Philosophy Now Forum

Jaded Sage wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Unfortunately, life decisions are not based on what's right, but what is necessary for one party or the other. They are conflicting needs for survival of a way of life, be it an individual, or a group. It will always be this way. Doesn't answer the question, but it is true.

I suppose. But what I am asking is, based on those decisions, which one is more in the right, assuming there is such a thing. And, as a group, let's not cop out, saying that assumption is mistaken.

There is no 'more right'. I'm Canadian. At some point in the future, the US will come for our water, with force. They'll need it, even more than oil. Will they be in the right to do this? They need to survive. But so do we. I just hope I'm not here to see it.

Nevermind, my dear. I mistook you for an open-minded young lady.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Unfortunately, life decisions are not based on what's right, but what is necessary for one party or the other. They are conflicting needs for survival of a way of life, be it an individual, or a group. It will always be this way. Doesn't answer the question, but it is true.

I suppose. But what I am asking is, based on those decisions, which one is more in the right, assuming there is such a thing. And, as a group, let's not cop out, saying that assumption is mistaken.

There is no 'more right'. I'm Canadian. At some point in the future, the US will come for our water, with force. They'll need it, even more than oil. Will they be in the right to do this? They need to survive. But so do we. I just hope I'm not here to see it.

Drainage Eli. Draaaiiinnage.

Canadian Milkshake
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKQ3LXHKB34

Jaded Sage wrote:Nevermind, my dear. I mistook you for an open-minded young lady.

No, actually I'm getting old and hopefully will continue to do so for some time.

I don't think I am closed minded to eschew superstition. I see superstition as superceded attempts at understanding cause and effect by the ancients. Ten points for trying but they have been proven wrong too many times to count. However, some people adhere to the ancient beliefs after enjoying the placebo effects of faith. For at least some believers, the placebo effect creates an internal correlation between faith and high functioning, which is then often misinterpreted as external ("a deity out there").

Nor do I see myself as I closed-minded for considering groups that perpetrate violence to their own through intense misogyny and homophobia to be morally inferior to those that are more tolerant of human diversity and capable of seeing women as more than providers of sex, children, comfort and domestic duties. Covering women up is fine if we have a choice. A society that beats, rapes and abuses women for enjoying comfortable clothes in hot weather is simply morally inferior, more animalistic. Male ownership of women is the sign of a society that will either need to adapt or be left behind by morally and intellectually superior ones.

Apparently, I need someone who is not only not closed-minded, but is actually quite open-minded in order to have this conversation.

Jaded Sage wrote:Apparently, I need someone who is not only not closed-minded, but is actually quite open-minded in order to have this conversation.

Jaded, this is why I answered the way I did. The world for the most part is at best close-minded. And cyclical, historically. We make strides as a group, then slide right back down. Eg. The brilliance of the classical world, to the middle ages. It keeps happening. Roe vs. Wade, and all the attempts at repealing.

Greta wrote:It is not kind to beat, rape and humiliate women for not covering up. Why not cover up all men too? Because women in fundamentalist Islamic cultures are men's property. Objects. Sub human. So the rules and their enforcement are far from kind and are, in fact, exactly the contrary. It's cruel, base, selfish and utterly ignorant.

You'll like ISIS then as they beat and humiliate men for not dressing and looking correct.

Arising_uk wrote:

Greta wrote:It is not kind to beat, rape and humiliate women for not covering up. Why not cover up all men too? Because women in fundamentalist Islamic cultures are men's property. Objects. Sub human. So the rules and their enforcement are far from kind and are, in fact, exactly the contrary. It's cruel, base, selfish and utterly ignorant.

You'll like ISIS then as then beat and humiliate men for not dressing and looking correct.

Not seeing anything likeable about that either. Bullying is unpleasant, uncivilised behaviour regardless of one's protuberances.

Jaded Sage wrote:I saw something on the Internet a while ago that made a comparison between the (original) Star Wars situation and the situation in the Middle East. In both, there is a superpower and an underdog. In the movies, the superpower is bad and the underdog is good; in real life, the superpower is good and the underdog is bad. In situations like these, how can we ever be sure which one is good and which one is bad?—Looking for a more complete and thorough answer than "it's relative" or "it depends."

The bad guys in the movies seek to destroy an entire culture: the jedi. You might say that some Americans favor a war on islam over a war on terror. That is a single way in which the one is like the other. There might be more.

Maybe if everyone thought about their own solutions before they implemented them, we wouldn't have so many problems. Since neither side of the war trenches really thought about those actions (i.e. why they were important/unimportant), I would say that they are both wrong.

From their own experience, everyone should know by now that it is possible to be completely certain about something and still in error.

I think that it is a huge irony to have a predominately Christian nation fighting off Islamic militants, but sometimes things just work out for the best. Now we just have to get out from under the massive debt of fighting great overseas wars and not raising taxes. Sorry kids: no Christmas this year. Daddy spent all the money on weapons.

Jaded Sage wrote:Nevermind, my dear. I mistook you for an open-minded young lady.

Either women must not say anything negative about a delusional repression of female sovereignty, or they are not open-minded?

Systematic wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:Nevermind, my dear. I mistook you for an open-minded young lady.

Either women must not say anything negative about a delusional repression of female sovereignty, or they are not open-minded?

No one must say anything negative here. :/

Dalek Prime wrote: There is no 'more right'. I'm Canadian. At some point in the future, the US will come for our water, with force. They'll need it, even more than oil. Will they be in the right to do this? They need to survive. But so do we. I just hope I'm not here to see it.

Systematic wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: There is no 'more right'. I'm Canadian. At some point in the future, the US will come for our water, with force. They'll need it, even more than oil. Will they be in the right to do this? They need to survive. But so do we. I just hope I'm not here to see it.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Systematic wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: There is no 'more right'. I'm Canadian. At some point in the future, the US will come for our water, with force. They'll need it, even more than oil. Will they be in the right to do this? They need to survive. But so do we. I just hope I'm not here to see it.

I'm sorry. I just thought that the example was laughable. It rains in the U.S. too don't you know?

The US southwest is a desert, you do realise, yes? And the impetus for desalinization projects in California, where water issues are a huge problem? Nothing funny about it. You clearly do not follow world events and issues. Don't bother me again with ignorance.