For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
opposition is rebellion, or self defense, or anything of that nature, chaos is understood as no order at all.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 10:40 pmChaos is opposition and we see opposition occur in the world and people still existing through it as agents of said chaos.
As I say: I don't really know Rand's positions on bazookas or abortion. I can't speak on how we differ or align. Tell me, since you know her better, what were her views?How are your moral convictions -- as convictions -- regarding bazookas and abortion really any different from hers?
Let's be accurate...You live in a community where in "owning" yourself, you conclude that buying and selling bazookas is a "natural right". But another Deist in that community argues that in "owning" herself she concludes that buying and selling bazookas is not a "natural right", but an irrational frame of mind. Same God, same access to Reason. But completely conflicting conclusions.
Oh, there are wrong-headed people like yourself everywhere, and most of 'em, it sometimes seems, are either agents of The State or supporters of The State. Okay, so what? Legislation, on the local, state, and federal levels is crafted and bought and sold regularly. Aside from bein' aware that busy-bodies just banned my bazooka, my shotgun, my insurance, my incandescent bulbs, and navigating around those bans (scofflawery), what should I do? Wade into the mix and try to buy my own legislation? Shrug my shoulders, knuckle under, and hand over all the forbidden items? I'm not inclined to do either. No, I'll just keep on doing exactly as I choose, quietly, and leave those weak minds and busy bodies to their machinations.And you may not be inclined to police the world, but in your community those who, in "owning" themselves and in rejecting the right of private citizens to buy and sell bazookas -- or any gums at all -- may be in a position of power to pass laws that take yours away.
Yep. I decided long ago to stay informed about and stay away from such shenanigans.So, you can insist that your moral convictions here are just about debate and conversation but out in the world that we live in it can get considerably more existential.
Not if they recognize and respect natural rights of all, they can't. If, however, like the murderer, the slaver, the rapist, the thief, they willfully choose to ignore that other men have the same natural rights as they, themselves, have, they can cobble together any old rationale to hang on their wrong-headedness, insanity, and immorality.Right, like those who are utterly opposed to buying and selling bazookas can't frame their own convictions using precisely the same argument. God or No God.
You mean how do we decide who's right? That's askin' the free man to parley with the slaver. There's no accommodation or compromise between them that can favor the free man. No, the free man tells the slaver to bugger off then defends himself when the slaver doesn't take no for an answer, and, if possible, he does it with a bazooka.What then? Flip the coin?
Yeah, I know.I suggest to those on both ends of the political spectrum that the spectrum itself is comprised of individuals out in particular worlds understood in particular ways who come to embrace their own value judgments as the subjective/intersubjective embodiment of dasein. As political prejudices derived existentially from the life that they lived.
Personality, identity, isn't cobbled together from experience. Experiences can inform, temper or break, but they do not create a person.A life such that, had any number of experiences been different, they might well be in here arguing exactly the opposite of what they believe now.
It's the same Reality: a deterministic universe within which free wills with natural rights live.how do you reconcile your God's Reality, with the reality that you as a mere mortal among billions of others have come to accept?
It's not. It's billions of folks, each makin' the singular moral choice -- will I recognize the other guy as his own, or will I try and get a leg up on him? -- over and over and over.How is that not a manifestation of dasein?
You mean: what on Earth does Reality -- free wills in a deterministic universe -- have to do with my right to own property? Everything. Life, liberty, property are synonymous. Deny or hobble one and you deny or hobble the others.And what on earth does your God's Reality have to do with your own personal assessment of bazookas?
Anyone -- deist, theist, agnostic, atheist -- who hates bazookas and refuses to own one or to associate with those that do is A-OK by me. Anyone -- deist, theist, agnostic, atheist -- who, becuz he hates bazookas believes he has a right to take mine is my enemy.Especially if others believe in the same Deist God but believe the opposite of what you do about bazookas.
No. What I know is no different than what you know (about yourself), that bein' I belong to me; my life, liberty, and property are mine. What I recognize is no different than what you recognize: all other men have the same claim to themselves as I have. What I surmise and believe is a Prime Mover created a deterministic universe with self-possessed free wills livin' in it.So, apparently you "just know" this about your God and His Reality.
Oh, I disagree. As I say (short version), as there are free wills in an otherwise deterministic universe, this is a clear evidence of a Prime Mover.You have absolutely no way in which to actually demonstrate that this is the case,
No, a man's inalienable right to his life, liberty, and property is evident to everyone (even you).There's just what existentially you have come to believe "in your head" is true about "natural rights".
You mean: as man knows he is his own, and as it's almost impossible to not recognize other men are as he is, he is responsible for his violations of them. This is neither a comfort or consolation: a man is responsible for what he does.The bottom line being that what you do believe is true "in your head" allows you to anchor your Self in The Right Thing To Do and it is this psychological defense mechanism that sustains your own comfort and consolation.
As I say: Valhalla would be nice, but I suspect there ain't nuthin' but oblivion for any of us. Sorry.And who really knows what your God's Reality is then?
Nonexistent? That's a possibility, yeah.The implication being that perhaps He is like all the other Gods.
How's it go? It rains on rich and poor alike? Rephrased: it's oblivion for good and evil alike.If your agendas are not in sync...Judgment Day?
"private and personal" deist god: high-larious.But that is just one more thing you have absolutely no understanding of at all about this "private and personal" deist god of yours.
I know, as you do about yourself, I am my own and I am responsible for what myself and what I do, full stop.You figured out what was Natural because you figured out how to "own" yourself and that allows you to feel content. End of story.
just between you and me: they're all wrong...but, so what?Just like all the others here and elsewhere who figured out it was their own God and their own ideology and their own philosophy and their authoritarian dogmas that give them access to good over evil.
Not if they recognize the natural rights of all, they can't.countless other secular narratives with countless other political agendas can use the same reasoning that you do to arrive at their own profoundly conflicting conclusions
You mean my inalienable right to my property, yeah?the One True Path to bazookas.
Scofflawery it is then. Just like when bump stocks were banned and pretty much no one turned any over. Works for me.And that works fine until, in any particular community, others don't share your thinking about buying and selling bazookas because any number of new contexts can arise such that if bazookas were widely owned [and used] the consequences could be...devastating? So, some [deists or not] organize politically to make the buying and the selling of bazookas [or tanks or grenades or military armaments] illegal.
No, I know what everyone knows about themselves...your own conclusions really do reflect what is "naturally" rational.
When it comes to matters of natural rights, I already have, just above this line.You can't make the arguments the other side raise go away
As a person belongs to himself, and as a lill bitty baby in mama is a person, mama has no right to off him for convenience.the One True Path in regard to abortion too
Gosh, but that the blackest of kettles callin' the pot black!It ever and always stops at "what you think" here and now.
That's rich: I, who hates The State, who will not cooperate with agents of The State, turn someone over to The State.You're not out to give a sermon on abortion but if in your community it becomes a capital crime and a woman you love has one...do you turn her in?
This...
Man is the proof. In a determined universe, he's the wildcard. As a free will, he starts, ends, and bends causal chains. He is a point of creative power. He does what no other matter, or life, can: he self-directs, self-relies, and is self-responsible. He reasons, chooses, and considers consequence. There's nuthin' about a blind, deterministic interplay of forces that could have brought him into existence.
It's an evidence that convinces me there's a Prime Mover....actually is what you believe constitutes proof that of all the many, many, many Gods there are for mere mortals to choose from, your own private and personal deist God really is The One!!!
No, I don't have to join in. Bazookas already, as far as I know, are forbidden to own privately, and abortion on demand is already the standard in many places. With the first, as I say, if I want one and find one for sale, I'll have it (legislator-thieves and their supporters be damned). With the second: there's nuthin' I can do about women murderin' their kids except not associate with 'em and leave 'em to the consequences. As I say scofflawery and mindin' my own business.Again, though, out in the real world, in actual flesh and blood human communities, laws will be passed and enforced regarding bazookas and abortions such that, while you might prefer to keep it all confined to "discussing and debating" it here, and in not persuading and "converting" others to think like you do, you'll have no choice but to join in or risk seeing what you believe shunted aside and the other side prevailing. Bazookas are outlawed, abortion on demand is the community standard.
No, flat out, they're wrong. But, if they leave me be, so what?you are basically suggesting here that, in any given community, they are right from their side, you are right from your side.
No, it comes down to how clever I can be navigatin' around their thievin' legislation. As for abortion, like I say, it's common and there's nuthin' I can do about it except say it's murder (don't worry, just cuz R v W is out baby murder will still flourish in all the places it does now and falter in all the places it does now...quit sweatin' it).So it comes down to who can acquire the actual political power to enact the laws that either permit the buying and selling of bazookas or laws that prohibit it. Laws that permit abortions or laws that prohibit them.
Democracy...how is "moderation, negotiation and compromise" not a legitimate approach to it?
Oh, sure. Just prove a man is not his own and that his life, liberty, and property are not inalienably his, and I'll disavow bazookas, give up my shotgun, start a free-ride-to-abortion-clinic service, and kiss your ass...with tongue.But you do seem to admit that you may well be wrong "here and now" about buying and selling bazookas and about having an abortion.
Right?
There is something you can do about "women murderin' their kids" by elective abortions. You can support initiatives to provide free child care to single mothers. You can support policing against incest, and rape You can help to improve child education so that young persons don't feel obliged to have sex at a young age, and understand about contraception.there's nuthin' I can do about women murderin' their kids except not associate with 'em and leave 'em to the consequences. As I say scofflawery and mindin' my own business.
No. I will, however, as asked, tell young folks to keep it zipped up and keep your legs crossed, and I'll explain why.You can support initiatives to provide free child care to single mothers.
No. I will, however, as asked, teach youngsters how to shoot and how best to unman an attacker.You can support policing against incest, and rape
No. I will however, as asked, affirm what every kid already knows (but get hoodwinked into believin' otherwise), that bein', you are your own and you're not a piece of meat and life is difficult enough without, animal-like, you grindin' in the dark cuz you're bored or lonely and babies are serious business so don't make one till you want him and can take care of him.You can help to improve child education so that young persons don't feel obliged to have sex at a young age, and understand about contraception.
Right, like here too, given your own private and personal understanding of the deist God's Reality, only you grasp Rationally and Naturally how this distinction is made. Indeed, noting any God's Reality is going to be subsumed in one or another Scripture. Otherwise, why the capital letter Reality?henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:29 pm I'd hoped for more substance and less script.
Oh well...
How are your moral convictions -- as convictions -- regarding bazookas and abortion really any different from hers? Aside from your Reason being derived from God's Reality and her own Reason being derived from a No God "metaphysical" philosophy rooted in the objective Self?
Over and again: my point does not revolve around what her point was in regard to guns and bazookas and tanks but that she insisted that philosophically there was in turn a Reality. And that all rational and virtuous individuals were obligated to be in sync with her Reality.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:29 pm As I say: I don't really know Rand's positions on bazookas or abortion. I can't speak on how we differ or align. Tell me, since you know her better, what were her views?
You really don't get just how preposterous this is, do you?!! Like her you insist that anyone who doesn't share your own moral and political convictions are wrong. Not only that but they are "dumb" and actually "diseased"!henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:29 pmAs for her, as you might say, authoritarian streak, and her demands everyone toe her line. I don't do that. As I say: I don't care if you hate bazookas and love abortions. You're wrong about both, of course; your thinkin' on both is dumb and dis-eased. But you're a free will, you're free to be wrong and immoral (and to live with the consequences).
You live in a community where in "owning" yourself, you conclude that buying and selling bazookas is a "natural right". But another Deist in that community argues that in "owning" herself she concludes that buying and selling bazookas is not a "natural right", but an irrational frame of mind. Same God, same access to Reason. But completely conflicting conclusions.
See! There you go again!! As a fellow Deist participating in God's Reality, she is permitted her own understanding of "owning" herself in regard to bazookas and tanks. But if her own political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein are not entirely in sync with your understanding? She's wrong!!henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:29 pm Let's be accurate...
I belong to me; my life, liberty, and property are my own. A woman, who happens to share my view on God, believes that certain properties ought not be owned. Okay, so what? She's wrong. Am I supposed to do sumthin' about it?
And you may not be inclined to police the world, but in your community those who, in "owning" themselves and in rejecting the right of private citizens to buy and sell bazookas -- or any gums at all -- may be in a position of power to pass laws that take yours away.
Of course they are thinking the same thing about your own machinations. But if they prevail you may or may not be able to do exactly as you choose. At least in regard to bazookas. My point is that you are granting them the right to "own" themselves and come after your bazookas as long as, when they do, you can shout at them that they are wrong and dumb and diseased.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:29 pm Oh, there are wrong-headed people like yourself everywhere, and most of 'em, it sometimes seems, are either agents of The State or supporters of The State. Okay, so what? Legislation, on the local, state, and federal levels is crafted and bought and sold regularly. Aside from bein' aware that busy-bodies just banned my bazooka, my shotgun, my insurance, my incandescent bulbs, and navigating around those bans (scofflawery), what should I do? Wade into the mix and try to buy my own legislation? Shrug my shoulders, knuckle under, and hand over all the forbidden items? I'm not inclined to do either. No, I'll just keep on doing exactly as I choose, quietly, and leave those weak minds and busy bodies to their machinations.
Right, like those who are utterly opposed to buying and selling bazookas can't frame their own convictions using precisely the same argument. God or No God.
Come on, Henry, that's exactly what they are hurtling back at you! Only their "owned" understanding of natural rights assumes that it is irrational for private citizens to be permitted to buy and sell bazookas and tanks and grenades and mines and IEDs and mortar rounds and rockets.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:29 pm Not if they recognize and respect natural rights of all, they can't.
Again, though, these folks are all claiming they have a natural right to do what they do as well. That you are the wrong-headed, insane, immoral piece of shit.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:29 pm If, however, like the murderer, the slaver, the rapist, the thief, they willfully choose to ignore that other men have the same natural rights as they, themselves, have, they can cobble together any old rationale to hang on their wrong-headedness, insanity, and immorality.
What then? Flip the coin?
Please, we know how that is decided, don't we? We assume that you are a slave to your own authoritarian dogmas and that we are all necessarily wrong if we don't share them. Nothing -- nothing -- can possibly be clearer than that here.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:29 pm You mean how do we decide who's right? That's askin' the free man to parley with the slaver. There's no accommodation or compromise between them that can favor the free man. No, the free man tells the slaver to bugger off then defends himself when the slaver doesn't take no for an answer, and, if possible, he does it with a bazooka.
I suggest to those on both ends of the political spectrum that the spectrum itself is comprised of individuals out in particular worlds understood in particular ways who come to embrace their own value judgments as the subjective/intersubjective embodiment of dasein. As political prejudices derived existentially from the life that they lived.
Okay, sure, we can just agree to disagree about dasein. I can only point out that down through the ages there have been hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of One True Path moral narratives and political agendas just like yours. God and No God. You can't all be right [if any of you are] and yet to a Path, every single one of you insist that you are.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:29 pm Yeah, I know.
Me, I say man is a free will with a right to himself. He can choose to recognize all men are as he is, or he can choose to see others as less than him and undeserving of the same respect he expects for himself. Political prejudice, the whole sphere of politics, is the result of men choosin' to get a leg up on those they deem less.
A life such that, had any number of experiences been different, they might well be in here arguing exactly the opposite of what they believe now.
That's what the objectivist minds tell themselves in order to make all of the truly vast and varied historical, cultural and experiential social narratives just vanish into thin air. Nope, there's God's Reality and once you figure out what that is you earn the right to call all of those who don't think exactly like you do wrong and dumb and diseased.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:29 pm Personality, identity, isn't cobbled together from experience. Experiences can inform, temper or break, but they do not create a person.
how do you reconcile your God's Reality, with the reality that you as a mere mortal among billions of others have come to accept?
Right. There's God's capital letter Reality in regard to bazookas and abortions. And there are all of us mere mortals with our existential lower-case realties. Except for you. Your Reality here is also upper-case. You are just unable to explain exactly why this is the case other than in insisting that it is.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:29 pm It's the same Reality: a deterministic universe within which free wills with natural rights live.
How is that not a manifestation of dasein?
Again, you're just like all the rest of us in regard to things like guns and abortions. You embodied a trajectory of personal experiences that predisposed you to one set of political prejudices rather than another. But you "just know" that you are actually the "sole exception" to that. Well, other than all the other hardcore objectivists who insist the same thing. Only it's not what you think is Rational and Natural about guns and abortions but what they think instead.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:29 pm It's not. It's billions of folks, each makin' the singular moral choice -- will I recognize the other guy as his own, or will I try and get a leg up on him? -- over and over and over.
Especially if others believe in the same Deist God but believe the opposite of what you do about bazookas.
Back to that. Others are permitted to disagree with you about this. To "own" themselves and to hate bazookas. Even as fellow Deists subscribing to the same belief in God's Reality. But that automatically makes them wrong. And your enemy. And if they organize with others to take your bazooka away it is, what, perfectly natural for you to use that bazooka to blow them away?henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:29 pm Anyone -- deist, theist, agnostic, atheist -- who hates bazookas and refuses to own one or to associate with those that do is A-OK by me. Anyone -- deist, theist, agnostic, atheist -- who, becuz he hates bazookas believes he has a right to take mine is my enemy.
You have absolutely no way in which to actually demonstrate that this is the case...
Right, that actually constitutes evidence for you. You believe it, therefore it's true. You "just know" that somehow the human brain came to possess autonomy. Why? Because you "just know" that this can all be connected back to the "Prime Mover". And not the Prime Movers/Gods that others -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- subscribe to. No way. Just yours and yours alone. The lower-case deist God creating the Reality. The one Reality that allowed you to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" to, among other things, owning bazookas and not being wrong, dumb or diseased about abortion.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:29 pm Oh, I disagree. As I say (short version), as there are free wills in an otherwise deterministic universe, this is a clear evidence of a Prime Mover.
The bottom line being that what you do believe is true "in your head" allows you to anchor your Self in The Right Thing To Do and it is this psychological defense mechanism that sustains your own comfort and consolation.
No, I mean: "The bottom line being that what you do believe is true 'in your head' [about this too] allows you to anchor your Self in The Right Thing To Do and it is this psychological defense mechanism that sustains your own comfort and consolation."henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:29 pm You mean: as man knows he is his own, and as it's almost impossible to not recognize other men are as he is, he is responsible for his violations of them. This is neither a comfort or consolation: a man is responsible for what he does.
And who really knows what your God's Reality is then?
Again, all you are acknowledging is that your God encompasses a Reality that you are not really privy to at all. You merely assume that your own sense of Reality in regard to guns and abortion on this side of the grave is such that if others don't share it they are wrong, dumb and diseased. And that "somehow" your Reality and His Reality are ultimately connected.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:29 pm As I say: Valhalla would be nice, but I suspect there ain't nuthin' but oblivion for any of us. Sorry.
The implication being that perhaps He is like all the other Gods.
But what is not a possibility is that if others believe they "own" themselves just as you do and as such believe that owning buying and selling bazookas is irrational and unnatural while having an abortion is rational and natural then God or No God they are inherently, necessarily wrong?
If your agendas are not in sync...Judgment Day?
Only you have already admitted that you don't know this for sure about your God and your religion. Suppose there is a Judgment Day. Suppose it's not oblivion. Then it would seem incumbent upon you to at least make the attempt to provide evidence that your convictions regarding guns and abortion are true beyond your assumption that given the pro/con arguments here...henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:29 pm How's it go? It rains on rich and poor alike? Rephrased: it's oblivion for good and evil alike.
But that is just one more thing you have absolutely no understanding of at all about this "private and personal" deist god of yours.
Yet you yourself have noted that just as there are many flavors of Libertarianism, there are various interpretations regarding the Deist God. Or, given your frame of mind, the lower-case deist God. Either there is an objective understanding of Him or each individual Deist/deist has his or her own personal understanding of Him.
the One True Path to bazookas.
Again, the objectivist minds love to use words like "inalienable rights". What makes them inalienable? The fact that "in their head" they believe it. Meanwhile out in the world we live in rights are political. In any given community, down through the ages historically and across the globe culturally, guns can be confiscated, abortions can be prohibited. Either because those in power command it, the community accepts it as essentially moral or in democracies conflicting moral agendas are voted in and out.
In this conversation between us, I'm the only one who can. Consider, you -- supposedly -- can't even tell the difference, or pick the good, between baby killin' and baby preservin'. By your own admission you're flummoxed by havin' to pick one or the other. If true (and I don't believe it is...your reaction to the possible nullification of R v W is tellin') then you're absolutely worthless as a measure of morality or truth or plain old fact.only you grasp Rationally and Naturally how this distinction is made
I'm with her on the first: there is a reality, the Reality, but I don't share her conviction (if indeed it was her conviction) that rational and virtuous folks are obligated to be in sync with her, or my, reality. It's not her, or my, reality to enforce. If you choose to defy Reality by, for example, eatin' Drano, that's your business and your consequence.she insisted that philosophically there was in turn a Reality. And that all rational and virtuous individuals were obligated to be in sync with her Reality.
And morons, asswipes, pinheads, degenerates, idiots, deficients, nutjobs, loons, wrong-headed, and on and on.you are content merely to call them diseased dummies
Nope, she's a free will, no one permits her to think as she likes...not even God. It's her head: she owns it, she's responsible for it.she is permitted her own understanding of "owning" herself in regard to bazookas and tanks.
Nope, if her own assessments -- which ain't got nuthin' to do with a fictional dasein -- bring her to conclude she has any say-so over the life, liberty, or property of another, when that other has done no wrong, then she's wrong.But if her own political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein are not entirely in sync with your understanding? She's wrong!!
Nope, I steer clear cuz dasein is manure, and a particularly low grade of it. I got no reason to give it any real consideration in any of my responses.You just steer clear of probing the part about dasein because you have way too much accumulated "comfort and consolation" at stake here.
Nope, they each are their own. I got nuthin' to do with it.you are granting them the right to "own" themselves
Come after my property when I've done no wrong with it: I'll defend it.and come after your bazookas as long as, when they do, you can shout at them that they are wrong and dumb and diseased.
Anyone who claims to understand natural rights while simultaneously declarin' certain items are forbidden doesn't understand natural rights or is a big, fat, liar.Only their "owned" understanding of natural rights assumes that it is irrational for private citizens to be permitted to buy and sell bazookas and tanks and grenades and mines and IEDs and mortar rounds and rockets.
It'll never happen.I can picture you both eyeball to eyeball:
No one has a right to steal.these folks are all claiming they have a natural right to do what they do as well.
It really isn't, especially when you play rhetorician (you're heavy-handed and obvious).my point is not worth considering
I'm no exception: I'm a free will...just like you; I am my own...just as you are yours...I'm responsible for myself...just as you are. The difference between us: I embrace bein' self-directin', self-relyin', and self-responsible; you desperately flail around lookin' for someone else to carry your water. Kinda sad; definitely pathetic.you "just know" that you are actually the "sole exception" to that
It's not possible to recognize the other guy has the same right to his life, liberty, and property as you do while declarin' it's forbidden he should own an item. It's not possible to recognize the other guy has the same right to his life, liberty, and property as you do while declarin' the baby in your belly ought to be rubbed out.what is not a possibility is that if others believe they "own" themselves just as you do and as such believe that owning buying and selling bazookas is irrational and unnatural while having an abortion is rational and natural then God or No God they are inherently, necessarily wrong?
Already gave it. Guess you're too fractured to get it.I'm still waiting for demonstrative evidence
If there's an afterlife: I'll worry about it when I'm dead. If them pro/con things are so compelling, replicate them in-thread. I don't hunt snipe.Suppose there is a Judgment Day. Suppose it's not oblivion. Then it would seem incumbent upon you to at least make the attempt to provide evidence that your convictions regarding guns and abortion are true beyond your assumption that given the pro/con arguments here...
Your right to yourself is integral to you. It can only be violated, never taken away or nullified. Not even God can alienate you from yourself.What makes them inalienable?
Nope, privileges are political, and wrong-headed. You're not a dog to be permitted or punished. you're a free man...not too late to start actin' like it.rights are political
And confiscators can die.guns can be confiscated
How sad baby murder has to be prohibited when it's a given: killin' a baby solely cuz he's inconvenient is wrong.abortions can be prohibited
You are fantasizing about how social controls work. Guns, and preaching about unmarried sex don't work.henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 5:21 pmNo. I will, however, as asked, tell young folks to keep it zipped up and keep your legs crossed, and I'll explain why.You can support initiatives to provide free child care to single mothers.
No. I will, however, as asked, teach youngsters how to shoot and how best to unman an attacker.You can support policing against incest, and rape
No. I will however, as asked, affirm what every kid already knows (but get hoodwinked into believin' otherwise), that bein', you are your own and you're not a piece of meat and life is difficult enough without, animal-like, you grindin' in the dark cuz you're bored or lonely and babies are serious business so don't make one till you want him and can take care of him.You can help to improve child education so that young persons don't feel obliged to have sex at a young age, and understand about contraception.
And, of course, I'll tell 'em, if asked, abortion is always the killin' of a person, and most of the time abortion is flat out murder.
How does all that work for you, B?
Mebbe so, B...no worse than you believin' pourin' more money into an amoral bureaucracy accomplishes diddly 'cept feedin' pigs at the trough.You are fantasizing about how social controls work. Guns, and preaching about unmarried sex don't work.
A child, even a lil bitty one, can be taught to aim and shoot. Barrin' that, a kid can be taught how to jab a sharp pencil into an eye or throat when a bad man is makin' with the bad touch. Teachin', recognizin', encouragn' efficacy, especially among the young, is a good thing.How can a child raped by her father have defended herself with a gun?
Opposition is an absence of order as there is an absence of unity (unity is order).DPMartin wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 3:43 pmopposition is rebellion, or self defense, or anything of that nature, chaos is understood as no order at all.
Of course morality is relative. It's up to each individual to speak for themselves. But the real point here, in the quoted text from American Scientific, is that no one is to say what is or is not permissible when it comes to deciding what's good or bad for ones own body.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:27 pm Is Moral Relativism Really a Problem?
Psychological research suggests it is not
By Thomas Pölzler at Scientific American
This is morality that revolves by and large around what you believe in your head. Or around what the majority of citizens in any particular community believe in their heads. But here that can still be predicated on the assumption that what you and others do believe about permissible or impermissible behavior makes it moral. And how then is that different from someone like me who concludes that morality itself is beyond the reach of, among other things, philosophy.Suppose you believe abortion is permissible. Would that belief alone make it so? No? Then how about if most Americans believed it? Would that suffice? If you think the answer to either question is yes, then chances are you are a moral relativist. You may hold that generally, as Hamlet put it, “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”
Not only is morality relative historically, culturally and individually, but, in the absence of God, it can never be more than the existential embodiment of "moderation, negotiation and compromise" among and between mere mortals.
That's the quandary that continues to impale me. Even in professing to be a moral relativist, some are able to convince themselves that their own conclusions are still the optimal frame of mind...the "best of all possible worlds".
On the other hand, moral relativism might be construed by some as downright constructive next to moral nihilism. The belief that morality itself is basically just a profoundly problematic [at times precarious] existential contraption rooted in the particular life that you lived and, given contingency, chance and change, always subject to reconfiguration given new experiences, new sets of circumstances.Moral relativism has as bad a reputation as any view about morality could. For example, in a 2011 interview for the conservative nonprofit American Enterprise Institute, then representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin said, “Moral relativism has done so much damage to the bottom end of this country, the bottom fifth has been damaged by the culture of moral relativism more than by anything else, I would argue. If you ask me what the biggest problem in America is, I’m not going to tell you debt, deficits, statistics, economics—I’ll tell you it’s moral relativism.”
Of course, those like Paul Ryan then insist that what must replace moral relativism is moral objectivism. And that necessarily would revolve around what he and his own moral and political ilk deem to be The Right Thing To Do.
And here, as they say, the rest is history.
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
If no one is to say "what is or is not permissible when it comes to deciding what's good or bad for ones own body" then a moral approach is recommended as it is wrong to say "what is or is not permissible when it comes to deciding what's good or bad for ones own body".SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 12:31 amOf course morality is relative. It's up to each individual to speak for themselves. But the real point here, in the quoted text from American Scientific, is that no one is to say what is or is not permissible when it comes to deciding what's good or bad for ones own body.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:27 pm Is Moral Relativism Really a Problem?
Psychological research suggests it is not
By Thomas Pölzler at Scientific American
This is morality that revolves by and large around what you believe in your head. Or around what the majority of citizens in any particular community believe in their heads. But here that can still be predicated on the assumption that what you and others do believe about permissible or impermissible behavior makes it moral. And how then is that different from someone like me who concludes that morality itself is beyond the reach of, among other things, philosophy.Suppose you believe abortion is permissible. Would that belief alone make it so? No? Then how about if most Americans believed it? Would that suffice? If you think the answer to either question is yes, then chances are you are a moral relativist. You may hold that generally, as Hamlet put it, “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”
Not only is morality relative historically, culturally and individually, but, in the absence of God, it can never be more than the existential embodiment of "moderation, negotiation and compromise" among and between mere mortals.
That's the quandary that continues to impale me. Even in professing to be a moral relativist, some are able to convince themselves that their own conclusions are still the optimal frame of mind...the "best of all possible worlds".
On the other hand, moral relativism might be construed by some as downright constructive next to moral nihilism. The belief that morality itself is basically just a profoundly problematic [at times precarious] existential contraption rooted in the particular life that you lived and, given contingency, chance and change, always subject to reconfiguration given new experiences, new sets of circumstances.Moral relativism has as bad a reputation as any view about morality could. For example, in a 2011 interview for the conservative nonprofit American Enterprise Institute, then representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin said, “Moral relativism has done so much damage to the bottom end of this country, the bottom fifth has been damaged by the culture of moral relativism more than by anything else, I would argue. If you ask me what the biggest problem in America is, I’m not going to tell you debt, deficits, statistics, economics—I’ll tell you it’s moral relativism.”
Of course, those like Paul Ryan then insist that what must replace moral relativism is moral objectivism. And that necessarily would revolve around what he and his own moral and political ilk deem to be The Right Thing To Do.
And here, as they say, the rest is history.
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
Edit: Sorry, I left off the last part, so I added it. It's called a brain fart!SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 12:31 amOf course morality is relative. It's up to each individual to speak for themselves. But the real point here, in the quoted text from American Scientific, is that no one is to say what is or is not permissible when it comes to deciding what's good or bad for ones own body, except for the brain that owns it.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:27 pm Is Moral Relativism Really a Problem?
Psychological research suggests it is not
By Thomas Pölzler at Scientific American
This is morality that revolves by and large around what you believe in your head. Or around what the majority of citizens in any particular community believe in their heads. But here that can still be predicated on the assumption that what you and others do believe about permissible or impermissible behavior makes it moral. And how then is that different from someone like me who concludes that morality itself is beyond the reach of, among other things, philosophy.Suppose you believe abortion is permissible. Would that belief alone make it so? No? Then how about if most Americans believed it? Would that suffice? If you think the answer to either question is yes, then chances are you are a moral relativist. You may hold that generally, as Hamlet put it, “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”
Not only is morality relative historically, culturally and individually, but, in the absence of God, it can never be more than the existential embodiment of "moderation, negotiation and compromise" among and between mere mortals.
That's the quandary that continues to impale me. Even in professing to be a moral relativist, some are able to convince themselves that their own conclusions are still the optimal frame of mind...the "best of all possible worlds".
On the other hand, moral relativism might be construed by some as downright constructive next to moral nihilism. The belief that morality itself is basically just a profoundly problematic [at times precarious] existential contraption rooted in the particular life that you lived and, given contingency, chance and change, always subject to reconfiguration given new experiences, new sets of circumstances.Moral relativism has as bad a reputation as any view about morality could. For example, in a 2011 interview for the conservative nonprofit American Enterprise Institute, then representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin said, “Moral relativism has done so much damage to the bottom end of this country, the bottom fifth has been damaged by the culture of moral relativism more than by anything else, I would argue. If you ask me what the biggest problem in America is, I’m not going to tell you debt, deficits, statistics, economics—I’ll tell you it’s moral relativism.”
Of course, those like Paul Ryan then insist that what must replace moral relativism is moral objectivism. And that necessarily would revolve around what he and his own moral and political ilk deem to be The Right Thing To Do.
And here, as they say, the rest is history.
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
