|
|
Post by Ubereil on Mar 18, 2010 15:19:36 GMT
I know that and I don't care. Pepole is not the least ambiguous and it's loads easier to write than people. Why is it simpler? Pep-ole vs peo-ple. ole and ple is equally simple but pep is loads simpler than peo. Besides, pepole is true art. Assuming that "the man" means the establishment, anyway... Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 18, 2010 15:40:25 GMT
This fierce and uncompromising tribalism...uncompromising - as if a compromise would be something inherently bad, instead of a key to (social) functioning of any groups. In a world of conflicting interests nothing is achieved without compromise. While one shouldn't (have to) accept 'foul' compromises, one also shouldn't treat a compromise as a 'battle lost'. I believe a lot is due to the 'selling' of achievements to the general public - not the least by the media. The 'who didn't get what' gets greater visibilty than the 'how big is the smallest common factor' achieved. This was pretty much my point, Glance, yes: a refusal to compromise is hurting the nation that both sides profess to love. Instead of all being Americans together, they are divided into Republicans and Democrats. They forget that "A house divided against itself cannot stand." |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 18, 2010 15:50:15 GMT
Ube...
It's also a fact that things that feel good for you can also be VERY bad for you and that most people have no real grasp of consequence in the medium term, let alone the long term. As something which may feel bad in the short term can lead to very good long term consequences and vice versa, immediate feeling is no guide to anything and thus no help with determining ideal ethics.
It's also the case that much of how we feel as a result of what we do/is done is a result of social programming. If we think something will gain us the regard of our peers or otherwise result in social reward, or we are taught it is 'good', we will likely feel good about doing it, even when it is in fact detrimental to us and to others.
On a slightly more flippant note, if there are no moral facts then "There are no moral facts" can be a fact, but not a moral one! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Mar 18, 2010 16:28:38 GMT
I know that and I don't care. Pepole is not the least ambiguous and it's loads easier to write than people. Why is it simpler? Pep-ole vs peo-ple. ole and ple is equally simple but pep is loads simpler than peo. Übereil That reminds me of a discussion I once had with a dear friend on her continuous use of 'cementary' instead of 'cemetary' - always wondered what picture was stuck in her mind...  So you're deliberately ignoring a correct form out of lazyness - and then spend a post on defending it as not being ambiguous? What if I found a context where one wouldn't be certain that your typo doesn't mean a peepole? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Mar 18, 2010 16:54:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Mar 18, 2010 19:44:30 GMT
I saw nothing in his ranting that had any coherence at all..  I understand that he is the "amazing atheist" (probably named himself as amazing.. ;D) but his apparent great fear is that America will become some kind of Theocracy...You gotta twist a lot of stuff to come to that conclusion based on what the school book changes are about... I have spoke to literally thousands of Christians in my life and I have never, ever, heard ANYONE that would want to live under a Theocracy....it would be like living under the absolute demands of, lets say, the Catholic church. If the Pope decrees it,"ex-cathedra" (sp) or "from the seat of Peter" it is law,(he has only done it a couple of times) and there is no appeal system built in and no discussion...carry that out to the law of the land and you gotta revolution (once again) on your hand and no religious freedom at all... ....and worst of all, whoever is in charge would have to actually be God for it to be a true theocracy...and I don't want ANY preacher, priest, rabbi, iman or anyone else telling me I have to violate my own conscience in respect to my faith. I believe that I have the "true faith", but I absolutely defend your right to not believe a thing that I do. The constitution of the US also defends your right not to have any religious requirements or beliefs if you so desire....what is the problem.... I do agree that they should make room for Thomas Jefferson, but isn't the latest "scandal" concerning Jefferson now that he fathered a child/children by a black woman...one of his slaves....tsk...tsk....that was going around a few years ago... ;D edit here: also, for the athiest, and for Ube and others who need to actually relearn american history, I will simply post the quickie from Wiki on just who actually IS the father of the US Constitution.  "James Madison (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836) was an American politician and political philosopher who served as the fourth President of the United States (1809–1817) and is considered one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. The "Father of the Constitution," he was the principal author of the document. In 1788, he wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, still the most influential commentary on the Constitution. The first president to have served in the United States Congress, he was a leader in the 1st United States Congress, drafting many basic laws, and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution (said to be based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights) and thus is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights". As a political theorist, Madison's most distinctive belief was that the new republic needed checks and balances to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Mar 18, 2010 20:44:45 GMT
ss. The problem is the United States was founded under secular principals.
You can say "Oh they just didn't want to side with a Church, they were really hard line Christians-"
Thats irrelevant. Even were it true that would be irrelevant. Because the Government was founded under the idea of not picking one religion over another. Being founded as a "Christian Nation" isn't true, its something Christians like to fantasize about. It was founded as a nation, separate from the British Empire, where the leader was not chosen by a higher authority, but by the people themselves.
I find it sick as well that they are going to try and tell Texan children that McCarthy was right, and the Red Scare was justified, when it was a witch hunt and nothing less.
I'm sorry ss, but this is not fair. This is not about right, and its not about left, its about LIES being put in textbooks. And not only lies, but lies specifically being perpetuated by the religious right, and by the Republican Party.
I don't care if Democrats lie too (And they do) this is not acceptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Mar 18, 2010 21:46:58 GMT
It's also a fact that things that feel good for you can also be VERY bad for you and that most people have no real grasp of consequence in the medium term, let alone the long term. As something which may feel bad in the short term can lead to very good long term consequences and vice versa, immediate feeling is no guide to anything and thus no help with determining ideal ethics. It's also the case that much of how we feel as a result of what we do/is done is a result of social programming. If we think something will gain us the regard of our peers or otherwise result in social reward, or we are taught it is 'good', we will likely feel good about doing it, even when it is in fact detrimental to us and to others. A couple of objections: I said nothing about timeframes when I mentioned how different actions affects our feelings. For all you know I could be talking about maximising consequences over milleniums. I wasn't, but I was at least thinking longer than "the next 30 seconds". I'm a consequencialist, not a hedonist utilitarian. Also, I'm not talking about morality as a guidance of what we shall and shall not do, I'm talking about if morality exists in the first place since it's pointless to discuss moral guidance if doesn't. It would be like discussing what I would do if I could fly (possibly entertaining but ultimately useless, since I can't fly and I will probably never be able to). And that we don't know exactly what good consequences is isn't something that invalidates consequencialism in itself. We know that that good consequences exist (even if we don't know what they are), so we can at least make (not so) educated guesses about it, right? And that's better than selecting what we to do randomly, isn't it? And of course, there's also consequencialist theories based on the idea that we don't know (or at least have a very limited knowledge of it) what good consequences is. Systems based on "follow these simple rules" and maximising consequences that way. It's also the case that much of how we feel as a result of what we do/is done is a result of social programming. If we think something will gain us the regard of our peers or otherwise result in social reward, or we are taught it is 'good', we will likely feel good about doing it, even when it is in fact detrimental to us and to others. On a slightly more flippant note, if there are no moral facts then "There are no moral facts" can be a fact, but not a moral one! ;D It's a fact that deals with what we ought to do rather than what is, and therefore it's by definition a moral fact. So you're deliberately ignoring a correct form out of lazyness - and then spend a post on defending it as not being ambiguous? What if I found a context where one wouldn't be certain that your typo doesn't mean a peepole? ;D I've written daily in English for the last six years and I'm yet to run into that situation. edit here: also, for the athiest, and for Ube and others who need to actually relearn american history, I will simply post the quickie from Wiki on just who actually IS the father of the US Constitution. I'm from Sweden, so I never really learnt US History, which makes it kind of hard to relearn it. Still, we were talking about the founding fathers, not the writer of the constitution. One founding father was Thomas Paine, who once said "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." In other words, that's one founding father who weren't christian. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by ss on Mar 18, 2010 22:25:45 GMT
ss. The problem is the United States was founded under secular principals. You can say "Oh they just didn't want to side with a Church, they were really hard line Christians-" Thats irrelevant. Even were it true that would be irrelevant. Because the Government was founded under the idea of not picking one religion over another. Being founded as a "Christian Nation" isn't true, its something Christians like to fantasize about. It was founded as a nation, separate from the British Empire, where the leader was not chosen by a higher authority, but by the people themselves. I find it sick as well that they are going to try and tell Texan children that McCarthy was right, and the Red Scare was justified, when it was a witch hunt and nothing less. I'm sorry ss, but this is not fair. This is not about right, and its not about left, its about LIES being put in textbooks. And not only lies, but lies specifically being perpetuated by the religious right, and by the Republican Party. I don't care if Democrats lie too (And they do) this is not acceptable. I agree with you - mostly - lies should never be told and I figure they are trying to justify part of Mccarthyism and there may be some truth in it when it started (see the Vernona papers) but like all other things that gather steam and run amoke, it did, and lots of innocent people were caught up in the witch hunt. Also, I don't think this nation was a "Christian Nation" by the definition I would use. If every person involved in the establishment of it were Christians, it doesn't mean it is a Christian Nation. I agree, in principle it was a "free" nation, where freedom FROM religion was/is as important as any other freedom. I think the "lie" trying to be rectified is the denial that the founders were actually "God fearing" Christians (mostly) and prayed for guidance in their decisions and believed in and based common law on both the 10 commandments as well as English common law (which was also influenced by same commandments). I see nothing wrong with that truth being told, not hid...it has no bearing on the law or anything else. Why does most people rant about Jefferson being the Father of the Constitution...he was not...he was a founding father, that placed great debate in play on all the issues being considered. His views were considered and he contributed much. I think you may find in modern texts that he already has been downplayed or debunked as something he never was. I am not after revisionist history, I am after accurate history...let the chips fall where they may... |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 18, 2010 23:44:35 GMT
Ube...
Most people, however, ARE concerned mainly with the next 30 seconds when it comes to how something makes them feel, and as we are talking about humanity as a whole rather than you or I, I think my point stands.
Morality exists in the same way as any other human-created social construct: it's all in our minds, but it's very real on a Consensual and Subjective Reality level - just not on an Objective Reality level.
For many and perhaps most, their ability to accurately predict consequence is SO limited they may as well choose randomly. Many have a better chance of getting it right that way, rather than if they think about it - or at the least minimising the damage.
The best such systems are called 'religions' as I have noted elsewhere.
Welcome to political Centrism, BTW. As a Consequentialist, you must surely have seen the utter uselessness of Left and Right alike.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Mar 19, 2010 9:48:32 GMT
Most people, however, ARE concerned mainly with the next 30 seconds when it comes to how something makes them feel, and as we are talking about humanity as a whole rather than you or I, I think my point stands. I don't. What we ought to do and what we are acually doing are two different things. If we only focus on the next 30 seconds and doing so leads to worse consequences than focusing on longer timeframes then that only means we are doing it wrong. Not a valid argument against consequencialism. Morality exists in the same way as any other human-created social construct: it's all in our minds, but it's very real on a Consensual and Subjective Reality level - just not on an Objective Reality level. So, the Holocaust wasn't wrong? Torturing kittens for no reason isn't wrong? What humans do doesn't really matter (because if there's no morality, then why should it matter)? For many and perhaps most, their ability to accurately predict consequence is SO limited they may as well choose randomly. Many have a better chance of getting it right that way, rather than if they think about it - or at the least minimising the damage. That doesn't mean there is no "best choice", that just means we're not likely to make that choice. The best such systems are called 'religions' as I have noted elsewhere. I believe religion have benefitted humans in the past, but we're moving more and more towards a society where it's obsolete. We've definently reached the level where it only benefits us on an individual level, when applied on greater scale (for instance, in governing) it instead hurts us. Welcome to political Centrism, BTW. As a Consequentialist, you must surely have seen the utter uselessness of Left and Right alike. That depends on what you mean by Left and Right. I'm still aligned to the left politically*, but that's for pragmatical reasons, not ideological. It's not so much about "Good vs Bad", it's more about what works and what doesn't work. If there are right wing policies that works better than left wing policies then I'm not opposed just because it's from the wrong side of the isle. For instance, if letting some pepole pay for high quality care drives down queues for everyone and drives up the quality a little for the pepole who can't pay and a lot for those who can, then I'm not opposed because the care gets better for everyone. Ideological leftists would be opposed though since it benefits some more than others. *No matter how neutral we claim to be we still all have a general idea on how a country should be run for best effect. Mine happens to be alighned to the left. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Mar 19, 2010 10:03:02 GMT
If you're talking in a purely darwinism way, then the holocaust was wrong (because at least some of those that were wiped out were fitter to survive than those that weren't wiped out), and torturing kittens for no reason isn't wrong (because it doesn't affect the long term survival of our species at all, infact it could be said to be increasing our chances of survival).
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Mar 19, 2010 11:46:37 GMT
Am I wrong or were more amendments to the US constitution changed than basic articles of the constitution?
Notwithstanding the answer, I respect these drafters as a bunch of intelligent and wise men, who drafted up a document that withstood the test of time for over 200 years - which is no little feat.
That some may have been more outspoken or more apt to put the thoughts of the discussions into words doesn't belittle the consensus achieved nor the contribution of anybody present.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 19, 2010 11:58:23 GMT
I don't. What we ought to do and what we are acually doing are two different things. If we only focus on the next 30 seconds and doing so leads to worse consequences than focusing on longer timeframes then that only means we are doing it wrong. Obviously. But that's people for you. Most people just don't take a particularly long term view. Not arguing for or against. Just pointing out that it's no good wishing people thought in a certain way when they clearly don't. Same mistake Marx made with Communism - in order for his 'ideal' system to work, people would have to stop thiking like people, and they won't. In order for people to start thinking about and truly understanding the consequences of their actions - not just for themselves but for others and over generations, which is the only way it's worth doing - would require a seismic shift in human thinking. You'd also have to stop the Cycle Of Civilisations, which may be even harder. In human terms, sure. But would the universe care? Obviously not. We raise purely human objections to those things - our values, not those of any Objjective force (Though I am aware the religious will disagree with this statement  . Absolutely. So you have a better guarantor of social cohesion? What is it? If you continue to look at consequence and value that over ideology, you'll get there... |
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Mar 19, 2010 17:54:26 GMT
If you're talking in a purely darwinism way, then the holocaust was wrong (because at least some of those that were wiped out were fitter to survive than those that weren't wiped out), and torturing kittens for no reason isn't wrong (because it doesn't affect the long term survival of our species at all, infact it could be said to be increasing our chances of survival). What Elliot is suggesting is Nihilism, not Darwinism. And after all, Darwinism (the kind you mention up there, anyway) is a kind of morality. Notwithstanding the answer, I respect these drafters as a bunch of intelligent and wise men, who drafted up a document that withstood the test of time for over 200 years - which is no little feat. That some may have been more outspoken or more apt to put the thoughts of the discussions into words doesn't belittle the consensus achieved nor the contribution of anybody present. There's no denying that the Constitution was well written, especially for it's time. The US was more advanced in 1790 than a lot of countries today are. The constitution wasn't perfect though, it does have place for improvement. And I see no reason why that improvement should be implemented. Obviously. But that's people for you. Most people just don't take a particularly long term view. Not arguing for or against. Just pointing out that it's no good wishing people thought in a certain way when they clearly don't. Same mistake Marx made with Communism - in order for his 'ideal' system to work, people would have to stop thiking like people, and they won't. In order for people to start thinking about and truly understanding the consequences of their actions - not just for themselves but for others and over generations, which is the only way it's worth doing - would require a seismic shift in human thinking. You'd also have to stop the Cycle Of Civilisations, which may be even harder. Fair enough. I agree 100 % on the wishing how pepole think, by the way. I was thinking of writing something similiar (even bringing up Communism) about your first point. What should those human terms be and why should they be those terms? But would the universe care? Obviously not. That's because the universe is a natural and not moral fact. They're two different things. So you have a better guarantor of social cohesion? What is it? Who said I need something better? What we have in Sweden is obviously good enough since we're better of than we've ever been and less religious than we've ever been. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 19, 2010 19:46:42 GMT
Elliot is NOT suggesting Nihilism! Nihilism is a belief in nothing.
Elliot IS suggesting that morals and ethics are created by societies to suit their own needs in the time and place in which those societies evolve, and thus that there is no such thing as a moral absolute as ALL morals are pure human invention anyway. We invent the lies we need to make sure that our societies work. A constant theme in many of my posts and one I was sure you would be familiar with by now...
A FACT is something that is immutable, not something that changes according to the opinions of whoever you ask.
As for Sweden... Well, it's a bit hard to describe any nation as successful when they are financially dependent on handouts from the EU, don't you think? Not to mention being entirely dependent on others for defence, should the worst come to it. Find a strong country that has no religion while supporting itself financially and you may have a point... You're also forgetting that Sweden regularly tithed its people to support the state religion until a very short time ago, meaning that the majority of Swedes are probably still religious. What effect the decline of religion - IF it is truly happening - on Sweden will have is as yet unknown.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Mar 19, 2010 20:58:25 GMT
Elliot is NOT suggesting Nihilism! Nihilism is a belief in nothing. And you've repeatedly claimed that no morals exists outside of the human mind. That's moral nihilism, since it means that ultimately nothing is morally right or wrong. As for Sweden... Well, it's a bit hard to describe any nation as successful when they are financially dependent on handouts from the EU, don't you think? We're not dependent on EU handouts, Elliot. In fact, we're one of nine (or if it's thirteen, I can't remember track of if it's 13 spenders and 9 gainers or the other way around) countries who spends more on EU than we get out. To that, Holland's the only country who spend more relative to their BNP than Sweden, farm subtisides put in the equation. So, financially speaking, we're the second biggest loser in EU. Not to mention being entirely dependent on others for defence, should the worst come to it. Find a strong country that has no religion while supporting itself financially and you may have a point... Well, we are supporting ourself financially. And defence isn't something we'd be able to do even if we focused all our effort sorely on defending ourself. Our defence is that nobody wants to invade us, and world politics would require a radical change for that to happen. You're also forgetting that Sweden regularly tithed its people to support the state religion until a very short time ago, meaning that the majority of Swedes are probably still religious. . He's studied psycology and religion so he's far better at this kind of thing than I am. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 19, 2010 21:25:33 GMT
And you've repeatedly claimed that no morals exists outside of the human mind. That's moral nihilism, since it means that ultimately nothing is morally right or wrong. No, it means that ultimately human societies decide what is right and wrong according to their own needs, then believe in those things. Are you truly saying you cannot see the difference? With no offence at all Ube, I do not believe that. Not least because the two largest contributors overall are Germany and Britain, in that order, both of whom are G8 nations. MOST EU nations are net gainers rather than contributors, and unless things have changed very recently, that number includes Sweden. Regardless, this is a side issue. As have I. Edit: Just looked at the article and it's totally irrelevant to the wider point. This guy is quoting his opinion and that's all. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 19, 2010 22:09:16 GMT
For the record, I am convinced that religion is sharply declining in Sweden over the generations, BTW. As a stable highly developed nation with no enemies, that is a naturally occurring process for any nation. Just sayin' |
|
|
|
Post by ss on Mar 20, 2010 1:07:30 GMT
There's no denying that the Constitution was well written, especially for it's time. The US was more advanced in 1790 than a lot of countries today are. The constitution wasn't perfect though, it does have place for improvement. And I see no reason why that improvement should be implemented. Übereil The US was no more advanced in 1790 than was Europe, seeing as they were all immigrants from Europe..Yet they formed the Constitution.. And how is the Constitution not perfect??....please enlighten me with your wisdom. And where does it need improving?? I dare to say that no country on the face of this planet can improve on it...if they could have, they would have...Just compare Sweden and see how it works. |
|
.com
.