J
James
BGB / cr88192 said:
If a human family is literally starving; does that fact give them the right
to destroy the physical body of an animal for food?
If a human family is literally starving; does that fact give them the right
to destroy the physical body of an animal for food?
B
BGB / cr88192
James said:
presumably, at least as far as morals go...
people have been doing this pretty much all of history and with no real ill
effect, so there is no issue.
as for laws, I don't know...
half of the laws are stupid anyways, so either way.
N
Nick Keighley
ok we've cleared that up. Killing animals isn't murder.
you appear to be trying to apply some religious code on what can and
can't be eaten to people (including me) who don't subscribe to that
code.
no. No it isn't.
in my country we have "black pudding" which is a sausage made with
blood. I quite happily eat them and don't consider it immoral. No more
than eating any other part of an animal.
I know. I was careful to clarify that. I'm not sure what your point
was.
I think you are back to some particular religious practices.
So a cheese burger is immoral? Personnally I don't like them but not
because Leviticus says I shouldn't.
B
BGB / cr88192
Nick Keighley said:
well, I think the idea is that religion (and morals) still apply to everyone
whether or not they believe it.
it is much like reality in general:
it exists, and there is no real opt-out WRT its existence, although one can
disagree WRT its specifics...
if someone disagrees and makes bizarre claims which make no sense, it is
them who is wrong, but whatever is actually the case remains ultimately
uneffected.
however, a person is free for themselves to hold any stance which seems to
hold up (since really, physical reality and conceptual reality are separate,
and the mind has no influence over physical reality, but one can have as
many separate mental realities as they want... one reality made of stuff,
the other made of words and definitions, and the limits of the latter is to
all things which can be defined by text and remain internally consistent,
....).
for example, the sciences can describe physical reality, but all of their
definitions and claims exist within mental reality, hence there is no
problem with both it and religious beliefs existing at the same time
(regardless that some claims are true and others may turn out to be false
WRT the external reality).
if nothing exists, then there is nothing to fear either way.
if the creator exists, and one has spent their life disregarding his morals,
well then, one will be judged accordingly...
and, ultimately, right and wrong still exist, best one can try to do is try
to understand what are their rules and behaviors...
it is part of the Noahide rules, which were applied for everyone.
both, it involves the use of blood, and also consumes part of an animal
while they are still alive.
hence, it is more imorral than either act would be by itself...
yes, but it still is either way, since morals exist externally to the people
themselves...
well, the original text didn't say whether it was alive or dead first.
some people believe it is.
I think they are misinterpreting the text.
either way...
M
Maxim S. Shatskih
actually, the above is a little bit of a mystery for me anyways, since in my
The major difference is between _public offer_ prostitution and fornication.
The employee of a brothel, or the on-street prostitute is _ready to have sex with anybody who pays the standard wage, with zero personal background_. This ruins their personality and leads to degradation.
As about the, say, professional female companion of the rich man, like the Japanese "gaysha" or such - this is another song. She can reject sex, even if money is promised, and she still requires some interpersonal background.
As about the usual women who sometimes have out-of-marriage sex - sorry. No personal degradation at all (BTW, in men too
). If this is really the adultery, then she really does a nasty immoral deed to her husband, but this is their private affair. After all, she can quit him completely.
And, if she is not married - then sorry, this is her personal right and her privacy.
The major difference is between _public offer_ prostitution and fornication.
The employee of a brothel, or the on-street prostitute is _ready to have sex with anybody who pays the standard wage, with zero personal background_. This ruins their personality and leads to degradation.
As about the, say, professional female companion of the rich man, like the Japanese "gaysha" or such - this is another song. She can reject sex, even if money is promised, and she still requires some interpersonal background.
As about the usual women who sometimes have out-of-marriage sex - sorry. No personal degradation at all (BTW, in men too
). If this is really the adultery, then she really does a nasty immoral deed to her husband, but this is their private affair. After all, she can quit him completely.And, if she is not married - then sorry, this is her personal right and her privacy.
M
Maxim S. Shatskih
well, I think the idea is that religion (and morals) still apply to everyone
There is no such thing as universal religion and moral.
For instance, Jews do not do anything on Saturday. Christians have no such taboo.
Are Christians worse then Jews?
Same question is about pork.
And, if you will take the historical point of view, just read the "The Golden Bough" by J. Frazer to understand what the taboo is, and what is their background.
There is no such thing as universal religion and moral.
For instance, Jews do not do anything on Saturday. Christians have no such taboo.
Are Christians worse then Jews?
Same question is about pork.
And, if you will take the historical point of view, just read the "The Golden Bough" by J. Frazer to understand what the taboo is, and what is their background.
B
BGB / cr88192
Maxim S. Shatskih said:
<--
The major difference is between _public offer_ prostitution and fornication.
The employee of a brothel, or the on-street prostitute is _ready to have sex
with anybody who pays the standard wage, with zero personal background_.
This ruins their personality and leads to degradation.
-->
dunno, at least in Nevada they can reject services or charge higher prices
at their own discretion AFAIK.
granted, many are freelance, rather than being employed in a brothel or
controlled by pimps (the latter being more common in places where it is
illegal...).
as I see it, it would likely be pimping and coercion which whould be
illegal, and if combined with freelance operation, likely the costs would
drop low enough that pimping no longer has much economic incentive.
(similarly, legal drugs would also largely eliminate dealers, ...).
nevermind whether or not it is immoral, since presumably anyone involved has
already accepted any moral costs involved.
<--
As about the, say, professional female companion of the rich man, like the
Japanese "gaysha" or such - this is another song. She can reject sex, even
if money is promised, and she still requires some interpersonal background.
As about the usual women who sometimes have out-of-marriage sex - sorry. No
personal degradation at all (BTW, in men too
). If this is really the adultery, then she really does a nasty immoral deed to her husband, but this
is their private affair. After all, she can quit him completely.
And, if she is not married - then sorry, this is her personal right and her
privacy.
-->
but, in all cases the basic acts are still the same...
wouldn't seem to matter whether or not the person knows the other person, or
if they are getting paid or not, ...
like, a female could fornicate with only people she knows, or random people
from bars or parties, or with random trios of black guys who crawl over her
fence and waving their members around, or whatever else... in all cases, it
is still the same basic act.
for the moment I am ignoring the issue of adultery, as although related,
this is a separate act AFAIK (and hence subject to different rules).
likewise goes for gayness, ...
or such...
N
Nick Keighley
well I disagree. Whose religion and whose morals? I think we are
getting to the stage where we just reiterate our positions without
changeing our opinions. Religions apply to those people who subscribe
to them and morals are largely an arbitary social code. With perhaps
some underlying principles (don't steal, don't murder, don't harm).
Iterated Prisioners Dilemma and the Golden Rule.
Arbitary dietry laws fall well outside the shared core.
no. It is completly *unlike* reality. Reality can be observed
empirically. Dietry laws are just made up by people.
be a bit bizzare to claim nothing existed... How would he post to the
internet?
it's an old argument. See Pascal's Wager. Suppose I follow the
christian religions but it's actually Offla The Crocodile God who runs
the show?
well no
never heard of them. They don't apply to me. Look I don't go looking
for a bacon sandwich in a strongly muslim country but I don't consider
myself bound by their morality.
no
<snip>
I think we are approaching stalemate.
M
Maxim S. Shatskih
well I disagree. Whose religion and whose morals? I think we are
I agree 90%, but not 100%.
The thing is that the mankind have only recently discovered the Iterated Prisioners Dilemma. More, so, _science itself_ (with its empirical methodology) appeared around 500 years ago.
What was the base of the public (large-scale-social, national, basis for the legislation) moral before these times?
Sorry, but only the system of taboos (like Kashrut - it is the same kind of taboo as the taboos on the iron, on haircutting etc described by Frazer) was the basis of the public moral.
Interpersonal "micro" moral - between the living humans "here and there" - is another song, but it is very well based (at least if different genders are involved) on the figure of the Father (see Freud and another loud names in the personality psychology), and this figure is a derivative of the social institution of family, which in turn is derived from the public moral.
Religion is an important cultural institution which provides a system and logic to taboos (and, vice versa - the recommended behavior), and thus was a basis of the public moral since the neolithic times.
I agree 90%, but not 100%.
The thing is that the mankind have only recently discovered the Iterated Prisioners Dilemma. More, so, _science itself_ (with its empirical methodology) appeared around 500 years ago.
What was the base of the public (large-scale-social, national, basis for the legislation) moral before these times?
Sorry, but only the system of taboos (like Kashrut - it is the same kind of taboo as the taboos on the iron, on haircutting etc described by Frazer) was the basis of the public moral.
Interpersonal "micro" moral - between the living humans "here and there" - is another song, but it is very well based (at least if different genders are involved) on the figure of the Father (see Freud and another loud names in the personality psychology), and this figure is a derivative of the social institution of family, which in turn is derived from the public moral.
Religion is an important cultural institution which provides a system and logic to taboos (and, vice versa - the recommended behavior), and thus was a basis of the public moral since the neolithic times.
N
Nick Keighley
could you fix whatever it is your posting software does?
On 14 Sep, 12:16, "Maxim S. Shatskih" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Maxim said:
[well, I think the idea is that religion (and morals) still apply to
everyone
whether or not they believe it.]
is that what you believe the definition of religion/morality is or is
it what you actually think it is?
There is so much variation in religion and morality that this plainly
untrue. They are not universals.
So you are either unable to accept that anyone can have a different
but valid opinion from your own (I call such people bigots) or we are
miscommunicating.
Are you trying to explain what morality is or how it arose?
what is the 10% of dietry law that is shared? Macdonald's burgers?
I'm simply going to disagree with you here. And maybe abandon this
part of the thread if you can come up with little more than 'tis/
tisn't.
you misunderstand. That's like saying palelithic man hadn't discovered
Newton's Law of gravity so how come he didn't drift off into space.
IPD simply explains a stable strategy that arises naturally in a
society of interacting intelligent agents. Chimps use IPD even if they
can't draw you the digram or find the right page in Von Newman and
Morgenstern. Probabably nesting sea birds and meercats do too.
before written legislation there is customary law. English law is
based to a great extent on "common law". This goes back several
hundred years and is based on what is seen as fair and what the
society will tolerate. Stealing is agreed to be bad. Petty theives are
put in the stocks. Persistent theives or robbers from outside are
mutilated or hanged. The community does this because they agree that
stealing is bad. If you work for a sack of potoatoes you'd like to
keep em (or at least choose who you give them to).
Most societies agree on a core like theft and murder and rape. Outside
this core there is variation on adultary, marriage law, inheritance,
property law, common property. When it comes to religion inspired laws
than dress, food, prayer, sexual orientation etc may all be regulated.
Even things like money lending.
didn't follow that. There's plenty of stuff that isn't to do with
taboos that is the subject of morality. Or at least people think it
should be. Dodgy (but legal) business pratices.
whatever. Morals to me appear partially rational (societies that allow
wide scale killing don't last long) and partly little more than random
choices to exclude the Other (eating pork, painting your lips black
and wearing dark clothes)
Morals and religion are not universal recipes for living your life.
I feel you might be trying to come up with a procrustian explanation
for all moral codes rather trying to enforce a single moral code on
everyone else. Though you opinions on the consumption of blood seem a
little odd... (you consider consuming blood to be "by definition"
immoral)
On 14 Sep, 12:16, "Maxim S. Shatskih" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Maxim said:
[well, I think the idea is that religion (and morals) still apply to
everyone
whether or not they believe it.]
is that what you believe the definition of religion/morality is or is
it what you actually think it is?
There is so much variation in religion and morality that this plainly
untrue. They are not universals.
So you are either unable to accept that anyone can have a different
but valid opinion from your own (I call such people bigots) or we are
miscommunicating.
Are you trying to explain what morality is or how it arose?
what is the 10% of dietry law that is shared? Macdonald's burgers?
I'm simply going to disagree with you here. And maybe abandon this
part of the thread if you can come up with little more than 'tis/
tisn't.
you misunderstand. That's like saying palelithic man hadn't discovered
Newton's Law of gravity so how come he didn't drift off into space.
IPD simply explains a stable strategy that arises naturally in a
society of interacting intelligent agents. Chimps use IPD even if they
can't draw you the digram or find the right page in Von Newman and
Morgenstern. Probabably nesting sea birds and meercats do too.
before written legislation there is customary law. English law is
based to a great extent on "common law". This goes back several
hundred years and is based on what is seen as fair and what the
society will tolerate. Stealing is agreed to be bad. Petty theives are
put in the stocks. Persistent theives or robbers from outside are
mutilated or hanged. The community does this because they agree that
stealing is bad. If you work for a sack of potoatoes you'd like to
keep em (or at least choose who you give them to).
Most societies agree on a core like theft and murder and rape. Outside
this core there is variation on adultary, marriage law, inheritance,
property law, common property. When it comes to religion inspired laws
than dress, food, prayer, sexual orientation etc may all be regulated.
Even things like money lending.
didn't follow that. There's plenty of stuff that isn't to do with
taboos that is the subject of morality. Or at least people think it
should be. Dodgy (but legal) business pratices.
whatever. Morals to me appear partially rational (societies that allow
wide scale killing don't last long) and partly little more than random
choices to exclude the Other (eating pork, painting your lips black
and wearing dark clothes)
Morals and religion are not universal recipes for living your life.
I feel you might be trying to come up with a procrustian explanation
for all moral codes rather trying to enforce a single moral code on
everyone else. Though you opinions on the consumption of blood seem a
little odd... (you consider consuming blood to be "by definition"
immoral)
M
Maxim S. Shatskih
could you fix whatever it is your posting software does?
And what is the issue?
This is not me, but another poster. So, "bigot" is also not about me
No. Taboo on blood, for instance.
Any parallels with animals are null and void for everybody who knows some minor bits of behavioral zoology, like the one from the books by Nobel prize winner Konrad Lorentz.
Animals do not have morals. They only have behavioral mechanisms, which are by far not universal and not governed by IPD.
For instance, many hoofed mammals, and also many species of fish, form the anonymous flocks. They just plain cannot distinguish one animal of their only specie from another. There is no personality for them, not at all. They only feel the _mob_ of the ones like them. Why is so? Due to their ecological niche, like the "plant-eating prarie dwellers" or the "planctone-eating pelagic fish".
Darwin's evolution formed them this way.
Store-making animals like chipmunks are natural egoists and are solitary. Placing 2 chipmunks - even of different gender - to the same cage will lead to a fight between them till one will die.
And this is also connected to their ecology - this mechanism allows them to scatter enough so that each will have a significant personal territory to gather food.
Singing birds also have personal territories in a similar way.
Some animals - like baboons or wolves - live in small groups with hierarchy based on aggression. And again, this is due to their ecology.
Human beings are not such. There is no pre-determination by ecology and by evolution. There are people egoistic like chipmunks, forming hierarchies like baboons and so on.
Instead of this, humans have culture, religion (for me - a part of culture) and the public moral derived from this.
Exactly so, and often it is based on religion - see Deuteronomy.
Now note that stocks are gone in the Western (including Russia) world, so are penal mutilations, and the death penalty is conducted in a painless way (yes, firing a bullet to the one's head is painless).
Why? because the _public moral_ have changed.
The public moral of the modern Western world is mainly based on "secular humanism", which is essentially the modern replacement of the religion.
Now compare to Muslim countries where there are still penal mutilations. Note that "agreed to be bad" differs a lot.
My point is this "agreed to be bad" cannot be derived from the IPD, this is not some natural mandatory law like the Newton's gravity. This is based mainly on some historical occurences, sometimes more or less random - if Antiochus IV Epiphanes had a better army (or - vice versa - the Maccabean Jews had worse army), we would have no Judaism, no Christianity and no Islam now. Note that, being a part of the brilliant Hellenistic culture, Antiochus was not a savage at all.
These historical occurences form the human culture, and yes, religion is part of it (the part directly connected to moral).
Questioning the modern religion of secular humanism is also punisheable modern days, as questioning of any religious dogmas in Middle Ages Europe, modern Iran and such. Well, the penalty is not death but the public ostrakism, but still this is a penalty.
In such basic things - yes (after all, all humans need to it). Now let's look at not-so-basic things like the age of allowed sex - and you will see differences not only between civilizations, but between the US states.
Rape? even this is not so basic. I think that the rape of peasant girl by a noble was not punisheable in feudal countries, and surely it was not punisheable to rape a female slave in civilizations where slavery existed. Let's also take the mass rape of the defeated nation's woman by the victors, which occured even in 20th century (and no, the soldier-rapists were not always considered criminals by their own state).
....existence or non-existence of slavery, equality or non-equality etc...
My point is that _nearly everything in this public moral_ is religion-inspired. For instance, the slavery ban in the US North was due to purely religious basis. On the South, there was not so many Quackers, so, Southern people owned slaves - their religion allowed them to do this.
Public morality is based on taboos.
I don't think that the legal business which violates the public moral ever existed, in any country. Things like brothels, drug dealing, rape porn, child porn, animal crushing porn are illegal.
More so, when Toshiba sold the good machine tools to the USSR to allow the latter to make noiseless submarine machinery, Toshiba was squeezed away from the US. Why? Because in American public moral, USSR was a satanic outlawed state. This was not a legal move by the US (under what laws can Americans judge the foreign company which something to another foreign state-owned company?), just pure political will based on pubic moral.
So, business and money is not above all.
....but societies that allow sex at age 12 lasted very long - Ancient Egypt.
I disagree that Kashrut is "to exclude the other", and I also disagree in comparison of Kashrut with the practices of informal youngsters (like the Gothic subculture you mentioned).
Kashrut is _sacred_ to the followers, black lips are not. The Gothic girl can easily abandon her gothic style in favour of the classic one (to a job interview, for instance) without feeling herself a blasphemer (or being considered such by her friends). Youth subcultures are mainly due to lots of free time in youngsters, and bad abilities to structure it and fill it, which cause the sense of dullness.
Also note that, even if others will stop pork eating and doing anything on Saturday, they will not become "non-other" in the eyes of the Jews.
Kashrut is more like the Frazer's taboo.
There are no universal recipes. Nevertheless, there is a historical facts of, say, ban of sex at age 12 in modern countries, which is not biologically or medically determined (compare to Ancient Egypt).
Or let's take some practices of _banning anything non-classic_ in some circumstances, like the dress code for the bank tellers, or the Soviet ban of woman wearing slacks to enter any party/governemental office. BTW, this is not about sexuality suppression - sexuality boosters like makeup and spiked heels are OK in bank tellers and were such in Soviet structures. It is the suppression of anything non-classic, and maintaining the sense of order and discipline.
Definitely public moral have something in common with such dress codes and similar practices.
Sort of. Public moral is derived from the culture, where religion plays very important point. It is not derived from some natural Newton-style laws like the IPD theory or such.
Not me, but another poster. I only consider this to be a violation of _current modern cultural norms_.
And what is the issue?
This is not me, but another poster. So, "bigot" is also not about me
No. Taboo on blood, for instance.
Any parallels with animals are null and void for everybody who knows some minor bits of behavioral zoology, like the one from the books by Nobel prize winner Konrad Lorentz.
Animals do not have morals. They only have behavioral mechanisms, which are by far not universal and not governed by IPD.
For instance, many hoofed mammals, and also many species of fish, form the anonymous flocks. They just plain cannot distinguish one animal of their only specie from another. There is no personality for them, not at all. They only feel the _mob_ of the ones like them. Why is so? Due to their ecological niche, like the "plant-eating prarie dwellers" or the "planctone-eating pelagic fish".
Darwin's evolution formed them this way.
Store-making animals like chipmunks are natural egoists and are solitary. Placing 2 chipmunks - even of different gender - to the same cage will lead to a fight between them till one will die.
And this is also connected to their ecology - this mechanism allows them to scatter enough so that each will have a significant personal territory to gather food.
Singing birds also have personal territories in a similar way.
Some animals - like baboons or wolves - live in small groups with hierarchy based on aggression. And again, this is due to their ecology.
Human beings are not such. There is no pre-determination by ecology and by evolution. There are people egoistic like chipmunks, forming hierarchies like baboons and so on.
Instead of this, humans have culture, religion (for me - a part of culture) and the public moral derived from this.
Exactly so, and often it is based on religion - see Deuteronomy.
Now note that stocks are gone in the Western (including Russia) world, so are penal mutilations, and the death penalty is conducted in a painless way (yes, firing a bullet to the one's head is painless).
Why? because the _public moral_ have changed.
The public moral of the modern Western world is mainly based on "secular humanism", which is essentially the modern replacement of the religion.
Now compare to Muslim countries where there are still penal mutilations. Note that "agreed to be bad" differs a lot.
My point is this "agreed to be bad" cannot be derived from the IPD, this is not some natural mandatory law like the Newton's gravity. This is based mainly on some historical occurences, sometimes more or less random - if Antiochus IV Epiphanes had a better army (or - vice versa - the Maccabean Jews had worse army), we would have no Judaism, no Christianity and no Islam now. Note that, being a part of the brilliant Hellenistic culture, Antiochus was not a savage at all.
These historical occurences form the human culture, and yes, religion is part of it (the part directly connected to moral).
Questioning the modern religion of secular humanism is also punisheable modern days, as questioning of any religious dogmas in Middle Ages Europe, modern Iran and such. Well, the penalty is not death but the public ostrakism, but still this is a penalty.
In such basic things - yes (after all, all humans need to it). Now let's look at not-so-basic things like the age of allowed sex - and you will see differences not only between civilizations, but between the US states.
Rape? even this is not so basic. I think that the rape of peasant girl by a noble was not punisheable in feudal countries, and surely it was not punisheable to rape a female slave in civilizations where slavery existed. Let's also take the mass rape of the defeated nation's woman by the victors, which occured even in 20th century (and no, the soldier-rapists were not always considered criminals by their own state).
....existence or non-existence of slavery, equality or non-equality etc...
My point is that _nearly everything in this public moral_ is religion-inspired. For instance, the slavery ban in the US North was due to purely religious basis. On the South, there was not so many Quackers, so, Southern people owned slaves - their religion allowed them to do this.
Public morality is based on taboos.
I don't think that the legal business which violates the public moral ever existed, in any country. Things like brothels, drug dealing, rape porn, child porn, animal crushing porn are illegal.
More so, when Toshiba sold the good machine tools to the USSR to allow the latter to make noiseless submarine machinery, Toshiba was squeezed away from the US. Why? Because in American public moral, USSR was a satanic outlawed state. This was not a legal move by the US (under what laws can Americans judge the foreign company which something to another foreign state-owned company?), just pure political will based on pubic moral.
So, business and money is not above all.
....but societies that allow sex at age 12 lasted very long - Ancient Egypt.
I disagree that Kashrut is "to exclude the other", and I also disagree in comparison of Kashrut with the practices of informal youngsters (like the Gothic subculture you mentioned).
Kashrut is _sacred_ to the followers, black lips are not. The Gothic girl can easily abandon her gothic style in favour of the classic one (to a job interview, for instance) without feeling herself a blasphemer (or being considered such by her friends). Youth subcultures are mainly due to lots of free time in youngsters, and bad abilities to structure it and fill it, which cause the sense of dullness.
Also note that, even if others will stop pork eating and doing anything on Saturday, they will not become "non-other" in the eyes of the Jews.
Kashrut is more like the Frazer's taboo.
There are no universal recipes. Nevertheless, there is a historical facts of, say, ban of sex at age 12 in modern countries, which is not biologically or medically determined (compare to Ancient Egypt).
Or let's take some practices of _banning anything non-classic_ in some circumstances, like the dress code for the bank tellers, or the Soviet ban of woman wearing slacks to enter any party/governemental office. BTW, this is not about sexuality suppression - sexuality boosters like makeup and spiked heels are OK in bank tellers and were such in Soviet structures. It is the suppression of anything non-classic, and maintaining the sense of order and discipline.
Definitely public moral have something in common with such dress codes and similar practices.
Sort of. Public moral is derived from the culture, where religion plays very important point. It is not derived from some natural Newton-style laws like the IPD theory or such.
Not me, but another poster. I only consider this to be a violation of _current modern cultural norms_.
B
BGB / cr88192
this topic is getting dull...
<--
And what is the issue?
-->
I think it is that Outlook Express doesn't like a lot of the posts that it
gets.
pretty much everything from Google Groups and GMail (and maybe others)
doesn't quote correctly, and this issue seems to be getting more common as
of late, but oh well.
so, informal quoting is a "quick enough" fix to the issue, as manually
inserting "> " everwhere is just too long and tedious...
<--
This is not me, but another poster. So, "bigot" is also not about me
-->
the condemnation of some people as "bigots" itself represents a certain
cultural value system (as in, one where people are expected to be
"neutral").
another person may not have such an assumed neutrality, and hence
unresolvable disagreements and conflicts are the expected course of events
(since neither side can compromise their held position without violating
internal consistency).
an alternative strategy is to assert that each person may have their own
system of "truths", and hence a person can make a claim as being true,
allowing them to avoid internal contradiction with other beliefs, while at
the same time allowing other people to have their own views and exist
essentially in a semi-disjoint "reality"...
(then one can patch up between these "realities" via definitional bridges
and terminology conventions and so on...).
(this can be made internally consistent by assuming a "layered reality"
independent of its underlying physical existence, with the underlying
reality left as "undefined behavior" or similar).
this seems to work well enough...
hell, it works for most standards documents, good enough...
<--
Not me, but another poster. I only consider this to be a violation of
_current modern cultural norms_.
-->
yep...
well, the thing is, my whole issue is not about what other people can/can't
do (I personally see little value in enforcing morals, or, for that matter,
condemning those who violate), but about what is the definition of what is
the case...
people can do whatever, but from my POV they can't escape this definition,
given the natural assumption of both infaliability as well as literal
interpretation. if one were to compromise here, this would invalidate ones'
claim to belief, which itself requires adhering to these assumptions, which
in turn requires holding that certain acts are moral or immoral, ...
regardless of any personal feelings on the matter.
so, in some ways, it is like the C++ vs Java wars...
each side is correct from their POV, even though conflict exists between
them.
now, one can also note the general non-existence of blutwurst / black
pudding / ... in the US.
I have generally never seen them sold anywhere, and I suspect most people
here would be repulsed by the idea.
much like, people eating horses / dogs / cats / ... is also not looked at
favorably (but I guess commonplace in Asia and Europe).
however, pork and meat+cheese are commonplace, whereas others look at these
badly.
but, even then, it all holds together...
from their POV, these things *are* immoral, and from my POV, maybe they are
misinterpreting the words...
IMO, good enough...
Maxim S. Shatskih said:
<--
And what is the issue?
-->
I think it is that Outlook Express doesn't like a lot of the posts that it
gets.
pretty much everything from Google Groups and GMail (and maybe others)
doesn't quote correctly, and this issue seems to be getting more common as
of late, but oh well.
so, informal quoting is a "quick enough" fix to the issue, as manually
inserting "> " everwhere is just too long and tedious...
<--
This is not me, but another poster. So, "bigot" is also not about me
-->
the condemnation of some people as "bigots" itself represents a certain
cultural value system (as in, one where people are expected to be
"neutral").
another person may not have such an assumed neutrality, and hence
unresolvable disagreements and conflicts are the expected course of events
(since neither side can compromise their held position without violating
internal consistency).
an alternative strategy is to assert that each person may have their own
system of "truths", and hence a person can make a claim as being true,
allowing them to avoid internal contradiction with other beliefs, while at
the same time allowing other people to have their own views and exist
essentially in a semi-disjoint "reality"...
(then one can patch up between these "realities" via definitional bridges
and terminology conventions and so on...).
(this can be made internally consistent by assuming a "layered reality"
independent of its underlying physical existence, with the underlying
reality left as "undefined behavior" or similar).
this seems to work well enough...
hell, it works for most standards documents, good enough...
<--
Not me, but another poster. I only consider this to be a violation of
_current modern cultural norms_.
-->
yep...
well, the thing is, my whole issue is not about what other people can/can't
do (I personally see little value in enforcing morals, or, for that matter,
condemning those who violate), but about what is the definition of what is
the case...
people can do whatever, but from my POV they can't escape this definition,
given the natural assumption of both infaliability as well as literal
interpretation. if one were to compromise here, this would invalidate ones'
claim to belief, which itself requires adhering to these assumptions, which
in turn requires holding that certain acts are moral or immoral, ...
regardless of any personal feelings on the matter.
so, in some ways, it is like the C++ vs Java wars...
each side is correct from their POV, even though conflict exists between
them.
now, one can also note the general non-existence of blutwurst / black
pudding / ... in the US.
I have generally never seen them sold anywhere, and I suspect most people
here would be repulsed by the idea.
much like, people eating horses / dogs / cats / ... is also not looked at
favorably (but I guess commonplace in Asia and Europe).
however, pork and meat+cheese are commonplace, whereas others look at these
badly.
but, even then, it all holds together...
from their POV, these things *are* immoral, and from my POV, maybe they are
misinterpreting the words...
IMO, good enough...
M
Maxim S. Shatskih
this topic is getting dull...
Yes.
Sometimes, I give my brain a rest with world policy/religion/history talks.
Yes.
Sometimes, I give my brain a rest with world policy/religion/history talks.
B
BGB / cr88192
Maxim S. Shatskih said:
<--
Yes.
Sometimes, I give my brain a rest with world policy/religion/history talks.
-->
yep.
these are topics with no real solution, and argument will probably continue
on indefinately...
N
Nick Keighley
very long lines
This is not me, but another poster. So, "bigot" is also not about me
we may have to agree to disagree...
No. I came up with two examples you came up with one. Sausages based
on blood are widely eaten in northern europe.
Where you use a simple repetitive argument I'll tag it [REPETITION]
well I disagree. Chimps have quite complex societies. They cheat, they
help others, they understand disception.
this is simply a statement without any backup. I say chimps (and other
social animals) have simple moral systems. If they don't then neither
do people. We may just have to give up on this one.
how do you know? I suspect horses can distinguish one individual from
another. Most hooved animals can recognise their young as a bare
minimum.
simple statement without evidence. I'll tag these [ASSERTION]
as it did us (I admit culture over rides many of our evolutionary
imperitives)
do you believe this magic difference of humans from other animals is
due to a soul or something?
and often not.
you asked about the roots of written legislation. I suggested a root.
You are putting the goal posts on ferraris
no- morality is not based on religion
no- morality is not based on secular humanism
no- secular humanism is not a religion
if anything SH is a pretend religion for people who aren't quite ready
to give up religion
I disagree it differs as much as you suggest. For a start what is a
"muslim country"? Is Tunisia a muslim country? They gave women the
vote in about 1955.
You misquote me. Or misunderstand me. I'm claiming much core morality
is based on the IPD. This is what I call "the logical part". Other
morals are pretty random and are mostly to distinguish "our people"
from "their people".
IPD *is* a near natural law.
ok we agree, much of religion based morality is pretty random. Or at
least historically contingent.
I don't regard this as the important bit of morality
what planet are you living on?
I believe the degree that this was accepatble is exagerated
and generally pretty useless. Did you miss the bit where I said
"religion inspired laws"?
tricking someone may be legal but still frowned upon. Making large
profits in a time of shortage is frowned upon. Leaving a business
partner in the lurch by starting a rival bussiness is frowned upon.
These things are all legal but not well thought of by the community.
They transgress morals.
I consider religion to much less important in current western socities
then it used to be.
I eat black pudding. My local super market sells it.
N
Nick Keighley
horses are eaten in certain parts of europe (france and spain for
starters) in the UK (for instance) it is badly thought of. I don't
think any community eats dogs or cats in europe.
M
Maxim S. Shatskih
This is not me, but another poster. So, "bigot" is also not about me
You just mixed me and another poster
Konrad Lorentz "Aggression".
The Nobel Prize winner.
Again the aforementioned "Aggression".
Due to larger number of neurons What is called "soul" (and sometimes divided by the pshychologists to Ego, Super-Ego etc) - is the _state_ of these neurons. Like the CPU and the OS.
Being an agnostic, I see no evidences of life after death. We are all temporary, and yes, I do not think that any religion (not only Avraamic, but, say, Buddhism or Ancient Greek) is more true in this aspect then, say, good fantasy literature.
Probably St. Paul is right in his New Testament. Probably Tolkien is right in his "Morgoth's ring" (the collection of Tolkien's articles on metaphysical properties of souls of Elves and Men). Probably Buddhism is right.
We will probably never know.
"Getting material revenue by lies or trust abuse". Period. Nothing else.
This is the disposition of the Russian criminal law article, which is widely used against businessmen.
Are the things different in the US or UK?
Depends on particular society. If the shortage is connected to a war - then usually the military command issues an order to shoot such people "at place", as it was in Russian/Ukrainian civil war.
Usually this violates the NDA and thus a civil delict. And, if some intentional lies will be discovered - then this can be a criminal offence.
Well, let's define "legal". Is civil delict ("tort" in English law) - legal? It is not punisheable except by putting an obligation to refund the damages.
As well as criminal law (sometimes), or form a civil delict.
You just mixed me and another poster
Konrad Lorentz "Aggression".
The Nobel Prize winner.
Again the aforementioned "Aggression".
Due to larger number of neurons
What is called "soul" (and sometimes divided by the pshychologists to Ego, Super-Ego etc) - is the _state_ of these neurons. Like the CPU and the OS.Being an agnostic, I see no evidences of life after death. We are all temporary, and yes, I do not think that any religion (not only Avraamic, but, say, Buddhism or Ancient Greek) is more true in this aspect then, say, good fantasy literature.
Probably St. Paul is right in his New Testament. Probably Tolkien is right in his "Morgoth's ring" (the collection of Tolkien's articles on metaphysical properties of souls of Elves and Men). Probably Buddhism is right.
We will probably never know.
"Getting material revenue by lies or trust abuse". Period. Nothing else.
This is the disposition of the Russian criminal law article, which is widely used against businessmen.
Are the things different in the US or UK?
Depends on particular society. If the shortage is connected to a war - then usually the military command issues an order to shoot such people "at place", as it was in Russian/Ukrainian civil war.
Usually this violates the NDA and thus a civil delict. And, if some intentional lies will be discovered - then this can be a criminal offence.
Well, let's define "legal". Is civil delict ("tort" in English law) - legal? It is not punisheable except by putting an obligation to refund the damages.
As well as criminal law (sometimes), or form a civil delict.
N
Nick Keighley
On 15 Sep, 18:24, "Maxim S. Shatskih" <[email protected]>
wrote:
so can horses distinguish one individual from another?
I'll tag this [INCOMPEHENSIBLE]
so why can't you accept that animals with large numbers of nurons
living in social groups can't approximate human-like behaviour?
Chimps, Dolphins.
you are confusing psychologists with psyco-analysts
anyone confusing computers with people is an idiot
for the record I'm an agnostic/atheist. I too see no evidence for life
after death
I've no idea what "averaamic" means
far more likely they are all wrong. If you adding together nonsense
why not add in Star Trek and Star Wars?
its best to bet against the nonsense. Are you serious that Tolkien is
a sane belief sytem?
I've no idea what you are talking about. I was giving an exampleof
immoral behaviour that was neither illegal nor religiously based.
I was giving examples that could not be prosecuted but many people
would consider immoral.
and are there no other cases?
<snip>
we are wasting each others time
wrote:
so can horses distinguish one individual from another?
I'll tag this [INCOMPEHENSIBLE]
Due to larger number of neurons
so why can't you accept that animals with large numbers of nurons
living in social groups can't approximate human-like behaviour?
Chimps, Dolphins.
you are confusing psychologists with psyco-analysts
anyone confusing computers with people is an idiot
for the record I'm an agnostic/atheist. I too see no evidence for life
after death
I've no idea what "averaamic" means
far more likely they are all wrong. If you adding together nonsense
why not add in Star Trek and Star Wars?
its best to bet against the nonsense. Are you serious that Tolkien is
a sane belief sytem?
I've no idea what you are talking about. I was giving an exampleof
immoral behaviour that was neither illegal nor religiously based.
I was giving examples that could not be prosecuted but many people
would consider immoral.
and are there no other cases?
<snip>
we are wasting each others time