OT: Will non net-neutrality kill the internet?

[Tim Streater]

yes... Not the cleverest of ideas that one. I was more thinking of
things like the the various religious wars that tore Europe apart.
Hopefully christian sects won't be fighting each other in the west in
the near future.

I'm absolutely sure of it, since IMHO the end of such wars is due to
_establishing the modern notion of the sovereign state_ at Westphalen Treaty
of 1648.

It raised the notion of sovereignity to be very high, by far higher then any
religion.

because its fun. Protestants don't like fun.

"Jesus never smiled". See " The Name of the Rose" by Umberto Eco.

BTW - RC and Orthodox churches never denied fun, there are even some special
holiday weeks (usually just before the long fast in the spring) when fun is
allowed by the church.

Looks like Protestants do not have ones.[/QUOTE]

That's because they're not needed. It's only the Baptists and people
like that who appear to have a downer on fun (if the lunch with a group
of the congregation of my local Anglican church last Sunday was anything
to go by).

The only Christians I have ever come across who seem to have a thing
about alcohol are Southern Baptists - at a wedding I was at in
California some 25 years ago. Soft drinks and a wedding cake was all
they provided.

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

The only Christians I have ever come across who seem to have a thing

about alcohol are Southern Baptists

Any Baptists.

Even in Russia (there are some here, usually more or less conspired to not attact the attention of the state to them).

Also LDS.

Also I think many other Protestant churches.

 

[Chris H]

Witching? not tolerated in the West? what about the Wiccan subculture?

We do not normally kill people for being witches. Though the recent
African immigrants still do in the UK and US

For me, this is a shame for the nation, but... looks like such
"business" is profitable, so _there are believers in such a nonsense

It is no more nonsense than any other religion. And usually a lot less
harmful than most

Moral (and also legal) attitude against sexual "adventures" is very
much assymmetrical in gender, with women being _more required_ to keep
chastity, and - on the other hand - more prone of being considered a
passive victim (and thus the male partner - the active offender).

That has largely gone in the west now.

I have a strong feeling that in modern attitude against child molesters
everything is also asymmetric - adult male+minor girl mean major
sanctions for the male, while adult woman+minor boy - not so major
sanctions for the woman (if any at all).

True... Though in the UK an adult woman (a teacher I think) was jailed
for intercourse with boys of 14-15 years.

 

[Chris H]

I'm absolutely sure of it, since IMHO the end of such wars is due to
_establishing the modern notion of the sovereign state_ at Westphalen
Treaty of 1648.

It raised the notion of sovereignity to be very high, by far higher
then any religion.


"Jesus never smiled". See " The Name of the Rose" by Umberto Eco.

BTW - RC and Orthodox churches never denied fun, there are even some
special holiday weeks (usually just before the long fast in the spring)
when fun is allowed by the church.

Most of those are thinly disguised pagan festivals.

Looks like Protestants do not have ones.

They were definitely anti-fun

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

The corollary of Gowins Law (mentioning Hitler) is Westborogh Bapists
who are off limits for this discussion. They are certifiable nutters and
disowned by everyone outside their own group.

They still exist, and they're arguably less extremist than many Middle
Eastern regimes. One may find what they say offensive, but that's
pretty much as far as they take it. My problem is more with the idiots
who _act_ on their message (or similar from many, many other groups just
as nutty).

Strange as the Bible frequently talks about drinking wine. Never really
understood the Christian churches stance against alcohol.

AIUI, many churches are against alcohol because people tend to sin more
often when they're drunk, and they believe in eliminating even the
_temptation_ to sin, not just the sins themselves, by force of law if
they can and by peer pressure if not.

SO do I.... there are NO moral absolutes or Universal morals.

IMHO, morals are absolute but not universal. If you believe that
killing is wrong, then it _must_ be wrong to kill one man to save ten.

It is also not a moral absolute.

It seems pretty absolute to me. It doesn't say thou shalt not murder,
thou shouldn't kill or any other wording that can be "interpreted" to
allow killing under certain circumstances.

OTOH, that may be an artifact of translation; the original wording may
have been more open to interpretation.

S

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

Most of those are thinly disguised pagan festivals.

100% such.

 

[John Kelly]

It seems pretty absolute to me. It doesn't say thou shalt not murder,
thou shouldn't kill or any other wording that can be "interpreted" to
allow killing under certain circumstances.

The command "Thou shalt not kill" means humans don't have the wisdom to
decide who lives and who dies. But if God wants to destroy you, he can
delegate the work to other humans, such as recorded in the Bible.

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

True... Though in the UK an adult woman (a teacher I think) was jailed

for intercourse with boys of 14-15 years.

Surely, the law is applied blindly and formally, but I'm sure that the public outrage against the teacher was not as much as against the male offender.

 

[Chris H]

IMHO, morals are absolute but not universal. If you believe that
killing is wrong, then it _must_ be wrong to kill one man to save ten.


It seems pretty absolute to me.

Yet there is legal "moral" killing all the time.

It doesn't say thou shalt not murder,

Quite. It says "kill"

thou shouldn't kill or any other wording that can be "interpreted" to
allow killing under certain circumstances.

So when a state executes some one after due process it is immoral?

When any soldier kills ANYONE that is immoral?

When a mother kills a pedophile about to rape her child the mother is
immoral?

When a policeman shoots a terrorist about to set off a bomb the
policeman is immoral?

OTOH, that may be an artifact of translation; the original wording may
have been more open to interpretation.

So there are no absolutes......

 

[Chris H]

Surely, the law is applied blindly and formally, but I'm sure that the
public outrage against the teacher was not as much as against the male
offender.

It was the same AFAIR the case

 

[Chris H]

The command "Thou shalt not kill" means humans don't have the wisdom to
decide who lives and who dies. But if God wants to destroy you, he can
delegate the work to other humans, such as recorded in the Bible.

SO there are no moral absolutes.

BTW God recorded nothing in the bible. The Bible is a semi historical
work of fiction. Ask any other religion or some one who does know god.

 

[Chris H]

The command "Thou shalt not kill" means humans don't have the wisdom to
decide who lives and who dies.
Correct.

But if God wants to destroy you, he can
delegate the work to other humans, such as recorded in the Bible.

God record NOTHING in the Bible. The Bible is a much altered and
adjusted (over 600 years) human work that is semi historical fiction. It
has nothing to do with God.

Ask any other religion. They have the proof in their holy works as
written by God though his disciples.

What proof do you have that god has any connection whatsoever with an
Christian sect? The Bible (being your own marketing/propaganda) is not a
valid reference for this.

 

[John Kelly]

SO there are no moral absolutes.

Yes there are. But you don't understand, because you don't accept God's
authority.

BTW God recorded nothing in the bible. The Bible is a semi historical
work of fiction. Ask any other religion or some one who does know god.

When you don't accept God's authority, everything you know is wrong.

 

[Chris H]

Yes there are. But you don't understand, because you don't accept God's
authority.



When you don't accept God's authority, everything you know is wrong.

I do accept God Authority. It is the Christians with their fairy tales
who don't. I have God in my life so I KNOW I am right. It is you who is
wrong.

 

[BGB / cr88192]

The only Christians I have ever come across who seem to have a thing
about alcohol are Southern Baptists

<--
Any Baptists.

Even in Russia (there are some here, usually more or less conspired to not
attact the attention of the state to them).

Also LDS.

Also I think many other Protestant churches.
-->

AFAIK, it is mostly just Baptists and LDS...


most others that I know of don't have a problem with drinking.


otherwise:
in the US, why would prohibition been so difficult to try to enforce, and
raise so much mass opposition, if everyone in the country (at the time,
generally people were religious) had (supposedly) supported the no-drinking
stance.

instead, I think most people (religious or not) regard drinking as
acceptable.


I think part of what is going on (with the Baptists) may have been that John
the Baptist was a member of a sect (yes, of Jews) who themselves decided to
refrain from drinking (I think other things, but don't remember all that
well).

but blanket condemnation of alcohol is not biblical, nor a majority
position, from what I can tell.



admittedly, on this whole meta-ethics thing, I don't claim to be
representative of others (religious or not), but rather am going mostly on
my own philosophical reasoning here.

granted, I still hold my stance that, even though people disagree over
something related to morals, does not mean that whether or it itself is
moral is variable, only that one party or another is decidedly wrong.

granted, this also doesn't mean I believe in "rigid laws carved in stone"
either, but rather that exact the rightness or wrongness of an action may be
variable depending on the context in which it is performed (this may include
social factors and other things).

however, most of the rules are good rules, so it makes good sense to follow
them as they are written.

personal opinions and values are largely irrelevant in these matters.

what is the case is necessarily external, both to people and to cultures.
one has no real power to independently decide rightness or wrongness of an
action, the best they can do is to try to discover it.

although granted, the land of philosophy is an ugly and tangled mess...


or such...

 

[John Kelly]

I do accept God Authority. It is the Christians with their fairy tales
who don't. I have God in my life so I KNOW I am right. It is you who is
wrong.

Satan is the god of this world. He blinds the minds of unbelievers by
turning himself into an angel of light.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4
2 corinthians 11:14-15

 

[Seebs]

Satan is the god of this world. He blinds the minds of unbelievers by
turning himself into an angel of light.

And the 2010 prize for "discussion most likely to lead to someone
reading it being convinced" is being awarded early this year, after
an impressive showing by all participants. The judges simply don't
feel there's any point in waiting out the year, this is a theoretically
perfect showing. Sadly, their heroic efforts at "most topical thread"
may be in danger, as some people from TVtropes are planning an exhibition
showing later this year.

-s
p.s.: I know, I know. I'm not even in the top million for "most blatant
sarcasm".

 

[BGB / cr88192]

I guess I am the opposite, believing they are universal but not absolute...

a law may appear absolute though, for example, if there is no real way to
violate it without at the same time being immoral.

Yet there is legal "moral" killing all the time.


Quite. It says "kill"

I think some translations have translated it as murder.
I remember hearing before that people were looking into it, and concluded
that it was the act of murder in question, rather than killing in a general
sense.

So when a state executes some one after due process it is immoral?

When any soldier kills ANYONE that is immoral?

both of these are allowed.
to argue against these being valid would undermine the book of Joshua, as
well as several others.

the book basically gave the Jews the divine authority to take over the land
of Israel and, basically, kill anyone who stood in their way of doing so.

When a mother kills a pedophile about to rape her child the mother is
immoral?

whether or not it is moral, it is a justifiable action.


protection of oneself, ones' family, and (possibly) ones' property,
effectively justify the use of deadly force if needed (granted, it should
not be used if it can be avoided).

actually, as I see it, it is similar to the police:
police are fully allowed to use whatever force is necessary;
however, "shoot first, ask questions later" is not generally looked upon
favorably.


so, a person may validly shoot people who break-and-enter their house and
who pose a threat.
however, setting up motion-sensitive turrets in their yard is not likely a
reasonable option.

(like, neighbor kid jumps the fence to retrieve a ball and then gets hit
with a rain of bullets or similar...).
similarly, it is not ideal to pull a gun on whoever may come up to their
door, ...

When a policeman shoots a terrorist about to set off a bomb the
policeman is immoral?

no. a bomb is likely to do much more damage to life and property, and many
of these terrorists tend to blow themselves up in the explosion anyway, so
the best option is to shook the terrorist.

So there are no absolutes......

possibly...

 

[BGB / cr88192]

Then I feel sorry for you


We disagree.

FWIW, Hippies were the personification of degeneracy...

granted, in the modern US, aspects of their subculture has become engrained,
and not all of it is necessarily a bad thing, but a lot of bad things remain
as well (rampant promiscuity, ...).

as well, most people are too much concerned with themselves, with their own
lives and preferences, ...
it is sub-optimal...

 

[John Kelly]

FWIW, Hippies were the personification of degeneracy...

Is that a voice of experience? It's hard to know when you're on the
outside looking in.