What's with all the fascination towards children, anyway? "Censor this for the children! Censor that for the children! Censor everything for the children! What if someone could use that technology to distribute child porn? They can. Ban it! Normally we wouldn't ban something because someone could abuse it, but children are involved this time!"
I don't think that's true, at least in the United States.
I think the bill of rights is nice and all, but I do not believe in natural rights.
Hence why you all had a revolution against your duly constituted legal monarch and felt justified in doing so, because you believed that the natural right of being born in a country was more important than some piece of paper saying that you were a subject.
They could've had a revolution whether or not they believed in natural rights. If they felt the laws were oppressive and unjust (in their opinions), then it would not matter whether they believed in natural rights or not. That's essentially what they did, anyway, since as far as I know, there is no evidence for the existence of natural rights.
You really can't imagine sitting down and, using reason, deriving a code of ethics that's based on reality, instead of imaginary magical beings?
I'm an atheist, so I don't see why you can't. But all I meant to imply was that people who go against your system of morality aren't necessarily objectively in the wrong (since there is, to my knowledge, no proof of absolute morals). And that's what it looked like you were stating.
A value system that values death and ignorance is a dead and street.
Only if they wished to kill themselves. Typically, they oppress a certain group.
One is inherently superior to the other, because adherents to the death-and-destruction framework cannot sustain themselves.
My problem is with your wording. "superior" in what sense? Sustainability, I guess?
You keep using words such as "immoral" and "evil" in a sense that implies that that's a fact. That is why I thought you might be implying that there is some sort of magical moral fairy that decides what is and is not evil rather than people just deciding such things for themselves.
Your convoluted concept of being amused by imaginary straw-man atheists is a good case in point.
"Imaginary straw-man atheists"? Whatever would those be? I assure you they're not imaginary, and it's not exactly a straw man, either. It was a simple statement that I am amused by such people.
Your disinterest in applying a discussion about value systems to real-world examples is a solid indicator that you know you're wrong.
How do you figure that? It sounds like a non-sequitur to me. If I told you that you would agree with me if you were in my situation and are therefore wrong, would you think that that would be valid? I fail to see how pointing out that it's not is a "solid indicator" that I'm wrong.
But really, are you claiming to be a mind reader? I know I'm wrong? Interesting. You're just deluding yourself, then. Deep in your heart, you know you're completely incorrect (it worked for you, apparently).
If you're asking me if I think it's proof that absolute morals exist, then no I don't.
Would you only be able to find the "absolute" in the immorality of such a value system if, perhaps, you were a girl about to be killed for having been able to read this paragraph?
I don't know, and that's irrelevant. What I would or would not do if I was in situation X is irrelevant to whether or not my current arguments are right or wrong.
What would it take for you to grasp the irreducible evil of a value system that values ignorance and death over knowledge and life?
Actual proof of not only absolute morals (such as a magical moral fairy), and, after that, proof that doing what you described is considered absolutely evil by the entity (or whatever decides what is and is not evil) that decides what is and is not evil.
But I've yet to see any proof of that beyond, "But killing is bad!" Even more amusing is when I find atheists who claim to not believe in god due to a lack of evidence claiming that absolute morals definitely exist (as in, they definitely, without a doubt, exist) even when there is no evidence (that I know of) that they do.
Sorry, but that is just what I see it as. To me, it's like a parasite. But I guess thinking something is similar to something else is impossible because if you compare two things, you're actually claiming that they are exactly alike!
Because I don't consider it a parasite (I stated that as an opinion). I see it that way mainly because it's not leeching off of anyone's body. Of course, that's not to say that someone who was born can't be considered a parasite, but they aren't the ones I think you should be allowed to kill.
So why kill such a parasite instead of extracting it intact?
I said "remove." If at all possible, I wouldn't mind them leaving it alive. But if that can't be done, I'm fine with killing it, too.
But one final comment. You say that "I am very happy with my current job", but given that you are trying to circumvent your employment contract I'd argue that you are not happy with your current job.
It's not possible to have one gripe with your current job while still enjoying it?
You can't summon the perspective to see that a moral system that stones women to death for teaching their daughters to read is fundamentally, objectively inferior to a system that doesn't do so?
Depending on what you mean by that, not really. I definitely disagree with it personally, and I see nothing wrong with criticizing it if you disagree with it personally, but unless someone can present evidence of absolute morals, I wouldn't say it's "objectively" bad or "inferior."
It does? I disagree. I think rights are defined by law. If unborn babies had no rights in the eyes of the law, that would not be true (at least to me).
So you favour killing a human for no fault of theirs (abortion) but oppose killing as just punishment for an unjustified murder (say the murderer of a child... or a baby)?
I see the baby, while it's still in the mother's body, as a mere parasite. If she wants to remove it, I think she should be able to do that. I do not believe the unborn baby has any rights if the mother wishes to remove them.
On the other hand, the death penalty is killing someone who isn't part of someone else's body (a free human). Not to mention that there is a chance (however slim) that they might be innocent. You can let someone out of prison after 20 years if they're found innocent, but not if you kill them beforehand. Additionally, whether the killing is "just" and whether the murder was "unjustified" is, I believe, subjective.
But that's exactly the kind of thing they are studying in psychology these days.
Seems unlikely to me that they'd come to the conclusion that you have no role in your own actions. At that point, it seems like it would be pointless to differentiate instincts from oneself. And I'd say it would also vary from person to person.
I have no idea how accurate these studies are, though. But I wouldn't go to such an extreme.
But being in a panicky crowd is outside of common experience, and the fight or flight instinct is going to be far stronger than we imagine.
In your second part you asked why they would send them here rather than elsewhere. I said that it may be because they see our schools as the "best" out of the bunch. Again, I'm saying it doesn't necessarily mean they're objectively good (or even necessarily "good" in the subjective sense). Why would it?
it stands to reason that it's compared the schools in other countries and found them lacking somehow.
Right. Other schools lacking something does not by itself indicate that ours is "good."
But again, it was because of my own actions that I was able to change (and that I ate). I don't really know what to say. I guess absolutely nothing is anyone's fault because everything is just the fault of instinct (which controls absolutely everything you do rather than making you more likely to want to do something). I might be misinterpreting something here, though.
I think there are decisions at work here. Yes, it might be difficult to go against instinct, but as we see with habits, it's not impossible. There's no reason that people have (have) to panic and run out of a theater that I see.
including fact that people rationalise their actions after the fact.
Seems like it would be difficult to prove. If someone does something, instincts did it. If they say that it was their own choice, they're just rationalizing it after the fact.
Because usually diets fail.
It was as simple as stopping myself from eating things that I didn't need to eat.
Another example of irrationality.
Even if it is all just instinct, I really don't know why you're using words such as "irrational." I don't think there's anything inherently illogical about prioritizing.
You don't need to tell me that. But I didn't really imply that it was. I simply said that it doesn't necessarily mean that they're "good." They just could be considered "better" by some people.
Now, if you're saying they're just better than the schools in a minority of countries who send their students to the US
I'm saying that they might think that they're the "best" ones... that they know of. They might even be the "best," but that doesn't necessarily mean they're objectively good.
In other words, I was simply saying that people coming to the US for education doesn't necessarily mean that US education is objectively good.
You didn't decide to be obese because you thought the pleasure of the taste of the food was worth it.
But I did. I wanted the food because I thought it tasted good. It was, however, still my final decision to eat it. If that was not the case, then I should not have been able to change my priorities around and decide to lose weight (which I did).
Again, I'm not saying that instincts have no part in it (like wanting the food). I'm saying that in most complicated situations, the final decision still lies with you.
Obesity - people who are obese and unhappy to be obese continue to eat sugary fatty foods to excess. They understand that eating those things is what made them and keeps them obese, and they do it anyway. Instinct is stronger than rationale.
I was actually in this situation for a time. I was simply deciding that I personally wanted to eat food I thought was good rather than get slim. If I had a choice, I would have rather been slim and been able to eat all the food that I wanted. Nothing forced me to eat. That was my own decision.
In fact, almost all of the remaining examples are the same way. People are simply prioritizing their wants. The child does not want to wait longer; he just wants a marshmallow now. The fact that someone might not agree with their decision doesn't mean that what they're doing is irrational.
I'm not saying that instincts play no part in anything. I'm just saying that I highly doubt that they take control of your mind and body and force you to run out of a theater (even before there was any panicking) based on the words of a single individual.
Flight is the most basic task. The next two are fuck and fight. (there's also shit, piss, eat, drink, and sleep, but those are so simple they can barely be called tasks).
But the thing is... none of those things have ever made my body move on its own to a completely different location without me taking action myself. I've never lost complete control of my body that I can recall.
But you're overlooking a lot of factors, such as pheromones and your brain calculating that if you don't join in the stampede you'll be crushed by it.
I'm not overlooking them. I simply find it extremely hard to believe. Nor do I believe that people who stampede over others are blame-free (in fact, I believe any penalties should go to them). The part I find hard to believe isn't running away from a group of people so you don't get stampeded, but that people in crowds automatically assume that there is a fire when none is present (and the panicking part, too). There was no panicking before someone screamed "fire." Why would they instantly assume that there was a fire and begin panicking? Why even panic?
Slashdot Mirror
What's with all the fascination towards children, anyway? "Censor this for the children! Censor that for the children! Censor everything for the children! What if someone could use that technology to distribute child porn? They can. Ban it! Normally we wouldn't ban something because someone could abuse it, but children are involved this time!"
He was completely obliterated. All logic just vanishes when it comes to children.
I don't think that's true, at least in the United States.
I think the bill of rights is nice and all, but I do not believe in natural rights.
Hence why you all had a revolution against your duly constituted legal monarch and felt justified in doing so, because you believed that the natural right of being born in a country was more important than some piece of paper saying that you were a subject.
They could've had a revolution whether or not they believed in natural rights. If they felt the laws were oppressive and unjust (in their opinions), then it would not matter whether they believed in natural rights or not. That's essentially what they did, anyway, since as far as I know, there is no evidence for the existence of natural rights.
Portrayal of children as sexual objects is wrong.
Objectively wrong? If so, how did you come to such a conclusion?
You really can't imagine sitting down and, using reason, deriving a code of ethics that's based on reality, instead of imaginary magical beings?
I'm an atheist, so I don't see why you can't. But all I meant to imply was that people who go against your system of morality aren't necessarily objectively in the wrong (since there is, to my knowledge, no proof of absolute morals). And that's what it looked like you were stating.
A value system that values death and ignorance is a dead and street.
Only if they wished to kill themselves. Typically, they oppress a certain group.
One is inherently superior to the other, because adherents to the death-and-destruction framework cannot sustain themselves.
My problem is with your wording. "superior" in what sense? Sustainability, I guess?
You keep using words such as "immoral" and "evil" in a sense that implies that that's a fact. That is why I thought you might be implying that there is some sort of magical moral fairy that decides what is and is not evil rather than people just deciding such things for themselves.
Your convoluted concept of being amused by imaginary straw-man atheists is a good case in point.
"Imaginary straw-man atheists"? Whatever would those be? I assure you they're not imaginary, and it's not exactly a straw man, either. It was a simple statement that I am amused by such people.
Your disinterest in applying a discussion about value systems to real-world examples is a solid indicator that you know you're wrong.
How do you figure that? It sounds like a non-sequitur to me. If I told you that you would agree with me if you were in my situation and are therefore wrong, would you think that that would be valid? I fail to see how pointing out that it's not is a "solid indicator" that I'm wrong.
But really, are you claiming to be a mind reader? I know I'm wrong? Interesting. You're just deluding yourself, then. Deep in your heart, you know you're completely incorrect (it worked for you, apparently).
If you're using the term figuratively, or making an analogy, fine.
And I was.
For example, a newborn is still a parasite sucking the mammaries of its mother.
And the mother can give away the newborn, right?
Why should birth be the line if both fetuses and unweaned infants are parasites?
Because my goal is to ensure the ability of the mother to get rid of unwanted pregnancies while saving as many lives as possible.
Being killed isn't absolute enough for you?
If you're asking me if I think it's proof that absolute morals exist, then no I don't.
Would you only be able to find the "absolute" in the immorality of such a value system if, perhaps, you were a girl about to be killed for having been able to read this paragraph?
I don't know, and that's irrelevant. What I would or would not do if I was in situation X is irrelevant to whether or not my current arguments are right or wrong.
What would it take for you to grasp the irreducible evil of a value system that values ignorance and death over knowledge and life?
Actual proof of not only absolute morals (such as a magical moral fairy), and, after that, proof that doing what you described is considered absolutely evil by the entity (or whatever decides what is and is not evil) that decides what is and is not evil.
But I've yet to see any proof of that beyond, "But killing is bad!" Even more amusing is when I find atheists who claim to not believe in god due to a lack of evidence claiming that absolute morals definitely exist (as in, they definitely, without a doubt, exist) even when there is no evidence (that I know of) that they do.
But the part he finds flawed might not be big enough to make him dislike the job as a whole.
Sorry, but that is just what I see it as. To me, it's like a parasite. But I guess thinking something is similar to something else is impossible because if you compare two things, you're actually claiming that they are exactly alike!
Why is the baby not a parasite after it is born?
Because I don't consider it a parasite (I stated that as an opinion). I see it that way mainly because it's not leeching off of anyone's body. Of course, that's not to say that someone who was born can't be considered a parasite, but they aren't the ones I think you should be allowed to kill.
So why kill such a parasite instead of extracting it intact?
I said "remove." If at all possible, I wouldn't mind them leaving it alive. But if that can't be done, I'm fine with killing it, too.
But one final comment. You say that "I am very happy with my current job", but given that you are trying to circumvent your employment contract I'd argue that you are not happy with your current job.
It's not possible to have one gripe with your current job while still enjoying it?
You can't summon the perspective to see that a moral system that stones women to death for teaching their daughters to read is fundamentally, objectively inferior to a system that doesn't do so?
Depending on what you mean by that, not really. I definitely disagree with it personally, and I see nothing wrong with criticizing it if you disagree with it personally, but unless someone can present evidence of absolute morals, I wouldn't say it's "objectively" bad or "inferior."
and the baby has the right to live
It does? I disagree. I think rights are defined by law. If unborn babies had no rights in the eyes of the law, that would not be true (at least to me).
So you favour killing a human for no fault of theirs (abortion) but oppose killing as just punishment for an unjustified murder (say the murderer of a child... or a baby)?
I see the baby, while it's still in the mother's body, as a mere parasite. If she wants to remove it, I think she should be able to do that. I do not believe the unborn baby has any rights if the mother wishes to remove them.
On the other hand, the death penalty is killing someone who isn't part of someone else's body (a free human). Not to mention that there is a chance (however slim) that they might be innocent. You can let someone out of prison after 20 years if they're found innocent, but not if you kill them beforehand. Additionally, whether the killing is "just" and whether the murder was "unjustified" is, I believe, subjective.
But that's exactly the kind of thing they are studying in psychology these days.
Seems unlikely to me that they'd come to the conclusion that you have no role in your own actions. At that point, it seems like it would be pointless to differentiate instincts from oneself. And I'd say it would also vary from person to person.
I have no idea how accurate these studies are, though. But I wouldn't go to such an extreme.
But being in a panicky crowd is outside of common experience, and the fight or flight instinct is going to be far stronger than we imagine.
Or might be.
In your second part you asked why they would send them here rather than elsewhere. I said that it may be because they see our schools as the "best" out of the bunch. Again, I'm saying it doesn't necessarily mean they're objectively good (or even necessarily "good" in the subjective sense). Why would it?
it stands to reason that it's compared the schools in other countries and found them lacking somehow.
Right. Other schools lacking something does not by itself indicate that ours is "good."
But again, it was because of my own actions that I was able to change (and that I ate). I don't really know what to say. I guess absolutely nothing is anyone's fault because everything is just the fault of instinct (which controls absolutely everything you do rather than making you more likely to want to do something). I might be misinterpreting something here, though.
I think there are decisions at work here. Yes, it might be difficult to go against instinct, but as we see with habits, it's not impossible. There's no reason that people have (have) to panic and run out of a theater that I see.
including fact that people rationalise their actions after the fact.
Seems like it would be difficult to prove. If someone does something, instincts did it. If they say that it was their own choice, they're just rationalizing it after the fact.
Because usually diets fail.
It was as simple as stopping myself from eating things that I didn't need to eat.
Another example of irrationality.
Even if it is all just instinct, I really don't know why you're using words such as "irrational." I don't think there's anything inherently illogical about prioritizing.
"Good" is a relative term, not absolute.
You don't need to tell me that. But I didn't really imply that it was. I simply said that it doesn't necessarily mean that they're "good." They just could be considered "better" by some people.
Now, if you're saying they're just better than the schools in a minority of countries who send their students to the US
I'm saying that they might think that they're the "best" ones... that they know of. They might even be the "best," but that doesn't necessarily mean they're objectively good.
In other words, I was simply saying that people coming to the US for education doesn't necessarily mean that US education is objectively good.
You didn't decide to be obese because you thought the pleasure of the taste of the food was worth it.
But I did. I wanted the food because I thought it tasted good. It was, however, still my final decision to eat it. If that was not the case, then I should not have been able to change my priorities around and decide to lose weight (which I did).
Again, I'm not saying that instincts have no part in it (like wanting the food). I'm saying that in most complicated situations, the final decision still lies with you.
But you would probably panic at the fact that all the other people around you are panicking and shrieking and pushing, etc.
Rather, I would probably ask myself if running with them rather than staying in my seat is really the best option.
Well, it's good to know the average person is presumably easy to con.
You don't really get people.
If most people act like that, then no. No I don't. I don't understand them at all. I don't even want to understand them.
Obesity - people who are obese and unhappy to be obese continue to eat sugary fatty foods to excess. They understand that eating those things is what made them and keeps them obese, and they do it anyway. Instinct is stronger than rationale.
I was actually in this situation for a time. I was simply deciding that I personally wanted to eat food I thought was good rather than get slim. If I had a choice, I would have rather been slim and been able to eat all the food that I wanted. Nothing forced me to eat. That was my own decision.
In fact, almost all of the remaining examples are the same way. People are simply prioritizing their wants. The child does not want to wait longer; he just wants a marshmallow now. The fact that someone might not agree with their decision doesn't mean that what they're doing is irrational.
I'm not saying that instincts play no part in anything. I'm just saying that I highly doubt that they take control of your mind and body and force you to run out of a theater (even before there was any panicking) based on the words of a single individual.
Still want to claim that most people are rational?
I don't know if that's true or not. So I don't know.
Sight, Hearing, Touch, Smell, Taste. Mostly the first two.
I fail to see how this proves that most people act on instinct. You're going to have to do better than that.
Flight is the most basic task. The next two are fuck and fight. (there's also shit, piss, eat, drink, and sleep, but those are so simple they can barely be called tasks).
But the thing is... none of those things have ever made my body move on its own to a completely different location without me taking action myself. I've never lost complete control of my body that I can recall.
But you're overlooking a lot of factors, such as pheromones and your brain calculating that if you don't join in the stampede you'll be crushed by it.
I'm not overlooking them. I simply find it extremely hard to believe. Nor do I believe that people who stampede over others are blame-free (in fact, I believe any penalties should go to them). The part I find hard to believe isn't running away from a group of people so you don't get stampeded, but that people in crowds automatically assume that there is a fire when none is present (and the panicking part, too). There was no panicking before someone screamed "fire." Why would they instantly assume that there was a fire and begin panicking? Why even panic?
And letters make up words, but words aren't just a bunch of letters.
I think the intent of that short sentence was misinterpreted.
Still want to claim that most people are rational?
I don't know if that's true or not. So I don't know.
Most people act on instinct.
Do I personally want to ask you how you know this and whether you can prove this? Yes. You did state it as a fact, after all.