But don't other countries also possess such sticks in that if we used ours we would face damage in turn?Yes, I said that. That's the entire point. One person or one nation is rarely the toughest or biggest for more than a few years. Look at any dictatorship in history, they don't survive beyond the charismatic leader. Occasionally someone figures a complex system, like the Holy Roman Empire, but it's by accident, and there is fighting within that system.
But don't other countries also possess such sticks in that if we used ours we would face damage in turn?Yes, I said that. That's the entire point. One person or one nation is rarely the toughest or biggest for more than a few years. Look at any dictatorship in history, they don't survive beyond the charismatic leader. Occasionally someone figures a complex system, like the Holy Roman Empire, but it's by accident, and there is fighting within that system. I guess the issue with being powerful is that everyone wants a piece of you and having to constantly enforce using that power would be very exhausting.
But don't other countries also possess such sticks in that if we used ours we would face damage in turn?Yes, I said that. That's the entire point. One person or one nation is rarely the toughest or biggest for more than a few years. Look at any dictatorship in history, they don't survive beyond the charismatic leader. Occasionally someone figures a complex system, like the Holy Roman Empire, but it's by accident, and there is fighting within that system. I guess the issue with being powerful is that everyone wants a piece of you and having to constantly enforce using that power would be very exhausting. Yes. Keeping power is harder than getting power. The currently powerful will get old at some point, or complacent, and someone takes over. Then they have to keep spending more to maintain their place. What we're seeing now is the powerful doing things like cutting education. A short term strategy with obvious long term problems.
Reply to Titanomachina T: The punishments you describe actually embolden those who break the code. GW: No, punishments lower the probability of violations. Also, you are the one who called for enforcement. What do you suggest as an alternative to punishments? T: Also writing it down doesn't make it concrete, it's just ink on paper. GW: No, writing it down does make it concrete (tangible). Also, you are the one who called for concrete. What do you suggest as an alternative? GW: I asked you four questions about morality and you didn’t answer them. Are you going to just ask questions, or are you going to make this a true discussion and answer some?I think you guys are confusing Morality with Law. They are completely separate things, which is why it's not easy to legislate morality. Granted, Laws have to be either handed down by edict or passed by legislature. They have to be specifically defined so that there's no confusion. And they have to have punishments. But no one "decides" Morality. It generally emerges by the consensus of the culture you live in. And there is no punishment except your own conscience. Many things can be legal and yet immoral at the same time. I've always been told that Morality is the way you behave when no one is looking.
I've always been told that Morality is the way you behave when no one is looking.That's a funny thing about the faith-based, or is that faith-blinded? They don't trust their own morality - they need that eye in the sky constantly watching them, for them to behave. Weird.
Reply to Titanomachina T: The punishments you describe actually embolden those who break the code. GW: No, punishments lower the probability of violations. Also, you are the one who called for enforcement. What do you suggest as an alternative to punishments? T: Also writing it down doesn't make it concrete, it's just ink on paper. GW: No, writing it down does make it concrete (tangible). Also, you are the one who called for concrete. What do you suggest as an alternative? GW: I asked you four questions about morality and you didn’t answer them. Are you going to just ask questions, or are you going to make this a true discussion and answer some?I think you guys are confusing Morality with Law. They are completely separate things, which is why it's not easy to legislate morality. Granted, Laws have to be either handed down by edict or passed by legislature. They have to be specifically defined so that there's no confusion. And they have to have punishments. But no one "decides" Morality. It generally emerges by the consensus of the culture you live in. And there is no punishment except your own conscience. Many things can be legal and yet immoral at the same time. I've always been told that Morality is the way you behave when no one is looking. Morality and law are not really separate. Morality informs law. Laws are the result of common ideas about "right" and "wrong" and trying force those ideas on society. . That's not to say it's all bad, but laws derive from people's ideas about what's "right" and "wrong". You can't really separate the two concepts. LL
Something that has been gnawing at me is how subjective morality and human rights are. As a child I found such things to be self evident because I came from a religious background and as such didn't have to question the whole "be good and get to heaven". Thought now that am older and that doesn't hold much sway anymore it makes me wonder why everyone follows the code we put forth. Why is it the right thing? According to whom? Why should we pay their ideas any mind? Why not do as we wish and damn who says otherwise? I get it that it's to avoid the punishment from society but why does society have to follow their own code? Couldn't they make up one that enourcages discrimination and get away with it? What makes it wrong? Why care about others and the future of humanity? Who deemed that important? Does morality essentially boil down to someone's "say so"? Because it seems to me without a threat of cosmic punishment, our morality doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.It comes from empathy];
Empathy is the experience of understanding another person's condition from their perspective. You place yourself in their shoes and feel what they are feeling. Empathy is known to increase prosocial (helping) behaviors. While American culture might be socializing people into becoming more individualistic rather than empathic, research has uncovered the existence of "mirror neurons," which react to emotions expressed by others and then reproduce them.Something you are clearly devoid of or you wouldn't advocate treating other humans on the level of cattle and advocating the culling of most of the rest of us in your interests. Otherwise why would you go on for three pages defending your plan to murder most other people on Earth. Here's a hint - that's the definition of immoral. If you don't get that already as an adult I find it profoundly doubtful you ever will.
Irrelevance not to mention false
I’m guessing that society collapses when there are enough people who have lost the ability to detect homicidal psychopaths in their midst.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18689/
The recurring proposal of culling a great amount of the human population for the survival of the planet and our species, or even wiping ourselves out to save it. In short I would like to know, why not?This "person" was advocating mass murder on a scale that would make the final solution look like a Saturday night drive by shooting and the thread went on for 12 pages and was never closed. And continues to argue that human life is meaningless. What the hell do you have to do get banned here?
I'm guessing that society collapses when there are enough people who have lost the ability to detect homicidal psychopaths in their midst. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18689/Apparently your wild assumptions and complete lack of understanding of context should be enough for a ban. Not my fault you don't want to discuss "scary" subjects like the fact that maybe your life isn't worth what you believe it to be, but that's the point of this place. To ask those questions, no matter how "forbidden" because then it would just be another echo chamber on the internet. You seem to believe human value is self evident when the reality is that it isn't.The recurring proposal of culling a great amount of the human population for the survival of the planet and our species, or even wiping ourselves out to save it. In short I would like to know, why not?This "person" was advocating mass murder on a scale that would make the final solution look like a Saturday night drive by shooting and the thread went on for 12 pages and was never closed. And continues to argue that human life is meaningless. What the hell do you have to do get banned here?
Something that has been gnawing at me is how subjective morality and human rights are. As a child I found such things to be self evident because I came from a religious background and as such didn't have to question the whole "be good and get to heaven". Thought now that am older and that doesn't hold much sway anymore it makes me wonder why everyone follows the code we put forth. Why is it the right thing? According to whom? Why should we pay their ideas any mind? Why not do as we wish and damn who says otherwise? I get it that it's to avoid the punishment from society but why does society have to follow their own code? Couldn't they make up one that enourcages discrimination and get away with it? What makes it wrong? Why care about others and the future of humanity? Who deemed that important? Does morality essentially boil down to someone's "say so"? Because it seems to me without a threat of cosmic punishment, our morality doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.I dosn't have a leg to stand on with a threat of cosmic punishment either. All that means is "You'd better believe what I say or you'll be in big trouble." That's how you frighten children and mentally challenged people to accept what you claim without proof. "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." Lucius Annaeus Seneca It is as true now as it was in Seneca's time and as it was at the dawn of man. Humans are gullible.
I'm guessing that society collapses when there are enough people who have lost the ability to detect homicidal psychopaths in their midst. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18689/Mass murder--and I'm not so sure about that.The recurring proposal of culling a great amount of the human population for the survival of the planet and our species, or even wiping ourselves out to save it. In short I would like to know, why not?This "person" was advocating mass murder on a scale that would make the final solution look like a Saturday night drive by shooting and the thread went on for 12 pages and was never closed. And continues to argue that human life is meaningless. What the hell do you have to do get banned here?
What the hell do you have to do get banned here?Mass murder--and I'm not so sure about that. Break the rules].
Read this thread] that CC started in the Humanism forum. The talk and the linked article give some good information on how and why humans developed morals codes. Having widely agreed upon morals and values helps us survive. Whining about life having no meaning does not help us survive. Fortunately, nihilists rarely find girlfriends so don't reproduce often. (That's a joke.) That's a joke, son]I'm not so sure they're not reproducing.
What the hell do you have to do get banned here?Mass murder--and I'm not so sure about that. <span style="color:blue]Break the How about the point of CFI in the first place.
The mission of the Center for Inquiry is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values.Explain to me how wanting to murder most or all other people - if this person truly believed people shouldn't be here or that life was meaningless they'd commit suicide, what they're saying is that none of the rest of us have any meaning to them or right to be here - or declaring life to be a curse and meaningless has any place here... at all. If the rules here aren't able to filter out the psychopaths and sociopaths who are in diametric opposition to the stated purpose of CFI then what's the point in having it anyway. Any real discussion is going to implode as "people" like this obviously have no concept of reason, freedom and certainly human values. If the person driving these discussions had their way there would be little or no human life on the planet. Just someone so fucked up they think they're a machine.
Seems you missed the most key point, freedom of INQUIRY.
Seems you missed the most key point, freedom of INQUIRY.In a humanist context you psychopath, not inquiring whether people would like to be executed by zyclon B or herded into a stadium en mass and napalmed. If you're unable to differentiate then you have no business at all posting here. If the moderators can't tell the difference then they have no place running a website like this.
“The mission of the Center for Inquiry is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and Humanist Values.”
It says no where there that, “if you’re a lunatic who thinks he’s a giant machine go ahead and post how human life is meaningless and all other HUMANS should be murdered in the largest genocide ever.”
If you’re so convinced that life is meaningless and not worth living then go ahead and act on that personally, stop advocating it for the rest of us…
And to make it clear, this “person” wasn’t inquiring whether or not the genocide of most or all humans was acceptable in human terms - this is a humanist website, not a homicidal mechanist website - they was stating in their opinion that there was no reason to not engage in genocide on a global scale.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18689/
I don’t think myself superior, but I just hate to accept that I have no good reason as to why not cull.You'd have to think you were a god to make that kind of assessment...