I read it in some book one time. It was called Revelation or something. I'm not saying I think it is true or anything, but aren't they making plans to rebuild the Temple? Just seems odd, is all.
I have to disagree. Your argument is only valid if you're able to support yourself during your entire lifetime without a group of people caring for and about you in times of sickness or other calamities.
Ever heard of vagrants?
The behaviour you outline above is pretty anti-social, and it's a sure bet it wouldn't be tolerated for very long by the tribe you were born into, possibly leading to instant gene-pool removal of yourself (or, at least, exclusion / expulsion from the tribe whose members you were abusing).
Not true. What if you're stealing from a different tribe? Happened all the time.
So I guess common sense does indeed dictate at least a fundamental adherence to basic principles that you'd call "moral", as it secures your survival within a group of people that'll support you in the long run.
Not true again. Morality isn't only about the people immediately around you. Again the example of raiding neighboring villages. This still doesn't explain why morals exist in the first place. I think society and how you are raised has more to do with your behaviour than you realize. You beleive of course there must be morals because you have been raised in a moral society.
In this case, your common sense is kinda short sighted. Because, extrapolating that, it should tell you that the next guy can do the same to you.
Actually, common sense tells me that the other guy can do that to me now. It tells me that my behaviour does not guarantee the other guy's behaviour. It tells me that while the other guy MIGHT do it to me, I can FOR SURE do it to him first.
So you have to expend resources to protect what you gained
You have to do this anyway. Don't believe me? Try leaving a $20 on the ground in a public place for an hour.
For reference, see the prisoner's dilemma.
As I've previously noted, a moral person is at a real disadvantage in the prisoner's dilemma. An amoral person will ALWAYS win when the other person is moral. Every time.
Some pretty smart guys realized that and thought, if they could make their people to conform to that, they could easily gain an advantage over other tribes.
No, they got an advantage the same way we always have...with violence. Orrrrrrrrrrrrrr trade. Nice try, though.
And behold, that trick worked! Look around you and you'll see that cultures who believe in religions that keep you from killing and stealing from your peers (not necessarily from other people/religions/cultures) are the most successful ones.
Evolutionary genetics and simple game theory lead to the conclusion that morality is an inevitable consequence of living in social groups.
You are incorrect. You are assuming that living in social groups is inevitable, which I dispute. You are also making an untestable assertion which I will not accept. Evolution does not produce morals. What morals do bears have? What morals do fish have? What morals do plants have?
Yes, but if you know that the other person is moral, and will not lie, then it is to your advantage every time to lie. Concepts like 'trust' and 'reputation' are not logical.
I have read that book. I found a number of flaws with it. You can find some nice critiques on teh intarweb, but basically I don't think that book is the best choice to promote the view you are promoting. He still cannot produce any logical reason for morality, notwithstanding the logical leap required to believe that evolution produces make-believe bogeymen.
Ask yourself: does prejudice always equal racism? Is prejudice always bad? Are only white people anti-islam? (Hint: the answer to all of those questions is 'no')
Prejudging people based on religion is not racism. Racism is prejudging people based on race. When you call things by names which do not describe those things, you should not gain credibility. If you do, the people to whom you are speaking are stupid.
If you protest the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, you're anti-Semitic
Why? What if you don't protest the existence of a Jewish state, just the particular one called Israel? Isn't the establishment of Israel as a secular state one of the precoursers to the end of days? I'm pretty much against Armageddon, personally, although I have nothing against Jews.
Christians who freak the fuck out when they go into a Target in December and see a sign that says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".
I've always wondered this: If you aren't Christian, why do you celebrate Christmas? For the record, though, I don't think Target should have to say Merry Christmas. I just bet they wouldn't be so happy during the 'holidays' if no one were buying Christmas presents there. Can't make much from Kwanzaa or Hanakkuh or Winter Solstice presents. Seems like if you're profiting off something, you shouldn't be scared to put it on your sign. Anyway, 'holiday' just means 'holy day' anyway. I guess we should just rename September-December 'Spending Season' and be done with it.
Despite a lack of belief in your sky fairy, I have never killed, stole or committed adultery. Amazing! Apparently I can be a normal functioning person without the threat of pain and suffering hanging over me.
Without a belief in the sky fairy, and thus a fear of punishment, how do we know you're not lying? For all we know, you were stealing a hooker's purse that you just killed after cheating on your wife with her while you were typing. Besides, if your definition of 'normal' is "acting like the sky fairy told me to, even though I don't believe in it", then you have some 'splainin to do.
Why do you think most people don't break the law? Because they firmly believe that every law is right and proper? Because they have sat down and rationally considered the alternatives? Or because 'society' looks down on it and anyway, you might get caught? Whether it's the sky fairy or the local boys in blue, fear of punishment is what keeps society functioning. If it isn't the sky fairy worshippers afraid of the afterlife, it's non-sky fairy worshippers acting just like them in order to be 'normal'. What a world. Also, I think you need to read the definition of 'sociopath'. It's someone who doesn't believe that ANY rules apply to them. Therefore, what you said cannot be true. Nice jab at religion, though, I'm all for that. I despise organized religion.
Here, from dictionary.com (emphasis mine): sociopath -noun Psychiatry. a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. [Origin: 1940-45; socio- + -path]
Actually, this raises an interesting question. From where does a sense of moral responsibility come? From where does a social conscience come?
I think it is ridiculous that a lot of people need a religion just to live decent.
I agree. However, your opinion of what is 'decent' is heavily influenced by religion, whether you or your parents are/were religious or not. All of our law, and our society, is based on a moral code handed down by religious people. Even if you hate that, it is impossible to escape for those of us in most of the world.
Of course there is no a priori good and evil (this refers to the interesting part of the parent), but I do not think the solution is to blindly follow a religion.
I submit that this is false. If there is no absolute good or evil, then there is no problem. Do whatever you want. There is NO LOGICAL REASON that we should ALL follow the SAME moral code, absent religious reasons. This includes secular penalties for 'lawbreaking' because if there is no good and no evil, then there is no basis for law. It is not possible to say, "There is no good and evil, but we are punishing you for your actions." There should BE no law, if there is no good and no evil.
To put it another way: If there is no right and no wrong, then it is meaningless to say that anyone has ever done anything wrong. If it is not meaningless to say that no one has ever done anything wrong, then there MUST exist some absolute concept of right and wrong. If it exists, ipso facto, it came from somewhere. Either it is a set of natural laws, or it came from somewhere outside nature. If it is a set of natual laws, then there is a way to delineate those laws. If that isn't true, then...and here's where I run out of ideas. It would really help me out if someone could show that there is a set of natural laws, and then provide a scientifically repeatable test for at least some of them. I'm not going to hold my breath, though. Of course, most people will assume that because of my posts on this subject, I'm some sort of religious shill. However, I will categorically state right here and now that I do not agree with any organized religion I have ever heard of. I just wish I could explain in a scientific manner why some things are right and some are wrong. If it's just an artefact of religion, then we don't need to be basing laws on it. If it isn't, then we need to be able to use logic, reason, and science to defend our laws. We can't, currently.
The thing is that anyone who is older than five (at least, mentally) realizes if you go around stealing stuff all the time, it's going to encourage others to steal from you, and that's no fun. The Golden Rule (or something like it) is found in just about every human society that has ever existed. It's not a matter of religion; it's just common sense.
You make a number of assertions here. Let me detail them:
1. Morality is realized universally - Do I really need to provide you examples to prove this wrong? 2. It is a universal constant that theft incites theft against thieves - I believe history is full of examples of successful thieves. They don't seem to have had that problem. 3. The golden rule is universal - Please provide a few pieces of evidence for this. I don't believe your assertion.
Now, I'll respond: The number of people who do immoral things disproves your assertion. If what you said were true, then very few people would ever steal. The idea that theft is wrong is encouraged by religion and is not found in nature. Animals steal from each other all the time. It is beneficial to the thief. From an evolutionary standpoint, theft would lead to greater success were it not for societal penalties against it. In the same way, any act to protect weaker people from stronger is counter to evolutionary theory and thus does not come from nature. From where does it arise?
Beyond that, there's a bunch of crazy bastards out there (and these days, they tend to be armed with AK47s) who will happily put a bullet through your kneecap just to see the expression on your face. Your only hope of defending yourself against these hordes of psychos is to band together with other people who are, shall we say, a little more sane. But these people aren't going to want to band together with you if you steal from them. And thus, we have the entire basis for civilization, without resorting to invoking the invisible Wahoo in the sky.
Your assertions: 1. Many people are murderously psychotic - Not statistically. You're FAR more likely to be murdered by a government (society) than an individual. Note: Wars are not started by individuals (most of the time) 2. Society was formed to protect people - That was only one benefit. Actually, farming did more than banding together for protection. Of course, you're just talking out of your ass anyway. 3. Thieves are unwelcome in societies - Not particularly. It depends on from whom they stole and what they stole. 4. You are assigning the viewpoint to me that society was formed for religious reasons. This is not only factually incorrect, it's also not a viewpoint I've espoused.
To respond: All moral codes have their roots in religion. Not always the SAME religion, mind you. However, whether the rules are coming from a guy in the sky or an imp under the earth, they are still external sources for moral codes. That isn't to say that some pieces of some moral codes aren't a good idea, or aren't beneficial on their own. However, the idea that they are codified doesn't come from nature. I've mentioned that before. You cannot set up an experiment to prove the law of theft. You can't set up an experiment to prove that violence is wrong. You just can't. You cannot examine a plant and show how it follows the 'do no harm' code of physicians. These things are societal constructs, not natural laws as you have repeatedly attempted to assert.
Beyond that, the fact is that cooperation is an effective evolutionary strategy, and games theory confirms it. The species that have evolved the capacity (most notably, ants, termites, and, well, us) do outstandingly well. We have empathy circuits in our brain, and those evolved for a reason. Morality is more than just common sense--it's a biological imperative. We're social creatures; we enjoy cooperating. We don't need to make up an invisible Wahoo in the sky to explain that.
Games theory assumes fluid responses to changing states. For example, it behooves a solitary person to cooperat
Based on common sense? Are you COMPLETELY retarded? WTF does common sense have to do with morality? In fact, common sense tells me that if I steal something, I have acquired it without expending my own resources, which seems a net benefit to me. Which piece of 'common sense' tells me that I shouldn't steal? As far as rape goes, why should I care whether someone else wants to do something or not? If I want to, and I have the power to do it, why should I not? (Note: I know why I should not. It isn't because of any 'common sense', though) Whether you like it or not, if there is an absolute moral code, it doesn't come from nature or common sense. If there isn't, then theft and rape are not wrong. You CANNOT have it both ways.
I can't wait to hear the serial rapist quoted in a national paper saying he was doing God's duty, making sure that sinners (women who didn't want kids) weren't able to mess up the divine plan.
I don't doubt that it's been tried. I do doubt that it has been any more successful than the equivalent defense for abortion doctor murderers. The thing is, God's will and secular law aren't always going to be compatible. The difference is that (if you are truly doing God's will) there won't be an eternal penalty for it, while no penalty secular law can enforce will be eternal. Of course, if you are secular, then you fear secular punishment more than eternal, anyway. Please note that I'm not stating that one side or the other is correct. I'm not trying to declare what is or is not God's will or if there even is a God. That's a whole seperate issue.
If I missed the point, it was only because your analagy was so flawed. Which was what I was pointing out in the first place. Thanks for the affirmation, but I really didn't need it.
I see you don't know much about hard drives. Do you know what dust does to platters? Have you ever moved platters between drives? Apparently not. Hey, nice try though. Those ventilation holes do not even allow dust to get to the platters. I'm pretty sure it would be just as difficult to get blood ON hard drive platters as it would be to get it OFF. Not to mention that you would have to have the side of the case off, and the case located above waist level to even have a chance of any blood reaching the hard drive. If the computer was located under a desk or table, and the side panels were on, there is 0 chance of getting blood into your hard drive in the first place, much less the platters, which is the only thing that would really matter. Changing controllers is simple. Even with the bare drive sitting on the top of the desk, I would bet that wiping would be sufficient to "restore" the drive. Blood is thicker than water, after all. Of course, you might fry the controller if the drive is running, but I would be surprised if even that happened. I've run drives sitting in mineral oil before, with 0 problems. I know, it doesn't conduct electricity, and blood does...BUT no liquid got to the platters, and they were completely immersed.
Right, backwater third-world hellholes like that are expected to act like backwater third-world hellholes. Again, I was talking about the civilized world (US). You should probably re-read my post. I don't think you understood it the first time through.
I believe you are incorrect, sir. I refer to that most excellent of sources:
Andy: Hear ye, hear ye. This session will now come to order. With the
cooperation of the US Department of State, we have present today
one Bart Simpson.
[everyone mutters amongst themselves]
I believe he has something to say. Bart?
Bart: [goes to microphone, scratches, clears throat several times]
I'm sorry. I'm sorry for what I did to your country.
[everyone applauds]
Andy: [jovial] Well, you're free to go, Bart...right after your
additional punishment. Homer: Punishment?
Andy: Well, a mere apology would be a bit empty, eh? Let the booting
begin. Homer: Booting?
Andy: Aw, it's just a little kick in the bum.
[a man with a gigantic boot walks in]
Bart: Y'uh oh.
See? It's very clearly referred to as 'booting', not 'striking'.
Where in the world are soldiers conscripted anymore? China? Africa? Some other unimportant backwater (read: non-America) nation?* I suspect that you were simply using that to shore up your weak argument. Many artists, just like many soldiers, are made certain promises before they sign, and are then hit with, "Oh, you didn't know? That was in footnote 214, I thought you read your contract?" Additionally, many soldiers (and artists) may feel they have no choice but to sign disadvantageous contracts because they feel it will be better than the alternative of homelessness or whatever they wish to escape. The fact that they might be correct about that does not make it okay for someone to use their desperate situation against them. Of course, it will always happen. But still, the analogy was a lot better than you are trying to say. Some artists are just as you describe, but not all of them, and I would go out on a limb and say not most of them. Same with soldiers.
*If you actually needed this footnote to tell you I was kidding here, you are probably a Red Communist Pinko and so you don't count anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I read it in some book one time. It was called Revelation or something.
I'm not saying I think it is true or anything, but aren't they making plans to rebuild the Temple?
Just seems odd, is all.
I have to disagree. Your argument is only valid if you're able to support yourself during your entire lifetime without a group of people caring for and about you in times of sickness or other calamities.
Ever heard of vagrants?
The behaviour you outline above is pretty anti-social, and it's a sure bet it wouldn't be tolerated for very long by the tribe you were born into, possibly leading to instant gene-pool removal of yourself (or, at least, exclusion / expulsion from the tribe whose members you were abusing).
Not true. What if you're stealing from a different tribe? Happened all the time.
So I guess common sense does indeed dictate at least a fundamental adherence to basic principles that you'd call "moral", as it secures your survival within a group of people that'll support you in the long run.
Not true again. Morality isn't only about the people immediately around you. Again the example of raiding neighboring villages. This still doesn't explain why morals exist in the first place. I think society and how you are raised has more to do with your behaviour than you realize. You beleive of course there must be morals because you have been raised in a moral society.
In this case, your common sense is kinda short sighted. Because, extrapolating that, it should tell you that the next guy can do the same to you.
Actually, common sense tells me that the other guy can do that to me now. It tells me that my behaviour does not guarantee the other guy's behaviour. It tells me that while the other guy MIGHT do it to me, I can FOR SURE do it to him first.
So you have to expend resources to protect what you gained
You have to do this anyway. Don't believe me? Try leaving a $20 on the ground in a public place for an hour.
For reference, see the prisoner's dilemma.
As I've previously noted, a moral person is at a real disadvantage in the prisoner's dilemma. An amoral person will ALWAYS win when the other person is moral. Every time.
Some pretty smart guys realized that and thought, if they could make their people to conform to that, they could easily gain an advantage over other tribes.
No, they got an advantage the same way we always have...with violence. Orrrrrrrrrrrrrr trade. Nice try, though.
And behold, that trick worked! Look around you and you'll see that cultures who believe in religions that keep you from killing and stealing from your peers (not necessarily from other people/religions/cultures) are the most successful ones.
Funny, I see correlation where you see causation.
Evolutionary genetics and simple game theory lead to the conclusion that morality is an inevitable consequence of living in social groups.
You are incorrect. You are assuming that living in social groups is inevitable, which I dispute. You are also making an untestable assertion which I will not accept. Evolution does not produce morals. What morals do bears have? What morals do fish have? What morals do plants have?
Yes, but if you know that the other person is moral, and will not lie, then it is to your advantage every time to lie. Concepts like 'trust' and 'reputation' are not logical.
I have read that book. I found a number of flaws with it. You can find some nice critiques on teh intarweb, but basically I don't think that book is the best choice to promote the view you are promoting. He still cannot produce any logical reason for morality, notwithstanding the logical leap required to believe that evolution produces make-believe bogeymen.
I believe you. From where did your morals come? What makes them moral?
Censorship, either by individuals or the government, is always wrong.
Please remove yourself from the human race. You are too stupid to contribute.
obligatory.
No they aren't. * is a wildcard, n00b.
Ask yourself: does prejudice always equal racism? Is prejudice always bad? Are only white people anti-islam? (Hint: the answer to all of those questions is 'no')
Prejudging people based on religion is not racism. Racism is prejudging people based on race. When you call things by names which do not describe those things, you should not gain credibility. If you do, the people to whom you are speaking are stupid.
If you protest the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, you're anti-Semitic
Why? What if you don't protest the existence of a Jewish state, just the particular one called Israel?
Isn't the establishment of Israel as a secular state one of the precoursers to the end of days? I'm pretty much against Armageddon, personally, although I have nothing against Jews.
I have it on good authority that "We do know, of certain knowledge, that (Bin Laden) is either in Afghanistan or in some other country or dead."
Hard to argue with that.
Never use absolutes. It's always wrong to do so.
Christians who freak the fuck out when they go into a Target in December and see a sign that says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".
I've always wondered this: If you aren't Christian, why do you celebrate Christmas? For the record, though, I don't think Target should have to say Merry Christmas. I just bet they wouldn't be so happy during the 'holidays' if no one were buying Christmas presents there. Can't make much from Kwanzaa or Hanakkuh or Winter Solstice presents. Seems like if you're profiting off something, you shouldn't be scared to put it on your sign. Anyway, 'holiday' just means 'holy day' anyway. I guess we should just rename September-December 'Spending Season' and be done with it.
Despite a lack of belief in your sky fairy, I have never killed, stole or committed adultery. Amazing! Apparently I can be a normal functioning person without the threat of pain and suffering hanging over me.
Without a belief in the sky fairy, and thus a fear of punishment, how do we know you're not lying? For all we know, you were stealing a hooker's purse that you just killed after cheating on your wife with her while you were typing.
Besides, if your definition of 'normal' is "acting like the sky fairy told me to, even though I don't believe in it", then you have some 'splainin to do.
Why do you think most people don't break the law? Because they firmly believe that every law is right and proper? Because they have sat down and rationally considered the alternatives? Or because 'society' looks down on it and anyway, you might get caught?
Whether it's the sky fairy or the local boys in blue, fear of punishment is what keeps society functioning. If it isn't the sky fairy worshippers afraid of the afterlife, it's non-sky fairy worshippers acting just like them in order to be 'normal'. What a world. Also, I think you need to read the definition of 'sociopath'. It's someone who doesn't believe that ANY rules apply to them. Therefore, what you said cannot be true. Nice jab at religion, though, I'm all for that. I despise organized religion.
Here, from dictionary.com (emphasis mine):
sociopath
-noun Psychiatry.
a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
[Origin: 1940-45; socio- + -path]
Actually, this raises an interesting question. From where does a sense of moral responsibility come? From where does a social conscience come?
I think it is ridiculous that a lot of people need a religion just to live decent.
I agree. However, your opinion of what is 'decent' is heavily influenced by religion, whether you or your parents are/were religious or not. All of our law, and our society, is based on a moral code handed down by religious people. Even if you hate that, it is impossible to escape for those of us in most of the world.
Of course there is no a priori good and evil (this refers to the interesting part of the parent), but I do not think the solution is to blindly follow a religion.
I submit that this is false. If there is no absolute good or evil, then there is no problem. Do whatever you want. There is NO LOGICAL REASON that we should ALL follow the SAME moral code, absent religious reasons. This includes secular penalties for 'lawbreaking' because if there is no good and no evil, then there is no basis for law. It is not possible to say, "There is no good and evil, but we are punishing you for your actions." There should BE no law, if there is no good and no evil.
To put it another way: If there is no right and no wrong, then it is meaningless to say that anyone has ever done anything wrong.
If it is not meaningless to say that no one has ever done anything wrong, then there MUST exist some absolute concept of right and wrong. If it exists, ipso facto, it came from somewhere. Either it is a set of natural laws, or it came from somewhere outside nature. If it is a set of natual laws, then there is a way to delineate those laws. If that isn't true, then...and here's where I run out of ideas. It would really help me out if someone could show that there is a set of natural laws, and then provide a scientifically repeatable test for at least some of them. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.
Of course, most people will assume that because of my posts on this subject, I'm some sort of religious shill. However, I will categorically state right here and now that I do not agree with any organized religion I have ever heard of. I just wish I could explain in a scientific manner why some things are right and some are wrong. If it's just an artefact of religion, then we don't need to be basing laws on it. If it isn't, then we need to be able to use logic, reason, and science to defend our laws. We can't, currently.
The thing is that anyone who is older than five (at least, mentally) realizes if you go around stealing stuff all the time, it's going to encourage others to steal from you, and that's no fun. The Golden Rule (or something like it) is found in just about every human society that has ever existed. It's not a matter of religion; it's just common sense.
You make a number of assertions here. Let me detail them:
1. Morality is realized universally - Do I really need to provide you examples to prove this wrong?
2. It is a universal constant that theft incites theft against thieves - I believe history is full of examples of successful thieves. They don't seem to have had that problem.
3. The golden rule is universal - Please provide a few pieces of evidence for this. I don't believe your assertion.
Now, I'll respond: The number of people who do immoral things disproves your assertion. If what you said were true, then very few people would ever steal. The idea that theft is wrong is encouraged by religion and is not found in nature. Animals steal from each other all the time. It is beneficial to the thief. From an evolutionary standpoint, theft would lead to greater success were it not for societal penalties against it. In the same way, any act to protect weaker people from stronger is counter to evolutionary theory and thus does not come from nature. From where does it arise?
Beyond that, there's a bunch of crazy bastards out there (and these days, they tend to be armed with AK47s) who will happily put a bullet through your kneecap just to see the expression on your face. Your only hope of defending yourself against these hordes of psychos is to band together with other people who are, shall we say, a little more sane. But these people aren't going to want to band together with you if you steal from them. And thus, we have the entire basis for civilization, without resorting to invoking the invisible Wahoo in the sky.
Your assertions:
1. Many people are murderously psychotic - Not statistically. You're FAR more likely to be murdered by a government (society) than an individual. Note: Wars are not started by individuals (most of the time)
2. Society was formed to protect people - That was only one benefit. Actually, farming did more than banding together for protection. Of course, you're just talking out of your ass anyway.
3. Thieves are unwelcome in societies - Not particularly. It depends on from whom they stole and what they stole.
4. You are assigning the viewpoint to me that society was formed for religious reasons. This is not only factually incorrect, it's also not a viewpoint I've espoused.
To respond:
All moral codes have their roots in religion. Not always the SAME religion, mind you. However, whether the rules are coming from a guy in the sky or an imp under the earth, they are still external sources for moral codes. That isn't to say that some pieces of some moral codes aren't a good idea, or aren't beneficial on their own. However, the idea that they are codified doesn't come from nature. I've mentioned that before. You cannot set up an experiment to prove the law of theft. You can't set up an experiment to prove that violence is wrong. You just can't. You cannot examine a plant and show how it follows the 'do no harm' code of physicians. These things are societal constructs, not natural laws as you have repeatedly attempted to assert.
Beyond that, the fact is that cooperation is an effective evolutionary strategy, and games theory confirms it. The species that have evolved the capacity (most notably, ants, termites, and, well, us) do outstandingly well. We have empathy circuits in our brain, and those evolved for a reason. Morality is more than just common sense--it's a biological imperative. We're social creatures; we enjoy cooperating. We don't need to make up an invisible Wahoo in the sky to explain that.
Games theory assumes fluid responses to changing states. For example, it behooves a solitary person to cooperat
Based on common sense? Are you COMPLETELY retarded? WTF does common sense have to do with morality? In fact, common sense tells me that if I steal something, I have acquired it without expending my own resources, which seems a net benefit to me. Which piece of 'common sense' tells me that I shouldn't steal? As far as rape goes, why should I care whether someone else wants to do something or not? If I want to, and I have the power to do it, why should I not? (Note: I know why I should not. It isn't because of any 'common sense', though) Whether you like it or not, if there is an absolute moral code, it doesn't come from nature or common sense. If there isn't, then theft and rape are not wrong. You CANNOT have it both ways.
I can't wait to hear the serial rapist quoted in a national paper saying he was doing God's duty, making sure that sinners (women who didn't want kids) weren't able to mess up the divine plan.
I don't doubt that it's been tried. I do doubt that it has been any more successful than the equivalent defense for abortion doctor murderers. The thing is, God's will and secular law aren't always going to be compatible. The difference is that (if you are truly doing God's will) there won't be an eternal penalty for it, while no penalty secular law can enforce will be eternal. Of course, if you are secular, then you fear secular punishment more than eternal, anyway. Please note that I'm not stating that one side or the other is correct. I'm not trying to declare what is or is not God's will or if there even is a God. That's a whole seperate issue.
s/analagy/analogy/
Too early for me, apparently.
If I missed the point, it was only because your analagy was so flawed. Which was what I was pointing out in the first place. Thanks for the affirmation, but I really didn't need it.
I see you don't know much about hard drives. Do you know what dust does to platters? Have you ever moved platters between drives? Apparently not. Hey, nice try though. Those ventilation holes do not even allow dust to get to the platters. I'm pretty sure it would be just as difficult to get blood ON hard drive platters as it would be to get it OFF. Not to mention that you would have to have the side of the case off, and the case located above waist level to even have a chance of any blood reaching the hard drive. If the computer was located under a desk or table, and the side panels were on, there is 0 chance of getting blood into your hard drive in the first place, much less the platters, which is the only thing that would really matter. Changing controllers is simple. Even with the bare drive sitting on the top of the desk, I would bet that wiping would be sufficient to "restore" the drive. Blood is thicker than water, after all. Of course, you might fry the controller if the drive is running, but I would be surprised if even that happened. I've run drives sitting in mineral oil before, with 0 problems. I know, it doesn't conduct electricity, and blood does...BUT no liquid got to the platters, and they were completely immersed.
Right, backwater third-world hellholes like that are expected to act like backwater third-world hellholes. Again, I was talking about the civilized world (US). You should probably re-read my post. I don't think you understood it the first time through.
See? It's very clearly referred to as 'booting', not 'striking'.
Where in the world are soldiers conscripted anymore? China? Africa? Some other unimportant backwater (read: non-America) nation?* I suspect that you were simply using that to shore up your weak argument. Many artists, just like many soldiers, are made certain promises before they sign, and are then hit with, "Oh, you didn't know? That was in footnote 214, I thought you read your contract?"
Additionally, many soldiers (and artists) may feel they have no choice but to sign disadvantageous contracts because they feel it will be better than the alternative of homelessness or whatever they wish to escape. The fact that they might be correct about that does not make it okay for someone to use their desperate situation against them. Of course, it will always happen. But still, the analogy was a lot better than you are trying to say. Some artists are just as you describe, but not all of them, and I would go out on a limb and say not most of them. Same with soldiers.
*If you actually needed this footnote to tell you I was kidding here, you are probably a Red Communist Pinko and so you don't count anyway.