OT: Will non net-neutrality kill the internet?

[Stephen Sprunk]

Not ... the US Bible Belt for example ...

Please cite _any_ example in the Bible Belt of a (non-immigrant) family
killing their daughter/sister for having premarital sex in the last,
say, 100 years.

Depends where in the world you are... Still happens in Europe and US

I'm sure it does, but again, how often?

True.

S

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

FWIW, Hippies were the personification of degeneracy...

+1

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, ...).

....and murder of Sharon Tate.

 

[John Kelly]

...and murder of Sharon Tate.

Devout Muslims don't murder anybody do they.

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

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

Parsing error. It is killing people for being witches that would not be
tolerated today; Wiccans themselves are tolerated.

And, in Russia, you can see a page of cheap newspaper full of ads of
"hereditary witch and sorceress, will restore your marriage and bring
you the business success".

You'll find similar in many US newspapers and even late-night TV ads,
though they proclaim to be psychics and such rather than witches. Same
fraud, different name.

For me, this is a shame for the nation, but... looks like such
"business" is profitable, so _there are believers in such a nonsense
that some dark-haired fat and arrogant woman in her 50ies can bring
you success in business by playing with pictured pieces of paper or
such_.
Yep.

Surely, this is obvious backlash from the Soviet nationalism, on the
background of the weak (weakened by the Soviets) official religion.

I doubt it. It's just shrewd businesspeople fleecing idiots, little
different from a lottery.

Absolutely so.

If there was a sex between an adult woman and an adolescent boy - then
I have _very major_ doubts that the boy's father will threat the woman
with the shotgun to marry his son

I have serious doubts as well, but mainly because it's rather unlikely
that the woman got the boy pregnant...

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).

It used to be that way in the US, but these days our legal system is
making a very pointed effort to treat all such cases equally regardless
of the gender(s) of the people involved. There have been many headline
cases over the last few years of female teachers in particular being
arrested and imprisoned for having sex with (usually male) teens.

There has also been a surge in prosecuting cases where, due to what I
consider flawed laws, there shouldn't be a crime in the first place.
For instance, in some states it is illegal for teens _the same age_ to
have sex. In others, it may be legal for two teens of different ages to
have sex until the older one becomes an adult, then be a crime until the
younger teen also becomes an adult, then be legal again. Also, if it's
legal for two minors to have sex in two different states, it's a federal
crime for them to travel from one state to the other, even if they're
married! And, of course, some states that still have laws against
fornication prosecute minors over the age of consent, yet they don't
prosecute adults for doing the exact same thing.

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).

I've not heard of any cases of genuine child molestation by women, so
it's hard to say. Such offenders are (almost?) exclusively male, though
the gender of the victim can and does vary.

S

 

[BGB / cr88192]

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

not personal experience (anyways, the whole hippy thing rose and died long
before I was born, but my parents were alive when hippies were running
rampant...).

but, one doesn't have to look too hard, having known what sorts of things
they did, the ideals they promoted, the lifestyles they lived, ...

so, in many ways they were degenerates...


however, there were some things they also influenced, mostly giving more
freedom in terms of clothing and hairstyle, ... that one largely doesn't end
up much thinking about... (like, one has the freedom to wear shorts and
t-shirts and have long hair, ...).


but, then again, one can end up going to a family reunion in a small town in
Utah, and realize that this is a very different world (one is left worrying
how they will be judged regarding their dress and grooming patterns), yet at
the same time, feeling disturbed by the dress and grooming patterns of
others (females with too much big-hair and too much makeup, ... males often
wearing the stereotyped white-and-black suits and with short and often
slicked-back hair, ...).

in some ways it is all a bit surreal...

but, hell, luckily I am NOT a Mormon, although, sadly, many of my relatives
are...


or such...

 

[Nick Keighley]

Surely, the law is applied blindly and formally,

not in my opinion

but I'm sure that the
public outrage against the teacher was not as much as against the male
offender.

no. People can get quite pissed off this way round as well. Every son
has a mother and a teacher is a position of trust

 

[Nick Keighley]

Parsing error.  It is killing people for being witches that would not be
tolerated today; Wiccans themselves are tolerated.


You'll find similar in many US newspapers and even late-night TV ads,
though they proclaim to be psychics and such rather than witches.  Same
fraud, different name.


I doubt it.  It's just shrewd businesspeople fleecing idiots, little
different from a lottery.

some people believe this stuff. On both sides of the table

 

[Nick Keighley]

I've not heard of any cases of genuine child molestation by women,

oh, its happened

 

[Nick Keighley]

Hm... not so native.

I was using the term "going native" to mean "complying with the
ambiant culture", That is behaving in a more British fashion rather
than complying with the family's mores and cultural norms. I suspect
it's common in all sorts of migration.

They are both native + preserving their old family (sometimes neolithic)
attitudes.

I don't particularly like the "neolithic" label. Many of these
cultures have been civilised a lot longer than us.

For instance, I'm absolutely sure that, if in the UK the native
British boy will beat the local Malay boy on the street, then he will
have _the whole Malay family with the elder brothers and probably
father_ against him. And, if vice versa - the things usually do not
work such a way.

This is just because Malays (not far from being neolithic) have
much stronger sense of brother and family (related to vendetta etc),
then long-ago-civilized Britons.

I'm not aware that we have a large Malay immigrant population. Did you
mean Pakistani or Bangladeshi?

This is why skinheads appear: as Briton's response to Malay/Indian
etc. family solidatiry in street fights, crime etc.
bollocks

Also I'm absolutely sure (by comparing to Muslims on Russian
Northern Caucausus) that, after one generation of jeans wearing,
they will understand that Islam is by far better then jeans and
the resurrected interest to Islam will arise.

some will. Some won't.

First as, say,
Arabian writings under the car license plates and "classic Muslim
wear" ads in the subway, then more and more.

haven't seen much sign of that in the uk

 

[Nick Keighley]

I don't provide a solid answer because I believe morality depends on the
person you're asking, i.e. there is no objective morality.

ah, I suppose my question was addressed to the Absolute Moralists of
this thread. Apologies if I mistook you for one.

Personally, I don't think it's immoral as long as all of the prospective
spouses are aware of and agree to it beforehand.

a fair answer and one I'd agree with

You don't mention which country you're from, but I seriously doubt it
doesn't have a single law enforcing some bit of religion-based morality.

UK. And no doubt there is. Sometimes it's hard to see your own
cultural bias. I think we repealed the Criminal Blasphamy laws.
There's bias within the education system towards christianity.
Polygamy isn't allowed (but then it's not legal in some muslim
countries). I'm not sure all marriage ceremonies are recognised (this
is easily worked around- have a civil ceremony followed by the
religion one).

Still, if one believes an act is immoral, one cannot "justify" doing it
anyway.  If one doesn't believe an act is immoral, there is no need for
justification.

it was the "absolute" bit I was refuting.

 

[Nick Keighley]

There is an opinion that the Western elites _just have lost the
ability of controlling masses via transcendental means_.

if by "transcendental means" you mean non-rational means. I don't
think so. Look at the justifications for the invasion of Iraq. Both in
the US and the UK (very different rationales given).

Read a tabloid newspaper. The appeal to emotion is blatent. The
manipulation of subconcious cues close to overt.

"Hero Killed in Cowardly Attack"
("hero" always means "uk soldier", "coward" an opponent of a uk
soldier)

<snip>

 

[Nick Keighley]

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.

two plus two isn't four?

 

[Nick Keighley]

In message <[email protected]>, Stephen Sprunk <




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


Quite.  It says "kill"


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


When any soldier kills  ANYONE that is immoral?

not necessarily. And that applies to most of your other examples

 

[Nick Keighley]

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

you say that like it's a bad thing...

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.
?!



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

and probably legal

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).

in the UK you'd probably be on iffy ground if tried protection of
property as your defence.

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.

unless it's a Brazillian electrian or you're the SAS

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,

depends on your flavour of terrorist

 

[Nick Keighley]

different results, but likely in the larger sense, this is only a minor
variation...

and black is white and pigs can fly. This is arrant nonsense.

compare the PRC and the US.
apart from the PRC being filled with Chinese and similar, there is really a
lot more in common.

yeah right. Are there a lot of forced abortions in America to enforce
the One Child policy? Just how big was the leader of China's majority
in the last election?

The US has its problems but this sort of moral relativism from useful
idiots just takes the biscuit.

yes, but in most cases, people don't do this.

in mainstream Christianity, there is a wide variety of doctrinal variations
between groups, and most get along just fine...

try Belfast or Glasgow in marching season.

a lot of it is endorsing openly promiscuous behavior and lifestyles, which
is the main issue. a lot on TV is also openly occult as well.

Buffy! You don't like Buffy do you!


this sort of calculus might be appropriate in a court of law (to
decide compensation). I don't think it makes a lot of moral sense. I'm
particularly disputing your contention that morality can be placed on
a scientific basis.

possibly.

but, in this case, since it was presented as a "kill 1 to save 10" scenario,

it was presented as an example of why moral calculus is unworkable.
There are just too many variables.

it is a direct tradeoff:
kill 1 person, and be responsible for their death (via action);
let 10 people die, and be responsible for their deaths (via inaction).

in this case, it is not really all that different of a matter from, say, a
triage.
classify who will live and who will die, and hope that the best choice was
made.

either way, guilt can't be escaped, and hence, it is the goal of finding the
lesser of the evils, which will tend to be preserving those who have the
most value.

The Quick and the Dead.

You scare me.

 

[Chris H]

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

There! PROOF you don't know God as you are quoting from a book of fairy
tales.

 

[Chris H]

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".

But I KNOW I am right..... God tells me so.

 

[Chris H]

In message <[email protected]

not necessarily. And that applies to most of your other examples

SO there are NO moral absolutes.

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

and probably legal

In my state, the law specifically says the use of deadly force to stop a
rape is "justified" and therefore a defense to prosecution. The rape
victim's age, gender and relationship to the actor are irrelevant.

in the UK you'd probably be on iffy ground if tried protection of
property as your defence.

Here, it depends on the property in question being "unlikely to be
recovered", and there's little case law on exactly what that means, so I
wouldn't recommend putting yourself in a position where you had to rely
on that justification.

S

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

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

I disagree.

Quite. It says "kill"

I don't see any moral exceptions there.

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

Many would say yes.

When any soldier kills ANYONE that is immoral?

Many would say yes.

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

Many would say yes.

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

Many would say yes.

So there are no absolutes......

I have no idea what the original wording of that Commandment is, and
AFAIK there are no remaining native speakers of that language, so even
if we had a reliable copy of the original wording (and we don't), we
couldn't be sure we were interpreting it correctly. It might have been
absolute, or it might not have been; there is simply no way to know
today, which is why opinions vary.

S