull a train on a pregnant white girl . Then tell Me there is still moral prohibition . Na I say , or join the Granni wants it site and talk to a few Grannies that need some loving.
Your insane . Not Me . I didn't invent that stuff and I certainly don't believe in prohibition of any thing except maybe stealing and murder with out just cause. Certainly not Sexual Prohibition .
Are you one of those Homo Haters or something ?
Strike King and put in Queen .
I give in women . Except I only like to have sex full blown penetration with girls , not Men . The whole going to California to look for a girl with flowers in her hair is a miss interpretation of Gal . Like Frag did @ Sciforum when he first encountered Me .
He thought I was a woman because of my name . He hit on me . To funny . You should not have let them ban Me frag . Your never going to live that down now . I had pretty much let that go until now . Never now
Off topic and pointless. And that's just this thread.
well my guess is there is plenty of people that see value in what i said . Could be me being all delusional again . I think not . The bicyclists that want you to get out of your car to slow down the use of fossil fuels understood and not just because of the obvious but the bigger meaning of user mind sets .
Or I thought you might be homophobic by your usage of " sexual morality " I didn't know you were on the same side of the fence . Kind of like the way Micheal and Bell thought of Me on sciforum at first . So sorry for that .
Note : That pron killer . His sexuality is not moral if you want it spelled out clear enough. It is in the murder with out just cause that implicates his actions in my post
You love Me just admit it now . I make your blood boil . You get off on that
Do you mean to say sexuality is not moral ?
Sexual prohibition is over . If you don't think so try googling " Sex Pron Hub and go watch a bunch of black men pull a train on a pregnant white girl . Then tell Me there is still moral prohibition . Na I say , or join the Granni wants it site and talk to a few Grannies that need some loving.
Your insane . Not Me . I didn't invent that stuff and I certainly don't believe in prohibition of any thing except maybe stealing and murder with out just cause. Certainly not Sexual Prohibition .
Are you one of those Homo Haters or something ?
Strike King and put in Queen .
I give in women . Except I only like to have sex full blown penetration with girls , not Men . The whole going to California to look for a girl with flowers in her hair is a miss interpretation of Gal . Like Frag did @ Sciforum when he first encountered Me .
He thought I was a woman because of my name . He hit on me . To funny . You should not have let them ban Me frag . Your never going to live that down now . I had pretty much let that go until now . Never now
Off topic and pointless. And that's just this thread.
well my guess is there is plenty of people that see value in what i said . Could be me being all delusional again . I think not . The bicyclists that want you to get out of your car to slow down the use of fossil fuels understood and not just because of the obvious but the bigger meaning of user mind sets .
Or I thought you might be homophobic by your usage of " sexual morality " I didn't know you were on the same side of the fence . Kind of like the way Micheal and Bell thought of Me on sciforum at first . So sorry for that .
Note : That pron killer . His sexuality is not moral if you want it spelled out clear enough. It is in the murder with out just cause that implicates his actions in my post
You love Me just admit it now . I make your blood boil . You get off on that
Your judgement is clouded Butter Fly . Lets take an example of what I am talking about . What would you think of me Clear cutting a national forest? I say I would be doing the environment a favor by my participation in the deed . What say you ?
note: I am not trying to berate you cause I do respect you and your positioning( posturing ) all though sometimes misguided
note: I am not trying to berate you cause I do respect you and your positioning( posturing ) all though sometimes misguided
QUOTE (Mekigal+Jun 5 2012, 06:32 PM)
The bicyclists that want you to get out of your car to slow down the use of fossil fuels understood and not just because of the obvious but the bigger meaning of user mind sets .
This is what I'm talking about. What are you talking about here? Why are you talking about fossil fuels? Are you referring to something someone said? Are you making an analogy?
I wasn't necessarily including myself in that statement, but maybe I should have made myself more clear. Your post did go quite far into "too much information" territory.
I wasn't necessarily including myself in that statement, but maybe I should have made myself more clear. Your post did go quite far into "too much information" territory.
Lets take an example of what I am talking about . What would you think of me Clear cutting a national forest? I say I would be doing the environment a favor by my participation in the deed . What say you ?
In my university ethics course, they teach how there is a separation between laws, ethics and morals. Each has its own domain, and truisms in one set of rules do not necessarily cross over. Clear cutting forests would be an example something that may be legal, but is not ethical and may or may not be moral. Of course, claiming that you are helping the environment by doing so is also unethical, that is, unless you have some new science to back that up.
This is what I'm talking about. What are you talking about here? Why are you talking about fossil fuels? Are you referring to something someone said? Are you making an analogy?
QUOTE
Or I thought you might be homophobic by your usage of " sexual morality " I didn't know you were on the same side of the fence . Kind of like the way Micheal and Bell thought of Me on sciforum at first . So sorry for that .
I wasn't necessarily including myself in that statement, but maybe I should have made myself more clear. Your post did go quite far into "too much information" territory.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Or I thought you might be homophobic by your usage of " sexual morality " I didn't know you were on the same side of the fence . Kind of like the way Micheal and Bell thought of Me on sciforum at first . So sorry for that . |
I wasn't necessarily including myself in that statement, but maybe I should have made myself more clear. Your post did go quite far into "too much information" territory.
Lets take an example of what I am talking about . What would you think of me Clear cutting a national forest? I say I would be doing the environment a favor by my participation in the deed . What say you ?
In my university ethics course, they teach how there is a separation between laws, ethics and morals. Each has its own domain, and truisms in one set of rules do not necessarily cross over. Clear cutting forests would be an example something that may be legal, but is not ethical and may or may not be moral. Of course, claiming that you are helping the environment by doing so is also unethical, that is, unless you have some new science to back that up.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Jun 5 2012, 08:34 PM)
Evolution. Those that hurt others were removed (by injury or death) from those that formed a cohesive relation. It is in our (most of us, anyway) genes.
Good answer.
Good answer.
Maybe..
The rich have inherited the Earth - that practically follows from the definition of 'rich'. So morality will be determined by those with power aka 'the rich'. Morality (in no particular order) is that which makes rich people safer or 'better' (in some way) or richer.
-C2.
The rich have inherited the Earth - that practically follows from the definition of 'rich'. So morality will be determined by those with power aka 'the rich'. Morality (in no particular order) is that which makes rich people safer or 'better' (in some way) or richer.
-C2.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jun 3 2012, 02:56 AM)
I didn't say that.
put it this way, without context one cannot determine an absolute.
Even absolute morality has "exceptions" in the form of if/then/else sort of situations.
Also, the "survival of the fittest" argument doesn't work because that is a cross-species situation, moreover, altruism often benefits the species as much or more than competition within the species. Just look at humans, war is usually a waste of resources. Unfortunately, even war can produce a net good, in the case of ousting an evil dictator who oppresses his own people (which was a near miss in my thinking and caused me to rewrite what I was saying.)
It also seems unlikely for higher intelligence to exist without "animals," as there's no evidence of any plants having such attributes, and a mobile plant would require tremendous amounts of energy, therefore "animals" who eat plants and other animals are probably necessary for mobile, higher intelligence to exist, because you need mitochondria to power muscle groups, including the heart, even if you could somehow get a brain without an animal body.
The brain runs on Oxygen. Running a brain on CO2 might be possible, theoretically, but it would seem to be limited to the solar energy available to the plant or plant-like animal, which is limited to daylight and surface area. Therefore, a "plant-like animal," or rather, an "animal-like plant," like in science fiction, is probably impossible, since photosynthesis probably could not keep the brain alive at night time.
THEREFORE in order for intelligence to exist it must be at LEAST an animal herbivore.
Therefore the destruction of some organisms by others for food is a necessity for intelligent, mobile life to exist and to be maintained.
You could have an intelligent plant species, I suppose, but they'd need to be able to grow very, very huge surface area and live a very long time, since their experiences would be limited to their location of birth, they would not grow in knowledge or experience much at all, even over very long times, which prevents any "selection" based on such intelligence anyway, because it's questionable in what way an intelligent plant would apply that intelligence to benefit it's own survival, unless it had limbs or acid glands or some crap it could consciously use to defend itself intelligently, through foresight, as opposed to simple stimuli.
====
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
If I was a Syrian opposition member right now, I'd wish somebody in the outside world would give a damn and help me.
I hate to say this, but I've been around gay guys on a few occasions before, and it completely creeps me out. It is not "homophobia" it is a complete natural revulsion, that works almost like some sixth sense or something.
I'm not "afraid" of a gay guy. I am utterly disgusted by it at some primal level of conscience. It offends me.
It's worse than the 400lbs obese woman who thinks she's attractive, when in reality she's absolutely repulsive and delusional.
I'm at 210 to 215lbs right now, depending on clothing and fluid levels, and when I look in the mirror I hate the way my fat belly exists and wish I could lose 25 to 30 lbs of fat and fluid ASAP, because it's bad thing..
...it's like that.
When a person is ill, telling them the truth is what they need, just as when I was ill my doctor gave me a piece of his mind about my blood pressure and cholesterol.
As it happens, my having said this offends you.
So we both offend one another, and this is a case where "do unto others..." fails by itself, and needs further qualification, because I would "have" someone tell me the truth about their position, even if it offended me.
If gays were instead straight, neither of us would be offended, and the natural productive order of humanity would be preserved.
If straights were instead gay, maybe nobody is offended, but the natural productive order would not exist, and humanity would die out. Now you tried to counter that by pointing out bisexuality and stuff, but the point is still true.
If Gays were instead truly straight equals nobody offended and no problems.
The same cannot be said for the reverse scenario.
Therefore, a combination of naturalism and the "golden rule" still shows heterosexuality to be strictly superior to homosexuality.
Homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder, just like psychosis and psychopathy, but the political correctness movement gradually broke down that standard.
If I was ill, I'd want someone to cure me, and since homosexuality was always considered a sin and / or illness for countless generations, you should see the point.
It's kind of like commercial ads on television. You can tell any lie you want to about your product in order to sell it in the modern world, just as long as it isn't true! If your claim is not true, the FDA won't bother you. If your claim is true and the product works, you will eventually get sued over it's side effects.
example:
Raspberry Keytone does not cause weight loss in humans, yet it's perfectly legal for companies to make a product of Raspberry keytone and market it as a weight loss product with that being the alleged active ingredient, even though it is absolutely known to be a complete lie.
or
"Seven in ten doctors prescribe product X over product Y," and their competitor says the opposite is true!
Moral of the story is lying to yourself or others about your "product" or your condition also doesn't meet the Golden Rule.
So again, if all the gays were instead truly straight, there would be no offense, and the Golden Rule would be maintained by everyone.
Since you can't possibly love yourself loving others is out of the question.
put it this way, without context one cannot determine an absolute.
Even absolute morality has "exceptions" in the form of if/then/else sort of situations.
Also, the "survival of the fittest" argument doesn't work because that is a cross-species situation, moreover, altruism often benefits the species as much or more than competition within the species. Just look at humans, war is usually a waste of resources. Unfortunately, even war can produce a net good, in the case of ousting an evil dictator who oppresses his own people (which was a near miss in my thinking and caused me to rewrite what I was saying.)
It also seems unlikely for higher intelligence to exist without "animals," as there's no evidence of any plants having such attributes, and a mobile plant would require tremendous amounts of energy, therefore "animals" who eat plants and other animals are probably necessary for mobile, higher intelligence to exist, because you need mitochondria to power muscle groups, including the heart, even if you could somehow get a brain without an animal body.
The brain runs on Oxygen. Running a brain on CO2 might be possible, theoretically, but it would seem to be limited to the solar energy available to the plant or plant-like animal, which is limited to daylight and surface area. Therefore, a "plant-like animal," or rather, an "animal-like plant," like in science fiction, is probably impossible, since photosynthesis probably could not keep the brain alive at night time.
THEREFORE in order for intelligence to exist it must be at LEAST an animal herbivore.
Therefore the destruction of some organisms by others for food is a necessity for intelligent, mobile life to exist and to be maintained.
You could have an intelligent plant species, I suppose, but they'd need to be able to grow very, very huge surface area and live a very long time, since their experiences would be limited to their location of birth, they would not grow in knowledge or experience much at all, even over very long times, which prevents any "selection" based on such intelligence anyway, because it's questionable in what way an intelligent plant would apply that intelligence to benefit it's own survival, unless it had limbs or acid glands or some crap it could consciously use to defend itself intelligently, through foresight, as opposed to simple stimuli.
====
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
If I was a Syrian opposition member right now, I'd wish somebody in the outside world would give a damn and help me.
I hate to say this, but I've been around gay guys on a few occasions before, and it completely creeps me out. It is not "homophobia" it is a complete natural revulsion, that works almost like some sixth sense or something.
I'm not "afraid" of a gay guy. I am utterly disgusted by it at some primal level of conscience. It offends me.
It's worse than the 400lbs obese woman who thinks she's attractive, when in reality she's absolutely repulsive and delusional.
I'm at 210 to 215lbs right now, depending on clothing and fluid levels, and when I look in the mirror I hate the way my fat belly exists and wish I could lose 25 to 30 lbs of fat and fluid ASAP, because it's bad thing..
...it's like that.
When a person is ill, telling them the truth is what they need, just as when I was ill my doctor gave me a piece of his mind about my blood pressure and cholesterol.
As it happens, my having said this offends you.
So we both offend one another, and this is a case where "do unto others..." fails by itself, and needs further qualification, because I would "have" someone tell me the truth about their position, even if it offended me.
If gays were instead straight, neither of us would be offended, and the natural productive order of humanity would be preserved.
If straights were instead gay, maybe nobody is offended, but the natural productive order would not exist, and humanity would die out. Now you tried to counter that by pointing out bisexuality and stuff, but the point is still true.
If Gays were instead truly straight equals nobody offended and no problems.
The same cannot be said for the reverse scenario.
Therefore, a combination of naturalism and the "golden rule" still shows heterosexuality to be strictly superior to homosexuality.
Homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder, just like psychosis and psychopathy, but the political correctness movement gradually broke down that standard.
If I was ill, I'd want someone to cure me, and since homosexuality was always considered a sin and / or illness for countless generations, you should see the point.
It's kind of like commercial ads on television. You can tell any lie you want to about your product in order to sell it in the modern world, just as long as it isn't true! If your claim is not true, the FDA won't bother you. If your claim is true and the product works, you will eventually get sued over it's side effects.
example:
Raspberry Keytone does not cause weight loss in humans, yet it's perfectly legal for companies to make a product of Raspberry keytone and market it as a weight loss product with that being the alleged active ingredient, even though it is absolutely known to be a complete lie.
or
"Seven in ten doctors prescribe product X over product Y," and their competitor says the opposite is true!
Moral of the story is lying to yourself or others about your "product" or your condition also doesn't meet the Golden Rule.
So again, if all the gays were instead truly straight, there would be no offense, and the Golden Rule would be maintained by everyone.
Since you can't possibly love yourself loving others is out of the question.
The real issue might be understanding the importance of a society. One doesn't have love, or even have empathy, to respect the importance of maintaining the structure of the society.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 5 2012, 11:22 PM)
This is what I'm talking about. What are you talking about here? Why are you talking about fossil fuels? Are you referring to something someone said? Are you making an analogy?
I wasn't necessarily including myself in that statement, but maybe I should have made myself more clear. Your post did go quite far into "too much information" territory.
In my university ethics course, they teach how there is a separation between laws, ethics and morals. Each has its own domain, and truisms in one set of rules do not necessarily cross over. Clear cutting forests would be an example something that may be legal, but is not ethical and may or may not be moral. Of course, claiming that you are helping the environment by doing so is also unethical, that is, unless you have some new science to back that up.
Fossil fuel is the moral standing by indoctrination. It is moral in today's world to be energy conservative . That is not law . You could say it falls into the ethical realm , but ask your self if it is what you consider moral .
What is to much information ? The hidden language ? That is the problem . That is what makes it so easy for a child molester to do his job so well.
Separation of Ethics ,Laws and morals . Interesting . You don't say . That is what they teach you . More reason for a banged up world .
So it is o.k. to with hold information and law has nothing to do with morals and ethics ? Ah yeah I can see that . That is how it is now that point it out . WE put 33 percent of innocent people in jail and a butt load known criminals walk free . I see your point .
It is the way it is by jaysus. Holy Mary of virgins . I didn't realize that . I had thought that law was geared to moral standings like Thou shall not kill.
I would personally say the teacher is a nut case . Maybe you could go into more detail about that crazy sucker. Not to say you can't have morals that are not part of the law or an ethical standing that violates moral codes . But rather interconnected to there core
You covered your self pretty good . "But is not ethical"
And Saying unethical is pretty strong language in your standing .
Now I point this out for a reason . Your controlled by media indoctrination as to what is ethical . Or to say you Copy the latest acceptable behavior of others . I didn't say that right . You take your stand of what is ethical and what is not ethical by what you have been taught regardless if it is moral. You made a decision to say clear cutting is unethical . Alas you are more brilliant than most by your addition of unless you got science that says different .
I do , but that is not the point . The point is that there is a trickle of information flow . How long will it take for the new science of clear cutting take to become the moral standing or ethical? How long does something opposite of popular moral take to become mainstream ? How many people will die before they ever know ?
Consider how short a human life is ?
The trickle of information gets in the way of law ethics and morals .
I am still missing the point . I am trying . What time is it in your life . Is it 1935 or is it 2012. ( not specific to you personally cause your a brilliant person , but rather the ordinary schmuck in a leadership roll )
O.K. I am going to attempt to make a bold statement:
Moral standing is based off the time zone in your head .
Take grandma Religious. She is convinced Jesus is going to swoop down and take her to heaven and she live happily ever after with her mean *** husband and all will be grand for all eternity, or she will go to hell for sucking face with her young attentive girl friend . What time zone does she live in ?
Lets take a white supremacist. Hates Black people and thinks they are more like monkeys than human . What time zone does he live in ?
You start to get a picture of why it is all a mess . It is the trickle of information and as your first impression comes out load and clear although covered your butt good by the statement "unless the science says different "
What would be the common reaction? Never ever clear cut and it could not thought of in any way you would be ethical in clear cutting a National Forest .
Can you see what I am saying ? We are controlled by the information at hand in making ethical/moral decisions. Whether it be right , wrong or indifferent
O.K. pick on people time . There was this girl Birch . She met Me and she could see I was living in Montana . Well she has a preconceived notion of what a Montana person should be like . She saw meh as a Lumber Jack in her minds eye . A stupid lumber Jack that want to cut all the wood for profit. Big nasty greedy wood baron with a chain saw . Could she see past that image she conjured in her mind . It took a while and still she probably never would consent even to this day to me actually getting out into the woods and clear cutting national forest . Not the point .
The point is her moral standing on the matter is corrupted by her only thought she entertains and that is " No clear cutting of national forest under any circumstance regardless if it is good for her master plan of "save the environment" or not
Not that your like that cause you brilliant person who covered them selves with the statement " Unless there is science that says otherwise .
Kiss
To much information ? What is that ? There is not enough information is my moral standing
I wasn't necessarily including myself in that statement, but maybe I should have made myself more clear. Your post did go quite far into "too much information" territory.
In my university ethics course, they teach how there is a separation between laws, ethics and morals. Each has its own domain, and truisms in one set of rules do not necessarily cross over. Clear cutting forests would be an example something that may be legal, but is not ethical and may or may not be moral. Of course, claiming that you are helping the environment by doing so is also unethical, that is, unless you have some new science to back that up.
Fossil fuel is the moral standing by indoctrination. It is moral in today's world to be energy conservative . That is not law . You could say it falls into the ethical realm , but ask your self if it is what you consider moral .
What is to much information ? The hidden language ? That is the problem . That is what makes it so easy for a child molester to do his job so well.
Separation of Ethics ,Laws and morals . Interesting . You don't say . That is what they teach you . More reason for a banged up world .
So it is o.k. to with hold information and law has nothing to do with morals and ethics ? Ah yeah I can see that . That is how it is now that point it out . WE put 33 percent of innocent people in jail and a butt load known criminals walk free . I see your point .
It is the way it is by jaysus. Holy Mary of virgins . I didn't realize that . I had thought that law was geared to moral standings like Thou shall not kill.
I would personally say the teacher is a nut case . Maybe you could go into more detail about that crazy sucker. Not to say you can't have morals that are not part of the law or an ethical standing that violates moral codes . But rather interconnected to there core
You covered your self pretty good . "But is not ethical"
And Saying unethical is pretty strong language in your standing .
Now I point this out for a reason . Your controlled by media indoctrination as to what is ethical . Or to say you Copy the latest acceptable behavior of others . I didn't say that right . You take your stand of what is ethical and what is not ethical by what you have been taught regardless if it is moral. You made a decision to say clear cutting is unethical . Alas you are more brilliant than most by your addition of unless you got science that says different .
I do , but that is not the point . The point is that there is a trickle of information flow . How long will it take for the new science of clear cutting take to become the moral standing or ethical? How long does something opposite of popular moral take to become mainstream ? How many people will die before they ever know ?
Consider how short a human life is ?
The trickle of information gets in the way of law ethics and morals .
I am still missing the point . I am trying . What time is it in your life . Is it 1935 or is it 2012. ( not specific to you personally cause your a brilliant person , but rather the ordinary schmuck in a leadership roll )
O.K. I am going to attempt to make a bold statement:
Moral standing is based off the time zone in your head .
Take grandma Religious. She is convinced Jesus is going to swoop down and take her to heaven and she live happily ever after with her mean *** husband and all will be grand for all eternity, or she will go to hell for sucking face with her young attentive girl friend . What time zone does she live in ?
Lets take a white supremacist. Hates Black people and thinks they are more like monkeys than human . What time zone does he live in ?
You start to get a picture of why it is all a mess . It is the trickle of information and as your first impression comes out load and clear although covered your butt good by the statement "unless the science says different "
What would be the common reaction? Never ever clear cut and it could not thought of in any way you would be ethical in clear cutting a National Forest .
Can you see what I am saying ? We are controlled by the information at hand in making ethical/moral decisions. Whether it be right , wrong or indifferent
O.K. pick on people time . There was this girl Birch . She met Me and she could see I was living in Montana . Well she has a preconceived notion of what a Montana person should be like . She saw meh as a Lumber Jack in her minds eye . A stupid lumber Jack that want to cut all the wood for profit. Big nasty greedy wood baron with a chain saw . Could she see past that image she conjured in her mind . It took a while and still she probably never would consent even to this day to me actually getting out into the woods and clear cutting national forest . Not the point .
The point is her moral standing on the matter is corrupted by her only thought she entertains and that is " No clear cutting of national forest under any circumstance regardless if it is good for her master plan of "save the environment" or not
Not that your like that cause you brilliant person who covered them selves with the statement " Unless there is science that says otherwise .
Kiss
To much information ? What is that ? There is not enough information is my moral standing
QUOTE (Mekigal+Jun 6 2012, 11:06 AM)
Fossil fuel is the moral standing by indoctrination. It is moral in today's world to be energy conservative . That is not law . You could say it falls into the ethical realm , but ask your self if it is what you consider moral .
I don't think we're even near that point yet. People need to commute. Breaking a moral law usually has consequences. Your friends and family usually being the arbiters of these laws. Sure, some people might view this as a moral thing, and look down on people who drive cars, but those people are a small minority and would usually receive disdain from most people.
Why do you think this is wrong? It's fairly obvious why we don't legislate morality.
Why do you think this is wrong? It's fairly obvious why we don't legislate morality.
So it is o.k. to with hold information and law has nothing to do with morals and ethics ? Ah yeah I can see that . That is how it is now that point it out . WE put 33 percent of innocent people in jail and a butt load known criminals walk free . I see your point .
Those are all legal issues. I don't see what that has to do with morality or ethics.
The Ten Commandments were an example of legislated morality. I think we can agree that it's a bad idea to combine the two.
The Ten Commandments were an example of legislated morality. I think we can agree that it's a bad idea to combine the two.
You covered your self pretty good . "But is not ethical"
And Saying unethical is pretty strong language in your standing .
Ethics pertain mostly to professional/business behavior.
You're not going to make many friends by telling people that. Especially when it's not true.
You're not going to make many friends by telling people that. Especially when it's not true.
Take grandma Religious. She is convinced Jesus is going to swoop down and take her to heaven and she live happily ever after with her mean *** husband and all will be grand for all eternity, or she will go to hell for sucking face with her young attentive girl friend . What time zone does she live in ?
Lets take a white supremacist. Hates Black people and thinks they are more like monkeys than human . What time zone does he live in ?
I think the problem has more to do with people's ideals clashing with reality. When your perfect world lacks minorities, then you see minorities as a threat to that idea. Those ideals may be borne out of racism, or just fear of the unknown.
Everybody SHOULD be making decisions based on the information at hand. The problem is when people ignore that information for personal gain.
Everybody SHOULD be making decisions based on the information at hand. The problem is when people ignore that information for personal gain.
To much information ? What is that ?
It means that I'd rather not hear intimate details of your personal life.
I don't think we're even near that point yet. People need to commute. Breaking a moral law usually has consequences. Your friends and family usually being the arbiters of these laws. Sure, some people might view this as a moral thing, and look down on people who drive cars, but those people are a small minority and would usually receive disdain from most people.
QUOTE
Separation of Ethics ,Laws and morals . Interesting . You don't say . That is what they teach you . More reason for a banged up world .
Why do you think this is wrong? It's fairly obvious why we don't legislate morality.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Separation of Ethics ,Laws and morals . Interesting . You don't say . That is what they teach you . More reason for a banged up world . |
Why do you think this is wrong? It's fairly obvious why we don't legislate morality.
So it is o.k. to with hold information and law has nothing to do with morals and ethics ? Ah yeah I can see that . That is how it is now that point it out . WE put 33 percent of innocent people in jail and a butt load known criminals walk free . I see your point .
Those are all legal issues. I don't see what that has to do with morality or ethics.
QUOTE
It is the way it is by jaysus. Holy Mary of virgins . I didn't realize that . I had thought that law was geared to moral standings like Thou shall not kill.
The Ten Commandments were an example of legislated morality. I think we can agree that it's a bad idea to combine the two.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is the way it is by jaysus. Holy Mary of virgins . I didn't realize that . I had thought that law was geared to moral standings like Thou shall not kill. |
The Ten Commandments were an example of legislated morality. I think we can agree that it's a bad idea to combine the two.
You covered your self pretty good . "But is not ethical"
And Saying unethical is pretty strong language in your standing .
Ethics pertain mostly to professional/business behavior.
QUOTE
Your controlled by media indoctrination as to what is ethical .
You're not going to make many friends by telling people that. Especially when it's not true.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your controlled by media indoctrination as to what is ethical . |
You're not going to make many friends by telling people that. Especially when it's not true.
Take grandma Religious. She is convinced Jesus is going to swoop down and take her to heaven and she live happily ever after with her mean *** husband and all will be grand for all eternity, or she will go to hell for sucking face with her young attentive girl friend . What time zone does she live in ?
Lets take a white supremacist. Hates Black people and thinks they are more like monkeys than human . What time zone does he live in ?
I think the problem has more to do with people's ideals clashing with reality. When your perfect world lacks minorities, then you see minorities as a threat to that idea. Those ideals may be borne out of racism, or just fear of the unknown.
QUOTE
Can you see what I am saying ? We are controlled by the information at hand in making ethical/moral decisions. Whether it be right , wrong or indifferent
Everybody SHOULD be making decisions based on the information at hand. The problem is when people ignore that information for personal gain.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Can you see what I am saying ? We are controlled by the information at hand in making ethical/moral decisions. Whether it be right , wrong or indifferent |
Everybody SHOULD be making decisions based on the information at hand. The problem is when people ignore that information for personal gain.
To much information ? What is that ?
It means that I'd rather not hear intimate details of your personal life.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 6 2012, 03:23 PM)
I don't think we're even near that point yet. People need to commute. Breaking a moral law usually has consequences. Your friends and family usually being the arbiters of these laws. Sure, some people might view this as a moral thing, and look down on people who drive cars, but those people are a small minority and would usually receive disdain from most people.
Why do you think this is wrong? It's fairly obvious why we don't legislate morality.
Those are all legal issues. I don't see what that has to do with morality or ethics.
The Ten Commandments were an example of legislated morality. I think we can agree that it's a bad idea to combine the two.
Ethics pertain mostly to professional/business behavior.
You're not going to make many friends by telling people that. Especially when it's not true.
I think the problem has more to do with people's ideals clashing with reality. When your perfect world lacks minorities, then you see minorities as a threat to that idea. Those ideals may be borne out of racism, or just fear of the unknown.
Everybody SHOULD be making decisions based on the information at hand. The problem is when people ignore that information for personal gain.
It means that I'd rather not hear intimate details of your personal life.
I got go cut some forest now . Be back latter but ,
What are talking about " My personal life ? You have no idea what personal life is .
I lewave you with this : Only your best friend will tell you you have a booger hanging out your nose
Why do you think this is wrong? It's fairly obvious why we don't legislate morality.
Those are all legal issues. I don't see what that has to do with morality or ethics.
The Ten Commandments were an example of legislated morality. I think we can agree that it's a bad idea to combine the two.
Ethics pertain mostly to professional/business behavior.
You're not going to make many friends by telling people that. Especially when it's not true.
I think the problem has more to do with people's ideals clashing with reality. When your perfect world lacks minorities, then you see minorities as a threat to that idea. Those ideals may be borne out of racism, or just fear of the unknown.
Everybody SHOULD be making decisions based on the information at hand. The problem is when people ignore that information for personal gain.
It means that I'd rather not hear intimate details of your personal life.
I got go cut some forest now . Be back latter but ,
What are talking about " My personal life ? You have no idea what personal life is .
I lewave you with this : Only your best friend will tell you you have a booger hanging out your nose
i am back for a minute . My 10:00 got pushed to 10:15.
If morality does not drive law then what does ? Thou shall not kill seems like a pretty good law driven by moral code . Or to say perception of morality seems to the the driving force behind law. Ethics also even in business. Consider how laws get made ?
Something usually happens that we collectively see as being " Not Moral "
Then we make a law that says you can't do that cause we have agreed it is not the right thing to do .
Am I missing something ? What drives the creation of law ? Out Side of splinter groups getting laws past to benefit there particular business by usage of expert cronies.
We have egress windows in our houses for example. It is a law that you have them in your bedrooms . Someone died trying to get out of a fire so the law became more strict. Accessibility became the issue . Why ? So less people will die trying to get out of a fire . Was that law driven by "Thou shall not kill"
O.K. I am not quite hitting hammer with nail
Should we do away with the law " Thou Shall Not Kill"
Let the porn Killer off the hook ?
O.K. got to go for real this time . Got national forests to cut so as to save your butts from total damnation( What image leave in your mind , With my statement do you see Me with a chain saw in my hand ) A chain saw will not be in my hand . Your image if you see that is a false assumption of what I said . Who holds the responsibility? Leadership or the paid for hire guns that do the killing . The person who gives the order or the person that carries out the order?
If morality does not drive law then what does ? Thou shall not kill seems like a pretty good law driven by moral code . Or to say perception of morality seems to the the driving force behind law. Ethics also even in business. Consider how laws get made ?
Something usually happens that we collectively see as being " Not Moral "
Then we make a law that says you can't do that cause we have agreed it is not the right thing to do .
Am I missing something ? What drives the creation of law ? Out Side of splinter groups getting laws past to benefit there particular business by usage of expert cronies.
We have egress windows in our houses for example. It is a law that you have them in your bedrooms . Someone died trying to get out of a fire so the law became more strict. Accessibility became the issue . Why ? So less people will die trying to get out of a fire . Was that law driven by "Thou shall not kill"
O.K. I am not quite hitting hammer with nail
Should we do away with the law " Thou Shall Not Kill"
Let the porn Killer off the hook ?
O.K. got to go for real this time . Got national forests to cut so as to save your butts from total damnation( What image leave in your mind , With my statement do you see Me with a chain saw in my hand ) A chain saw will not be in my hand . Your image if you see that is a false assumption of what I said . Who holds the responsibility? Leadership or the paid for hire guns that do the killing . The person who gives the order or the person that carries out the order?
QUOTE (Mekigal+Jun 6 2012, 12:09 PM)
If morality does not drive law then what does ? Thou shall not kill seems like a pretty good law driven by moral code .
Laws are created when legislators decide that a specific undesirable behavior requires a punitive consequence. Lying to your mother does not earn you a fine or prison sentence, but congress decided that lying under oath in a court of law does. Laws are in place to promote a healthy society by punishing behaviors that hurt society.
Morality can inform the law, but legislators need to really examine whether a legal consequence is necessary to address immoral behavior. Countries like Iran have no boundary between morality and the law, and as a consequence their citizens have very little personal liberty.
Morality can inform the law, but legislators need to really examine whether a legal consequence is necessary to address immoral behavior. Countries like Iran have no boundary between morality and the law, and as a consequence their citizens have very little personal liberty.
Consider how laws get made ?
Something usually happens that we collectively see as being " Not Moral "
Then we make a law that says you can't do that cause we have agreed it is not the right thing to do .
Cheating on your spouse is immoral by almost everyone's judgement, but there are good reasons why that is not punishable by law.
The legislators found that they could reduce the number of fire deaths by enforcing standards on the construction industry. That was a moral and ethical good that benefited from being codified in law.
I'm not saying that there isn't significant overlap between morals, laws and ethics, but there are differences.
An action can be moral and ethical, but not legal (like aiding an illegal alien).
An action can be ethical, but not moral or legal (assisted suicide).
The only reason World War 3 hasn't happened yet is because everyone is terrified of nukes. The threat of nuclear destruction prevents conflicts between world powers, not love or goodness, certainly not on our own parts anyway, but rather our own expertise at slaughtering one another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
You're correct. It is somewhat of a deterrent.
Philanthropy is, by and large, a power trip. While it appears to altruism, true altruism requires the giver to get nothing in return for their giving. What they do get is an ego boost, greater power by virtue of the ability to give and prestige. Very few are truly altruistic; I think Buffett and Gates are likely to be though you never know. (From the writings of philosopher Julian Baggini.)
Philanthropy is, by and large, a power trip. While it appears to altruism, true altruism requires the giver to get nothing in return for their giving. What they do get is an ego boost, greater power by virtue of the ability to give and prestige. Very few are truly altruistic; I think Buffett and Gates are likely to be though you never know. (From the writings of philosopher Julian Baggini.)
I don't think it's as clear as plain survival. What about group survival at the expense of other groups?
Humans lived in small groups, packs, tribes and survival of the group meant greater chance of survival of the individual. No secret there; we were just like any other animal. What changed, however, was the emergence of food storage and domestication of plants and animals that allowed non-nomadic existence and a far greater concentration of population.
What that required was a code for survival in this larger pack so ethics and morality were "created". Unfortunately, those who thought there is some invisible fairy ruling their lives abused and distorted those principles, usually for their own ends.
So-called "moral" prohibitions concerning sexuality resulted from either said sky-fairyists or those who wanted persistence of their genes. It is believed by a few scholars that Saul of Tarsis (St Paul) was a self-hating homosexual who wanted everyone to suffer as much as he did internally so we now have xian "morality".
So-called "moral" prohibitions concerning sexuality resulted from either said sky-fairyists or those who wanted persistence of their genes. It is believed by a few scholars that Saul of Tarsis (St Paul) was a self-hating homosexual who wanted everyone to suffer as much as he did internally so we now have xian "morality".
What about eugenics?
Laws are created when legislators decide that a specific undesirable behavior requires a punitive consequence. Lying to your mother does not earn you a fine or prison sentence, but congress decided that lying under oath in a court of law does. Laws are in place to promote a healthy society by punishing behaviors that hurt society.
QUOTE
Or to say perception of morality seems to the the driving force behind law.
Morality can inform the law, but legislators need to really examine whether a legal consequence is necessary to address immoral behavior. Countries like Iran have no boundary between morality and the law, and as a consequence their citizens have very little personal liberty.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Or to say perception of morality seems to the the driving force behind law. |
Morality can inform the law, but legislators need to really examine whether a legal consequence is necessary to address immoral behavior. Countries like Iran have no boundary between morality and the law, and as a consequence their citizens have very little personal liberty.
Consider how laws get made ?
Something usually happens that we collectively see as being " Not Moral "
Then we make a law that says you can't do that cause we have agreed it is not the right thing to do .
Cheating on your spouse is immoral by almost everyone's judgement, but there are good reasons why that is not punishable by law.
QUOTE
We have egress windows in our houses for example. It is a law that you have them in your bedrooms . Someone died trying to get out of a fire so the law became more strict. Accessibility became the issue . Why ? So less people will die trying to get out of a fire . Was that law driven by "Thou shall not kill"
The legislators found that they could reduce the number of fire deaths by enforcing standards on the construction industry. That was a moral and ethical good that benefited from being codified in law.
I'm not saying that there isn't significant overlap between morals, laws and ethics, but there are differences.
An action can be moral and ethical, but not legal (like aiding an illegal alien).
An action can be ethical, but not moral or legal (assisted suicide).
What is the message in the law . What is the end result . Moral degradation ? and is that a bad thing as we as a species evolve into more peaceful animal
I didn't say that right. Is it moral to cheat on your spouse ? It might be under circumstance. Does the law now reflect that judgement in morality . A revision of past archaic laws . You know some states have laws that deal with what was once considered immoral behavior . Are they still to us as modern people with liberties . Or is it more that our morals have changed do to the long effect of evolving moral structures evidenced to us by new laws like no fault divorces and such . Then will lead to more moral degradation in the future by way of " You can cheat on your spouse it is O.K.
Hand in Hand I would think . The mind set of the populace drives future moral judgement and future moral judgement drives future laws. I don't see a line splitting the 2 . Not when you consider the implications down the road a bit . Lets take Bill Clinton and his Monica thrills . What did that do for society ? It said by his actions you can get a blow job , it is alright. Now I got no prob with Bill getting a little that is not the point . It became a little more acceptable . It was reflected by the courts handling of the issue . That puts a new spin in the witnesses to the event . The child that witnessed the event ? It formed an impression and by this impression the child grows and navigates with a new localized time zone of there generation where as the old fart feels cheated by the act . There life morals crumble before there eyes and there level of what they consider appalling has been breached. You see how that might drive future moral standing and the change of law as a result ?
I do believe there are states where it is still illegal to have oral sex . I could be wrong . I don't think I am . They may be dead law or better put not enforced but still on the books.
O.K. I get your saying . They may over lap but because of some of the crazy ideas people have in there heads of what is moral they have to have a line drawn between them . I am saying in larger parameters of time there is no line . It is just at different time zones of development. It is all part of my displacement theories . In with the new out with the old kind of thing . The future divided by the past . Actually. The future plus the past is double the present . Did I say that right Math People ? The present is one half the past+ the future . There is that better Math Man . Yeah that is my formula . Displacement theory and it is all good when talking about moral standings and what drives morality
I didn't say that right. Is it moral to cheat on your spouse ? It might be under circumstance. Does the law now reflect that judgement in morality . A revision of past archaic laws . You know some states have laws that deal with what was once considered immoral behavior . Are they still to us as modern people with liberties . Or is it more that our morals have changed do to the long effect of evolving moral structures evidenced to us by new laws like no fault divorces and such . Then will lead to more moral degradation in the future by way of " You can cheat on your spouse it is O.K.
Hand in Hand I would think . The mind set of the populace drives future moral judgement and future moral judgement drives future laws. I don't see a line splitting the 2 . Not when you consider the implications down the road a bit . Lets take Bill Clinton and his Monica thrills . What did that do for society ? It said by his actions you can get a blow job , it is alright. Now I got no prob with Bill getting a little that is not the point . It became a little more acceptable . It was reflected by the courts handling of the issue . That puts a new spin in the witnesses to the event . The child that witnessed the event ? It formed an impression and by this impression the child grows and navigates with a new localized time zone of there generation where as the old fart feels cheated by the act . There life morals crumble before there eyes and there level of what they consider appalling has been breached. You see how that might drive future moral standing and the change of law as a result ?
I do believe there are states where it is still illegal to have oral sex . I could be wrong . I don't think I am . They may be dead law or better put not enforced but still on the books.
O.K. I get your saying . They may over lap but because of some of the crazy ideas people have in there heads of what is moral they have to have a line drawn between them . I am saying in larger parameters of time there is no line . It is just at different time zones of development. It is all part of my displacement theories . In with the new out with the old kind of thing . The future divided by the past . Actually. The future plus the past is double the present . Did I say that right Math People ? The present is one half the past+ the future . There is that better Math Man . Yeah that is my formula . Displacement theory and it is all good when talking about moral standings and what drives morality
you want to leap over the porn killer children . I am the door . I didn't coin my self the door all others do . That my meekness disappear because of the youthfulness of the new song to the lord that I be who I am . I can no longer deny my destiny . I am the door . You all made Me the door so well . *** get with it . Stand with Me shoulder to shoulder skin to skin as the Haitians say.
I heard a song by Albert King . Now there is a Voodoo King for you . The Guy was an expert spell caster. He is the one that has locked Me in my basement and took the key for Me to get out . Not until I listen with every fiber of my soul will he let Me out . So what am I doing . I am listening to the Mo Fo voodoo Man from the Past . His soul is resurrected. He stands before the Greathouse this day and this day forth
Albert King is his name . Great in the Hall of the Mountain King
I heard a song by Albert King . Now there is a Voodoo King for you . The Guy was an expert spell caster. He is the one that has locked Me in my basement and took the key for Me to get out . Not until I listen with every fiber of my soul will he let Me out . So what am I doing . I am listening to the Mo Fo voodoo Man from the Past . His soul is resurrected. He stands before the Greathouse this day and this day forth
Albert King is his name . Great in the Hall of the Mountain King
Mekigal;
Do you really believe humans are "evolving" into something more peaceful?
The only reason World War 3 hasn't happened yet is because everyone is terrified of nukes. The threat of nuclear destruction prevents conflicts between world powers, not love or goodness, certainly not on our own parts anyway, but rather our own expertise at slaughtering one another.
Anyone who believes "Evil" or "morality" are "genetic" or "evolved" shoudl then strongly support the death penalty for heinous offenders, and possibly sterilization for mid-level offenders in order to prevent their "evil" genes from ever being perpetuated in the population.
Evil is done when people mis-use free will for selfish or violent acts, or in rebellion of God and the natural order he ordained.
Do you really believe humans are "evolving" into something more peaceful?
The only reason World War 3 hasn't happened yet is because everyone is terrified of nukes. The threat of nuclear destruction prevents conflicts between world powers, not love or goodness, certainly not on our own parts anyway, but rather our own expertise at slaughtering one another.
Anyone who believes "Evil" or "morality" are "genetic" or "evolved" shoudl then strongly support the death penalty for heinous offenders, and possibly sterilization for mid-level offenders in order to prevent their "evil" genes from ever being perpetuated in the population.
Evil is done when people mis-use free will for selfish or violent acts, or in rebellion of God and the natural order he ordained.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jun 8 2012, 10:15 PM)
The only reason World War 3 hasn't happened yet is because everyone is terrified of nukes. The threat of nuclear destruction prevents conflicts between world powers, not love or goodness, certainly not on our own parts anyway, but rather our own expertise at slaughtering one another.
It also has a lot to do with the fact that trade is more economically valuable than conquest. We also know from experience that nukes don't prevent indirect conflicts between superpowers, just direct ones. The globalization of trade is a big reason why the world is much different now than it was in the '60s. The countries you have to watch out for are the isolated ones (Iran, N. Korea, perhaps even Russia) because they don't rely on other countries to keep their economies running. For them, conquest is more viable than trade.
It also has a lot to do with the fact that trade is more economically valuable than conquest. We also know from experience that nukes don't prevent indirect conflicts between superpowers, just direct ones. The globalization of trade is a big reason why the world is much different now than it was in the '60s. The countries you have to watch out for are the isolated ones (Iran, N. Korea, perhaps even Russia) because they don't rely on other countries to keep their economies running. For them, conquest is more viable than trade.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jun 9 2012, 02:15 AM)
The only reason World War 3 hasn't happened yet is because everyone is terrified of nukes. The threat of nuclear destruction prevents conflicts between world powers, not love or goodness, certainly not on our own parts anyway, but rather our own expertise at slaughtering one another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
You're correct. It is somewhat of a deterrent.
Morality was not designed to maximize the individual, but rather morality was designed to maximize the group by minimizing social cost. Morality was designed for the needs of the team more than the subjective needs of the players.
Let me give an example, although stealing could make it easier for an individual to prosper, the result will be an increase in social tension and social costs. If some people began to steal, other people will trust less, need to spend money on defensive measures, we will now have to pay for more police, jails, etc, The cost and social tension starts to increase and the team cohesion suffers. The team needs all hands on deck. If everyone stole to make their personal life easier, there is nobody left working, so the entire group breaks down.
If someone commits adultery, they may have a good time in the sack. That individual might maximize their choice and pleasure. But the result can be social tension and social expense, like new expensive social programs to mop up the mess. Again morality was not about the individual, but rather maximizing the group or team. The individual might feel less than maximized with pure morality.
Ethics are different from morality, in that ethics try to take into consideration the needs of the individual. Ethical choices are based on agreeing to a certain level of social inefficiency and expense, in favor of the individual.
The social ratio of morality to ethics or team to individual has to do with the level of prosperity and the cohesion of the group. Back in ancient times, cultures had to gather scarce resources while living in hostile times. There was not a lot of extra to waste. Morality minimized cost for the team. With the team strong the players gain the spin off benefits that come with a strong team.
In prosperous cultures, like in modern first world cultures, morality can break down to some extent in favor of ethics, since we can afford to waste some of our surplus resources and can handle social tensions better. But eventually, too high of a ratio of ethics to morality starts to break the team apart, due to too much cost and tension. Many great empire implode under the weight of too much ethics.
Let me give an example, although stealing could make it easier for an individual to prosper, the result will be an increase in social tension and social costs. If some people began to steal, other people will trust less, need to spend money on defensive measures, we will now have to pay for more police, jails, etc, The cost and social tension starts to increase and the team cohesion suffers. The team needs all hands on deck. If everyone stole to make their personal life easier, there is nobody left working, so the entire group breaks down.
If someone commits adultery, they may have a good time in the sack. That individual might maximize their choice and pleasure. But the result can be social tension and social expense, like new expensive social programs to mop up the mess. Again morality was not about the individual, but rather maximizing the group or team. The individual might feel less than maximized with pure morality.
Ethics are different from morality, in that ethics try to take into consideration the needs of the individual. Ethical choices are based on agreeing to a certain level of social inefficiency and expense, in favor of the individual.
The social ratio of morality to ethics or team to individual has to do with the level of prosperity and the cohesion of the group. Back in ancient times, cultures had to gather scarce resources while living in hostile times. There was not a lot of extra to waste. Morality minimized cost for the team. With the team strong the players gain the spin off benefits that come with a strong team.
In prosperous cultures, like in modern first world cultures, morality can break down to some extent in favor of ethics, since we can afford to waste some of our surplus resources and can handle social tensions better. But eventually, too high of a ratio of ethics to morality starts to break the team apart, due to too much cost and tension. Many great empire implode under the weight of too much ethics.
QUOTE
How does philanthropy fit into that?
Philanthropy is, by and large, a power trip. While it appears to altruism, true altruism requires the giver to get nothing in return for their giving. What they do get is an ego boost, greater power by virtue of the ability to give and prestige. Very few are truly altruistic; I think Buffett and Gates are likely to be though you never know. (From the writings of philosopher Julian Baggini.)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How does philanthropy fit into that? |
Philanthropy is, by and large, a power trip. While it appears to altruism, true altruism requires the giver to get nothing in return for their giving. What they do get is an ego boost, greater power by virtue of the ability to give and prestige. Very few are truly altruistic; I think Buffett and Gates are likely to be though you never know. (From the writings of philosopher Julian Baggini.)
I don't think it's as clear as plain survival. What about group survival at the expense of other groups?
Humans lived in small groups, packs, tribes and survival of the group meant greater chance of survival of the individual. No secret there; we were just like any other animal. What changed, however, was the emergence of food storage and domestication of plants and animals that allowed non-nomadic existence and a far greater concentration of population.
What that required was a code for survival in this larger pack so ethics and morality were "created". Unfortunately, those who thought there is some invisible fairy ruling their lives abused and distorted those principles, usually for their own ends.
QUOTE
What about moral prohibitions against sexuality?
So-called "moral" prohibitions concerning sexuality resulted from either said sky-fairyists or those who wanted persistence of their genes. It is believed by a few scholars that Saul of Tarsis (St Paul) was a self-hating homosexual who wanted everyone to suffer as much as he did internally so we now have xian "morality".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What about moral prohibitions against sexuality? |
So-called "moral" prohibitions concerning sexuality resulted from either said sky-fairyists or those who wanted persistence of their genes. It is believed by a few scholars that Saul of Tarsis (St Paul) was a self-hating homosexual who wanted everyone to suffer as much as he did internally so we now have xian "morality".
What about eugenics?
Humans used to practise eugenics in a primitive form by not keeping the weak, deformed and sick alive because they threatened the survival of the pack. As we are now civilised, there is no reason to continue the concept.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.