Total posts: 3,943
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Personally I like Peterson, though I don't consider him a Paragon.
He's a bit vague at times, has an odd take at times, but he speaks a lot, 'some of what he says makes me think.
Honestly he's not 'that great, that I'd tell people they 'have to see him, because 'really they don't. Plenty of other people in the world.
Probably though, he's better in his field of psychology, and when he branches out to other disciplines, he reaches a bit too much.
His debates with atheists, seem to take a tact 'other than religion vs atheism.
I think this throws the religious debates a bit out of kilter,
When he talks about the sacred, being something that atheist or theist can appreciate.
But the antitheists are all geared to just attacking God and Religion.
Though maybe it's fair to say Peterson is changing the goalposts.
I like his lectures on Nazi's, that people should be aware of what evils they themselves are capable, as a guard 'against acting in such ways.
I think he's gained a fair amount of fame by the Lefts 'weird attacks on him.
Groups of people trying to drown out his lectures in universities with noise and rude behavior.
People calling him a Nazi.
That 'one female reporter who kept misrepresenting all he was saying.
Comparing him to the Red Skull for whatever reason.
Also something about a compelled speech bill in Canada,
Some people saying he misrepresented the bill,
Other people saying he hit the nail on the head.
I didn't really bother to read into it one way or the other.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
Even when people don't focus on religion, as it's traditionally thought.
Society, government, laws,
Spend a lot of time telling others how to live their lives.
Dismissing religion, doesn't dismiss the fact that humans place value judgements, in existence.
And being that values are subjective,
Being that it's often 'painful to see people follow or inflict values upon others, that we find 'wrong.
Existence is going to have a lot of people, telling others how to live their lives.
. . .
'Even if everyone destroyed theistic religions in society and history, became atheists, destroyed atheistic religions from society and history.
Religion would 'still exist, in all but name.
And variations would 'still be created anew.
Religion would return.
Created:
-->
@badger
'Too strange to be sad?
Well it 'is a Kafka.
Though it was not too strange to be sad, for myself.
Created:
-->
@badger
Personally, my take on Kafka's Metamorphosis, is that it's a novel about a man suffering from a serious mental illness, and his families inability to cope with it effectively.
How limited medicine and society has been in the past for mental illness, the toll it takes on family, the tragedy, sadness, and horror of the situation.
Sad story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Sadly I'm not familiar enough with Rome, to be sure of my points.
But argument I often hear, is that Rome became corrupt towards it's end, and weaker 'due to this.
That they spread their values far and wide, seems apparent in history.
And shared values more often give people something to come 'together over, than 'apart from. I'd argue.
Of the Muslim Caliphates, I know even less, so I've no reply there.
Han Chinese, being the world's largest ethnic group is the impression I have of them.
"The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been." Luo Guanzhong
Empires fall in time, I'd think.
But I must admit I'm pretty ignorant on political science and history.
If Europe 'hadn't exported themselves, how much smaller they 'would be.
Two entire 'continents smaller at 'least I'd say, North America and Australia.
. . .
I'll admit the point on technology exporting being flawed, though from a humanistic viewpoint it's good.
But technology is not an exportation of values.
That you and another country both have guns, doesn't unite so well as shared political systems, culture.
. . .
It's not necessarily that I think conflict will decrease population,
But that I think population is a form of power in a nation.
It's a workforce, it's a military, it's a vote on a global scale.
Though a large population can be horrible when you don't have an outlet or means to support it.
In his early years as China's leader, Mao Zedong was actually in favor of people having lots of babies, to provide soldiers for its army and workers for its factory.
Though I admit I haven't a clue how 'much China encouraged such a policy early on,
Looking at the one child policy, one might assume that the many children for war population backfired,
But 'again, I don't know if they actually 'implemented that thought much, before they ran into problems with too many mouths to feed.
. . .
Certainly there's numerous people in the world, and my own anecdotal questioning is a bit limited.
Certainly the world 'is changing, natural selection has changed 'what it's selecting, and humans are living vastly different that they did in the past, as populations, technologies, and societies boom and advance rapidly.
Certainly I'd agree on women having autonomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Personally, I can't see the world population as a sign to 'stop having children, but that countries should have 'more children than their competitors, while making sure that they don't overpopulate themselves. That it's better to export your people and culture, than import other's people and culture. That conflict is inevitable.
But likely I'm too pessimistic and tribalistic.
Not 'that much of a delusion, to have only met mentally healthy women who wanted to give birth. It's the culture many live in having kids, and when you 'have the parts for something, I think people usually want to 'use said part. Fulfillment of 'apparent purpose.
Though I'm not saying it's the 'purpose of women to have kids, individuals are free to choose whatever purpose they like in life. And likely if Peterson asked 'every women he ever met, or kept tabs on all of them, likely he'd realize he met more women who didn't want kids. Though I'd still 'think the majority would want kids.
Even men, I assume the majority 'want a family, when I was on a question kick with new people I met, asking them what they wanted from life, family was a 'very common answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I'll admit, it 'is pretty common in history, once a victim group has rebelled, seized power, they've often gone tyrannical themselves to 'keep said power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I'd agree he makes effort to not let political ideology pollute and poison discussions.
Though he 'does have political leanings and views that effect his topics and bents of conversation.
What the credit crisis tells us about trust. Tuesday September 30 2008
He talks about the George W. Bush War on Iraq some, financial crisis some, their results in the loss of trust by Americans in their government.
Personally, that lack of trust 'still seems a problem today, but maybe I underestimate past history I haven't been alive for.
Maybe such distrust is less new than I think.
Also just lots of other changes in society, internet for example, that have effected news sources.
Another video he brings up a question about how the left treats constituents of Trump.
Where I'd say he has a point,
Not that I'm of the opinion that people shouldn't say when Trump is lying, or doing something immoral, unconstitutional.
But attacks on Trump supporters, the 'way the left went about attacking Trump and his base, was counterproductive to my way of thinking.
They Left ought not need walk on eggshells,
But felt like a huge divide has been going about for a while now.
. . .
But I'm getting off topic of Jordan Peterson and women.
Of which not much else I recall.
I'd have to look at more of his videos, to have more of an opinion of what he says about women.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I've seen some of his videos,
I don't think he goes for a misogynic angle.
Some video I forget, has him talking about men 'or women, in choosing career over family. How it can be a mistake, That the value possible in family, support, loved ones, especially as one get's older, makes itself apparent. Says something about the loneliness that can come about 'without family.
'Course I doubt he's saying a person 'can't live without family, or that they can't find friends and other support in life, but I think he has a point on the value of family.
Was one about him disagreeing with hiring 50% men 50% women at a company, which really, as making the differences between men and women 'more apparent, rather than less.
Though, I'd say it's more an argument that tokenism, instead of merit, is bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
Never heard those stories of Hitler myself, nor do they pop on the internet when I search them.
Sounds reaching, unsubstantiated, to me.
But as was said, doesn't matter so much as his tyrannical reign, war, and genocide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
a bit like saying Adolph was a gay man.
Haven't heard that one before, not that it really matters if Hitler was gay or straight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
Personally, I think the topic was created, just to mock Jesus and Christianity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Ant and the Grasshopper?
Though,
I'm not sure there's a need to abandon the present for the future,
Or the future for the present.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Showing up to work with some glazed doughnut sugar stinking off one's breath,
'Just doesn't seem the same as showing up to work with booze, stinking off one's breath.
I'll have to bow out, on account of lack of knowledge,
Though my own experiences (anecdotal fallacy) with drug addicts,
Have left me doubtful that their drug use has enhanced their ability.
'Maybe short term, but end result of the number of them I've seen, has been poor.
But maybe I just saw the bad result fellows.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, certain drugs also 'impair more than sugar, leading to behaviors that cause an individual to fail at their job.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, the 'results are different.
Sure you can get diabetes, but most people can control themselves well enough, to 'not.
People don't generally get 'fired for a sugar addiction.
People don't generally crave sugar enough, to steal from family. Or let it warp their morals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'd say there's too 'many lesser malfunctions, for us to feel comfortable, arbitrarily saying 'this malfunction is reason enough to deprive you of your political choice.
Maybe drug addiction is more of a value problem, than an understanding problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'd say yes, but it seems a bit gray area at a glance, to me.
Less gray is an individual staring at you like he doesn't recognize you, threatening to burn the house down, thinking that you're hiding millions of dollars from him, picking up random items in the house and saying that the item was calling to him and that it's his even though it isn't, closing all the blinds in the house and insisting that someone's there, saying that the towns changed and that they think they might need to kill you to fix it, so on and so on.
'That's crazy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Eh, Nazi's are probably extreme example.
Your question was ,
Can Luciferians be Good People?
Such would 'imply that Luciferians are in general bad people,
I'd think.
But maybe that's a muddling on my part. . .
Maybe I'd take a different view, if you'd asked,
What do you think of Luciferians?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
God is going to descend from the Heavens, give you scabs, and rape you, if you're haughty, wearing gold, and flirt with people.OMG, Trump should really be worried. - FLRW
Heh, haha, hahaha.
I find that funny.
The out of context piece of my statement.
And the Trump joke.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I don't think all Luciferians are atheists or theists.
By their nature, I mean the nature of Luciferians.
If there can be said to be such a thing.
As Conway said,
good and evil are subjective - Conway
Though I hope I'm not abbreviating what he said, 'too much.
. . .
Though I suppose groups 'can be spoken of in a fashion that ignores individual and subgroup differences, still a 'bit dehumanizing.
Suppose I ask, Can Nazis be Good People?
Answer would e 'yes, I imagine.
Though the same I would not say for their creed of genocide, war expansion, human experimentation.
There were Nazi's who little but that they were soldiers,
If all Nazi's were evil for their wars, would Ulysses S. Grant be evil, for participating in the American war against Mexico?
Or his actions involving American expansion into Native American lands? (I'm fuzzy on the details)
That the South had slavery, would it mean Americans can not be good people?
Though I have to admit slavery is rather evil, especially slavery of children's, children, children.
. . .
But the 'goodness of someone, feels a bit vague.
I'm rambling a bit incoherent, 'ought go to bed, but I won't.
Going to stay up and eat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Out of curiosity, why the topic of Luciferians?
And why specifically the Christian perspective of their nature?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
If you can't be bothered, then I won't press it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
The same to the analogy of the good samaritan. There is nothing bad about being a good luciferian, except to some other religions, such as Christianity, you are believing in the wrong god.There is literally nothing inherently bad about being a luciferian, even if some luciferians are bad. If so, some roman emperors have killed millions. Why isn't Christianity itself considered wrong?
I like what you say about the Good Samaritan.
And I think it's fair enough to point out that even when people identify as Christian, they're not necessarily good or following God perfectly.
Though I think Christianity stresses that humans are flawed, or not doing all they can, fairly often in the Bible.
. . .
Makes me think of,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Fair enough, and I'll admit the conversation is far off the topic of , Can Luciferians be Good People?
I have not read deeply anything by BrotherDThomas,
I find his profile picture a bit offputting, though I suppose it could be the type of profile picture used by a troll 'or a person devoted to their religion, and strongly speaking of it on the internet. Perhaps it's meant to show humor over how ardently he speaks of his religion, or how seriously he takes it.
. . .
So perhaps I have been hasty and judged him by his cover, erroneously.
I've also only ever glanced briefly at his posts, as I recall, there was something about them I found distasteful, or wrongly put.
He gives the vibe of backwardseden | Debate.org
Though again, I may be too hasty.
Mm,
. . .
Anyway, sorry for derailing the topic,
Though I'm still leaving one last grumble about,
Reece101 saidGod wants you to be happy babies are slaughtered and wives raped: (Psalm 137:8–9)
Let's actually look at Psalm 137:9 in its contextHappy will be the one who seizes your children and dashes them against the rocks. Psalm 137:9Too often I've seen this be quoted by some to mean:
- "Your God is terrible because he approves of smashing children on rocks"
- "Your God/the Bible says killing children brings happiness"
But as always, it's important to actually read the psalm. So let's actually examine it:"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat. We wept when we remembered Zion." Psalm 137:1This first verse gives a setting and a subject. The setting is ancient Babylon. The subject is the psalmist, and he has others with him,"...there we sat. We wept..."The psalmist says they wept, remembering Zion. Meaning this takes place during the Babylonian exile. They are weeping remembering their homeland."Upon the poplar trees in her midst, We hung our harps. For there our captors asked us for a song, Those mocking us wanted amusement: “Sing for us one of the songs of Zion. How can we sing the song of Jehovah on foreign soil? If I should forget you, O Jerusalem,Let my right hand be forgetful." Psalm 137:2-5The babylonians are described as "captors". Meaning the author sees them as being cruel as well as being a reference to being held by the people that took them from their home. We also see the author and other captives being forced to perform songs for the Babylonians who only want to mock them. However he doesn't feel comfortable singing the songs he used to worship God for his captors especially as they are only being mocked.So what we've gathered so far, we have Jews who've been ripped from their homeland and taken captive. They are obviously mistreated and mocked. Now, here it's important to remember that like the rest of psalms this is a poem or song. These are some the means with which humans express their emotions and pains and troubles.So, keeping that in mind, and trying to put ourselves in the shoes of a mistreated captive we read the ending verses of the psalm."Remember, O Jehovah, What the Eʹdom·ites said on the day Jerusalem fell: “Tear it down! Tear it down to its foundations!” Psalm 137:7Here the psalmist asks God to remember what the babylonians did to Jerusalem, but why?"O daughter of Babylon, who is soon to be devastated, Happy will be the one who rewards you With the treatment you inflicted on us. Happy will be the one who seizes your children And dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137:8,9Here we see the conclusion, the author asks God to do to the babylonians what the Babylonians did to them, the babylonians smashed their children, so a person who had to see this would by human nature want revenge on those who did it. Remembering that this is poetic, we can see that this is a writer expressing his feelings towards his captors who mistreat him. This is in no way God saying it's ok to kill children or that killing kids brings happiness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Aye, base is the word 'I use, to describe my view of your interpretation of the Bible.
Low, crude.
I do not see it as God threatening them with rape,
But 'humans speaking, that not following the right path, will 'lead to ruin.
"Isaiah now gives a picture of the end of a society characterized by human self-sufficiency and self-centredness. The government collapses, resulting in a shortage of basic necessities such as food and water. Judah had previously depended for leadership on a variety of people, good and bad - statesmen, soldiers, judges, prophets, magicians - but now no one can be found to lead the country (3:1-3). Power falls into the hands of immature youths, and lawlessness results. People show no respect for former social values, but seize every opportunity to advance themselves and exploit their fellows (4-5).
In a time when food and clothing are so scarce, anyone who appears a little better off than others will be invited to take over the leadership in an effort to restore order in the chaotic city. But he will quickly make excuses and refuse the invitation, for no one will want to be leader in such a troubled time (6-7).
The people arrogantly declare themselves to be independent of God. They boast of their new-found moral freedom and are proud of their immoral acts (8-9). All the wrongdoers will suffer a fitting punishment, but the righteous will escape (10-11). The nation is almost without leadership, because the former leaders have either fled or been overthrown. Their corruption is the reason for the present crisis. They used their positions entirely for their own benefit, and now the nation has come to ruin (12-15)."
"Will discover their secret parts - "Expose their nakedness"] It was the barbarous custom of the conquerors of those times to strip their captives naked, and to make them travel in that condition, exposed to the inclemency of the weather; and the worst of all, to the intolerable heat of the sun. But this to the women was the height of cruelty and indignity; and especially to such as those here described, who had indulged themselves in all manner of delicacies of living, and all the superfluities of ornamental dress; and even whose faces had hardly ever been exposed to the sight of man. This is always mentioned as the hardest part of the lot of captives. Nahum, Isaiah 3:5; Isaiah 3:6, denouncing the fate of Nineveh, paints it in very strong colours"
I look on this site,
I see interpretation,
Isaiah ben Amoz’ Denounces the Elite
The sin denounced here (in Isaiah 3) is social injustice: "Ye grind the face of the poor." (Verse 15) The money exacted unjustly from the poor enables the upper classes to live in ostentatious luxury. (The end of the chapter, verses 3:16-26, describes in detail all the ornaments of the pampered rich women of Jerusalem.) As punishment for this the whole social order will be upturned, the young will behave insolently to the aged (Verse 3), responsibility and moral leadership will cease. (Verse 7)
The sin denounced here (in Isaiah 3) is social injustice: "Ye grind the face of the poor." (Verse 15) The money exacted unjustly from the poor enables the upper classes to live in ostentatious luxury. (The end of the chapter, verses 3:16-26, describes in detail all the ornaments of the pampered rich women of Jerusalem.) As punishment for this the whole social order will be upturned, the young will behave insolently to the aged (Verse 3), responsibility and moral leadership will cease. (Verse 7)
I look on this site,
I see interpretation,
Will afflict the scalp - There is no reason to not interpret this prophecy of future judgment literally. It is certainly a horrible picture and the antithesis of their ostentatious, pomposity described look in Is 3:16!
Some people attribute God to everything.
Kingdom get's taken over, "God has punished us!"
For me, it's enough to recognize game theory.
Not following the right path in life, leads to a corrupt society, corrupt societies are weak and taken over by their enemies.
Enemies who throw down, those from high,
Shave their heads, divest them of their clothes, being now slaves.
Bad living conditions, and sickness.
'Maybe I'm reaching, but still seems to me that your interpreting the text as,
God is going to descend from the Heavens, give you scabs, and rape you, if you're haughty, wearing gold, and flirt with people.
Is an absurd, short, shallow, interpretation.
Created:
Posted in:
When I read of other's interpretation, deeper readings into it, I don't think it's so base, as you put it.
As one person views (Isaiah 3:16–17)
"And here God is describing the judgment that is to come upon Judah and Jerusalem for their iniquity. Speaking of the proudness and of the material aspects of their lifestyles. How things are going to be changed because they didn't take God into consideration in their lives. How Judah and Jerusalem were destroyed and ravaged by Babylon."
As an atheist, it's easy enough for me to cut out God, and insert game theory, history.
A people concerned with materialism, selfishness, show and pageant, lack of concern for their people, get's a bit weak.
The French guillotined their rulers.
A fellow winning in gambling, and walking to their car alone, sometimes get's mugged.
A society that doesn't care for one another, get's invaded.
Nature of words,
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - Second Amendment of the United States Constitution
What does this mean, people argue amongst themselves.
In a debate of mine recently, I quoted
"Whoever is among the living has hope; a live dog is better than a dead lion. " - Ecclesiastes
Even though the overall message of Ecclesiastes, is 'not that.
Because I like taking quotes out of context, leastwise in using their 'sound so to speak.
Same reason I like quoting "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Even though I often misuse the quote out of context.
. . .
Still, I don't study the Bible, read it in the old languages, read enough history.
Maybe I'm talking out my a**.
Still, my opinion is you're presenting a strawman with those passages, cherrypicked out of context, as you give them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
God threatening molestation: (Isaiah 3:16–17)
Just responding to the first one, to say I think your comment a bit shallow.
I don't really care enough to respond to 'every single reference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Personally I wish the law in Oregon allowed certain drug addicts in a state of mentally incompetence to be declared mentally incompetent.
I don't think I'd support them being declared mentally incompetent, when they're 'sane but still addicted, though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
@FLRW
Do I really need to give a specific sect? You might as well ask for a specific denomination of Christianity also.
Well, it'd help, though I'm more 'familiar with Christianity,
If you asked me Can Christians be Good People?
I'd probably say yes, though they are capable of being bad people as well.
Based on history I've read, interactions I've had with such people, information on their doctrines, what it's 'current general form is.
I look up Christian population on Google, a number pops up.
Of Luciferians,
I've no history read, interactions had with such people, information on their doctrines, what it's 'current general form is.
I look up Luciferian population on Google, a number does not pop up.
It's a bit hard to have an opinion on a group or ideology I know nothing about.
@FLRW
Do you have a source?
Not knocking your explanation, I just don't know much about Luciferians.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I'm not a Christian, but can you be more specific,
Perhaps a link to 'exactly which Luciferian Church and Doctrine, you're referring to?
Created:
Posted in:
Possession is 9/10 of the law.
Jews were living in Israel 'before Britain 'gave it to them, I assume.
Indeed, We settled the Children of Israel in a blessed land,1 and granted them good, lawful provisions. They did not differ until knowledge came to them.2 Surely your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Judgment regarding their differences.— Dr. Mustafa Khattab, the Clear QuranAnd We had certainly settled the Children of Israel in an agreeable settlement and provided them with good things. And they did not differ until [after] knowledge had come to them. Indeed, your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ.— Saheeh International
23 Moreover, in those days I saw men of Judah who had married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab. 24 Half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod or the language of one of the other peoples, and did not know how to speak the language of Judah. 25 I rebuked them and called curses down on them. I beat some of the men and pulled out their hair. I made them take an oath in God’s name and said: “You are not to give your daughters in marriage to their sons, nor are you to take their daughters in marriage for your sons or for yourselves. 26 Was it not because of marriages like these that Solomon king of Israel sinned? Among the many nations there was no king like him. He was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel, but even he was led into sin by foreign women. 27 Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible wickedness and are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women?”- Nehemiah’s Final Reforms
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Don't know myself,
Your topic just reminded me of a comic I'd read recently.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
Well, it has been fun chatting, but for the moment, my steam has run out.
With myself having little more to add, conversation wise, at the moment.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
I 'am fond of means as ends in themselves, perhaps for the sake of being conscious of them, perhaps for the sake of desire and aesthetic. For the sake of what I want to accomplish. I believe that the act of 'living life, is something that a person can be aware of, appreciate, do well.
I speak of acknowledging results, but not submitting. . . For there exist situations, moments in life, where the end result looks assured, a bully shall beat the stuffing out of me, should I defy them.
But that is not the only result, should I submit, something 'inside me, shall die instead. . .
A poor man's martyr, one who survives that which distresses, but by such sentiments and ideas, do I imagine those who have died for their faith felt.
That someone else appears likely to be victorious, need not be victorious over my soul.
(Poetically speaking)
I confess, a man beyond morality, is beyond my ken.
Morality is a part of the human condition, as I see it.
Arising even in the murk.
Existentialism.
I can believe that you would act as you see right, but that does not mean I agree 'with you, upon that which you view as right.
Valuing morality, society, and existence, as a dog eating dog, survival of the fittest, just not to my tastes.
If I reckon your suggested system correctly.
Many books and interactions, result in a learning of reality, through the minds of others.
Might may exist in many avenues, then perhaps it can exist in virtue.
I believe your views exist, in you, in others, in parts of society, though perhaps not vogue, at the moment.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
Apologizes if I was a bit ragging on the conversation a bit.
Mainly just curious what you believe, or myself believe. I'm not always sure what my thoughts are, unless I force myself to speak.
Your system described is. . . explicit, precise.
My own morality/ethics are vaguely known to myself, but I can't quite agree with such a utilitarian philosophy as your focus on survival of the fittest.
I can acknowledge results, but knowing an end result, need not mean one submits to it.
Means, are worthy as ends in themselves, to my way of thinking.
I would rather people act as they believe is right, justified, than what they believe will emerge victorious.
Doesn't mean I 'ignore the survival instinct in humans. Or that I deny people often have opposite ideas of 'right.
Personally I consider religion 'stronger than irreligion, but depends how one defines religion, perhaps.
I even think that there's truth in religion to some people, or truth in pieces of some religions.
Though I can admire your motivations, in that you view religion as false, that I assume you think it is better for people not to be influenced by it.
Though there's likely a more explanatory philosophy on right and wrong, I lack it myself. And can only speak in the morality I was raised.
Can't say I'm a fan of American foreign policy myself, though it could be worse.
I'm still not convinced by the strongest being 'ought to pursue their own ends, or the 'justification of such.
That 'someone will win in conflicts, I cannot deny, that some people will have their way I cannot deny.
But I'm not sure I support a philosophy of admiring strength above virtue.
I believe in evolution, rather than Earth being created in six days.
I 'am an atheist, as atheism is commonly understood.
But believing in the 'existence of natural selection, is different from 'applying it to social interactions in a. . . stringent manner.
I suppose I oppose your view of morality, if I'm viewing it right,
As pragmatic system of advocating that which survives,
Because I see flaws in it, though I could be wrong.
I oppose other systems of morality as well, though 'how I oppose different systems varies. In ways I can't recall off the top of my head.
Our different views of morality coexisting, would for the moment, exist as it does in this moment.
I am not able, nor do I desire to ban you from this site for possessing different views. Instead I'd rather hear you out, consider your ideas, discard or improve my own.
. . .
Quotes, I'm unsure which you mean exactly.
I 'do have a habit of including the ' symbol, over words I mean to place inflection upon, which may be mistaken as quoting. But I 'so also have a habit of borrowing history or other people's works and ideas. Sometimes.
history to be repeated if people are not aware of it - Common saying, attributed to many people.supple spine - I'm thinking of a line in Cyrano de Bergerac, a Play by Edmond RostandEven before the American Civil War was lost and won - William Shakespeare's play Macbeth, "When the battle's won and lost"When intellectual's are burned by the ignorant, - I was thinking of Hypatia, https://existentialcomics.com/comic/163When millions are slain for difference of blood, - numerous genocides in historyWhen collars are cast about necks, medical experiments commenced upon unwilling, - numerous scientific experiments upon slaves in history.Means as ends in themselves, - I'm misusing Kant, who said that rational human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
No, possessing a belief that one is right, alone will not mean they will succeed.
Even without war and death, slavery has been declared unlawful, at various points in history.
Even before the American Civil War was lost and won,
Slavers, slaves, abolitionists, and owners, had different ideas of slavery being right or wrong.
I would like to believe that by word and action, a common path can be found.
That it is not necessary to cull from the world, any who disagree.
That even to a degree, disagreement could be had.
. . .
To act in a fashion one views as right, is not 'only emotion, I assert.
For that emotion is derived 'from my idea of right, at the justice or injustice perceived.
. . .
It appears to me, that you justify the burning of books by lionization of strength.
Yet what you 'mean by this is yet unclear to me.
You state survival of the fittest in whatever survives,
That the strongest ought fight and pursue their own ends,
You state it is neither right nor wrong to abuse another.
. . .
When intellectual's are burned by the ignorant,
It appears to me you answer that, by right of the strong.
When millions are slain for difference of blood,
It appears to me you answer that, by right of the strong.
When collars are cast about necks, medical experiments commenced upon unwilling,
It appears to me you answer that, by right of the strong.
I do not deny that what 'happens in life, 'happens.
I 'do oppose a moral system, by which one's concern is only in being strong.
In 'justifying the trampling of others by that strength.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
I believe that might influences reality,
But I do not believe that might is right,
Even a slave or a victim has their own beliefs of what is right, regardless of if they are enslaved or overpowered by others.
If I witness someone bullying another weaker than the bully,
Even if the bully is stronger than I,
Shall I do nothing?
It is not that I 'must do something,
But I 'would think better of myself if I did something.
That I am stronger than some others, does not make it my right to abuse them, should it take my fancy.
The physical ability perhaps, but I would think less of myself 'for such an action, I hope.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
An ideology where the strong survive and the weak are eliminated, does not sound different than Hitler's own ideology, to my ears.
It's true enough that strength is useful for surviving in the world, but an intentional culling, a pursuit of strength 'more than what one believes is right, does not appeal much to me.
There is additionally a difference between survival of the strongest, and survival of the fittest.
If a person with a supple spine can bend the knee and live, while another with a rigid spine fights and dies,
If a person with a rigid spine can fight and win, while another with a supple spine is enslaved and killed,
Who is to say who was stronger?
I assert,
Atheism is more fit for some situations in life,
Theism is more fit for some situations in life,
I feel doubt that we will ever remove religion from our psyche.
This is evident to me by the reverence in which you address science.
There are too many atheistic religions, too much 'meaning in existence for humans for religion to disappear.
Way it seems to me anyhow.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
there are some books that ought to be wiped out. - Timid8967
Mainly out of personal taste, but also out of logical argument. I'm not for any book being wiped out. Well. . . No, no, even some books I hate, I don't think I'll go the direction of wiping them out.
Personally I just hate to see things die, even books that I hate, I'd rather lock them deep behind red tape, but allow people to access them if they're determined enough.
Logical argument is it sets precedent for 'other people to burn 'your books, as well as allowing history to be repeated if people are not aware of it.
Though I suppose one could record 'of Mein Kampf, without needing the actual text, or the argument that evil should be stomped out.
I'm still not one for book burning myself, I think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
If a person continues poke and prod, with no regard of the word stop,
And it bothers you,
Simply stop responding, block them or report them.
I'd think.
Created:
Posted in:
Ha, nice ones, yeah I agree with both your takes on those two channels.
The Onion is a 'classic,
Created:
Posted in:
Haven't done 'any art myself recently.
Lately been observing the same old art I usually do, YouTube videos.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Personally, I think both sides in the conflict are just screwed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I get the point, of pointing out how some individuals have treated MAGA supporters in the past,
But two lefts don't make a right, takes three.
. . . Badaboom. . .
Seriously though, I get the point, just not all that polite way to make it.
. . .
Also, not as though we know if woman 'ever acted rudely to person wearing MAGA hat.
I assume.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I'd 'understand Native Americans trying to reacquire their land.
Their motivations and 'idea of right.
Though that doesn't necessarily mean I'd support or oppose such.
Created: