Total posts: 3,941
-->
@secularmerlin
Personally, I think their circumstance is a case that speaks to the value of nationalism, and tribalism.
The times in history they formed together against the 'other, are times that they shined, I'd say.
Though it's fair to say they also shined in enduring hardship and loss, generosity to strangers to their land, many others I assume.
Tecumseh's confederation in particular, I've always found impressive, though I haven't read of it as much as I'd like.
Even in the modern era, I think they could do better off, finding some way to unite, shed their skin and emerge stronger.
But I speak 'incredibly ignorantly here, and based off my own over puffed nationalism.
Just seems to me that they'd be better off for example trading all the scattered land they own and trying to acquire a large centralized version of it in America, rather than living by bits and pieces in America.
This may be uninformed of me, but groups in history have long done such I'd argue.
Look at Britain, Japan, Germany, France. They once had within themselves a bunch of tribes with different manners, customs, and speech. But they formed into larger countries, kept and refined much of what defined them.
Better than fading away, it seems to me, being absorbed by the people who took your land and ancestors lives.
But perhaps I'm being ignorant again, and the Native Americans of today are a proud and thriving people.
Created:
Posted in:
Terminator 2: The Opera (Arnold Schwarzenegger)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I have heard good things about this one. What did you like about it specifically? Any idea where I could find it online today?
I do not.
When I was High School, I watched some anime online, but eventually my interest petered off a fair bit.
I 'did watch Baccano! on some site, but that was 3-4 years ago, and I no longer recall the sites name.
Ended up buying the DVDs for Baccano! and Mobile Suit Gundam, though it was a gamble for the space flick, as I hadn't actually watched that one online yet.
I suppose I liked the. . Atmosphere, the setting of Baccano!, had interesting characters. Though the light novels continue on for a time more, I'm actually rather satisfied with the anime ending where it did. Kept it from feeling like 'too much I suppose. Instead the anime dealt with some specific time frames, and wrapped up nicely, even though the story continues on.
Felt suspenseful, some mystery, some anticipation and action, bit of comedy.
Not saying it's the best, but I liked it enough to buy it.
Mobile Suit Gundam. . . It's the appeal of original star wars in a way, I'd say. The DVDs I bought of that ended up being subtitle only versions, but I still enjoyed it.
I suppose I enjoyed how it was an epic and fantastical plot, but even with giant robots, it still felt like they were going for a realism aspect in it.
Was 'some bleakness in the show, but not so much that I felt desensitized and uncaring.
Black Lagoon felt that way after a bit, but perhaps that's due to it being one of the earlier amines I watched.
. . .
I'd say again it was the realism aspect of Mobile Suit Gundam, the epic fantastical plot, interesting characters and scenes.
I've never watched Neon Genesis Evangelion, sounds 'too depressing, and 'too much a bent towards realism in some events and circumstance.
If it was the more lighthearted looking moments more, and not 'such crushing sounding distress and events, I might watch it. But it sounds too messed up for me at the moment.
Has nice music though,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
However, any FUNCTIONAL CODE OF LAWS MUST BE LOGICALLY-COHERENT, EXPLICIT, UNAMBIGUOUS AND BASED ON QUANTIFIABLE DATA.
That sounds like too many laws.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Thus different laws for different humans.Are you trying to highlight the fact that laws (and regulations) regarding "food safety" (for example) don't apply to carpenters?
I suppose.
Or why certain people might not be accepted as immigrants into the USA.
'Even if some people make an argument about exact phrasings such as
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all sentient beings are equal, that they are endowed by their fellow sentient beings with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Context still exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
All I'm saying, is that a blanket statement such as all humans are equal, is a rule of thumb, of direction.Would you prefer, "equal under the law"? Or do perhaps have another qualifier in mind?
Just saying equal, is fine with , me.
Some words, it's not a bother if contradictions or logical fallacies are found.\
Some words are 'guidelines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't really understand why.
Humans are different, by substance and action.
Thus different laws for different humans.
edit
Perhaps I should use the word 'applies instead.
Or perhaps that humans apply to different laws, based upon what they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Laws apply to people differently, based upon who they are.Please explain.
"The Twenty-fifth Amendment (Amendment XXV) to the United States Constitution says that if the President becomes unable to do their job, the Vice President becomes the President." - Wikipedia
Natural-born-citizen clause
If a person is seen as corrupt, people are often going to vote against him, rather than have him elected.
Numerous reasons.
All I'm saying, is that a blanket statement such as all humans are equal, is a rule of thumb, of direction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Laws apply to people differently, based upon who they are.
And certain positions of office, discriminate based upon requirements.
People with breathing conditions and Covid19.
Certain mental disabilities prevent people from assuming governmental positions, I assume.
The "EQUALITY" doctrine should apply strictly to government services and businesses licensed by the government (except perhaps "private-clubs" with appropriate restrictions) AND ESPECIALLY TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW.
I don't disagree with you, I'm returning my argument back to the case I'm making.
That people are different, and there is reason for their being treated differently.
With more or less valid reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm just talking about humans in this case.
Saying that humans situations/natures are different than one another,
And are thus treated differently.
All sentiment creatures, are clear enough not the same/equal in all faucets of reality.What do you believe qualifies as a "sentient creature" or "sentient being"?
I'm not sure, off the top of my head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes for example I would like to change the wording to sentient beings for example but if we can agree to the standard then I'm not sure what context changes "all sentient creatures are equal" to "all sentient creatures are equal except for those humans who happen to have been born too far away across arbitrary borders".
There's underlaying context I'd argue, as there are in most blanket statements.
All sentiment creatures, are clear enough not the same/equal in all faucets of reality.
It's just a phrasing meant to argue in the 'direction of equal treatment as being right.
'I think.
There's still going to be qualities about different people, that result in different treatment.
Created:
From the CoC:
Creating threads to call-out specific users qualifies as targeted harassment
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
May I suggest that if we are discussing American rules and regulations and discussing ought rather than is that we examine the most basic axiom of national policy. Would you agree with this standard
That's fair, though there are subcurrents/assumptions/understandings of law and national policy, I'd argue.
Context, I mean, one of the problems of dogma, and the written word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
People value what they value,What is the difference between a value and a vice other than popular opinion?
Whether someone values a base emotional cue, or a complex reasoning of function,
What's the difference?
Is my basic reply maybe.
Sometimes it feels a bit arbitrary how people value their conclusions to me.
Not that they don't have reasons for their beliefs,
But that an egoist, or a altruist,
Could both possess complex reasons for their values.
It's similar to how I remark to myself, how highly intelligent people can exist on different sides of questions.
What was so remarkably different I wonder to myself, between the low brow and the high brow.
So perhaps, I don't much make effort to develop beyond the low brow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
'Cheating cults, don't mind hypocrisy so much I'd say,
But they also have difficulty in 'lasting as long as groups lacking hypocrisy.
I think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Large flaw of mine is having lazed thoughts, not minding the haze that obscures them, enough to blow it away, or reason them further in. Often I see their edges, the tips of thought, and go with my intuition.Not so much a "flaw" as it is, THE ORIGIN OF HYPOTHESIS.
If I 'developed the hypothesis more often, it wouldn't be such a flaw.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Also thought like RationalMadman, that the detective would win.Yes, I thought the same thing, yet, unexpectedly, SCIENCE is often COUNTER-INTUITIVE.
I'd imagine that's due to science being 'exact, often.
Intuitions good for the right direction, I think, but can have difficulty working in a clean, precise way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
A persons position/perspective/line of logic.
Maybe.
edit,
Also their inclinations.
edit,
Water flows where the channels cut.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
My 'objection isn't quite fully formed, exists nebulously at the moment I'd say.
'Considered speaking it earlier, but seemed a bit rambling incoherent to be worth saying,
Here's my try though.
There's no accounting for taste, perhaps.
Not as an undeniable rule, but of what such a phrase speaks.
What an individual or people place value upon.
What such people 'are, and strive for as a result of that.
Hm, what are the right words. .
Large flaw of mine is having lazed thoughts, not minding the haze that obscures them, enough to blow it away, or reason them further in. Often I see their edges, the tips of thought, and go with my intuition.
A person's or groups values, based upon what 'they or a culture 'are.
What they might strive toward.
. . .
People speak of higher 'values at times, whether religion, some line of logic.
Identify some piece of morality or methodology of logic as being more righteous than the others.
, Ah but my bent is nihilism/subjectivism/relativism.
Discounting the objective value of much that is spoken, but being a human, must make decisions in life, tread along paths.
. . .
Though I can acknowledge your ideal as valid, and desire and act upon it to a degree in life myself.
When I'm not valuing 'myself above others,
I value my tribe.
I value that my tribe be a humane one, but not to the point that it loses out, or disappears.
People value what they value,
Though with causation, sure there's reasons for such.
edit
Mm, actually that 'still doesn't explain my reasoning I suppose.
Just say's, eh, arbitrary, I'm a nihilist.
. . .
I was raised to appreciate loyalty to my tribe, so it's a value I hold.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well, I 'do respect such ideals, as the ones you speak.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I suppose I can understand that.
But it seems such a strong pull within humans, one I feel myself.
That I find it difficult to discount as a variable, or as a value held.
One feels loyalty, and places value in their history and culture.
Parts they identify as similar to them.
. . Might be better for 'humans to be more inclusive, value other humans for their personhood and humanity, rather than their trappings of culture and identifiers.
I think they might get there some day regarding Earth.
But I suspect a bit, the exercise will have to be repeated if we make or encounter aliens.
Maybe more likely they convert/homogenize, than accept though.
. . . And why 'should different values and being of others be accepted, I wonder a bit to myself.
Assuming that they're values and being different enough that one finds them unacceptable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I like it, though I've heard of that game theory before.
It being taught as a step through step video game with explanations is a new way to me.
My score was 34, I played like a grudger.
Also thought like RationalMadman, that the detective would win.
Ah well, I didn't pay that much attention to the rules of the game, depending on the rules used, it makes sense I think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
@WaterPhoenix
@WaterPhoenix
Toradora
I liked the light novel.
And like a couple of AMVs with it, don't recall actively watching the anime though.
@Discipulus_Didicit
"Rising of the Shield Hero"
Though I 'read them a fair bit, and 'have liked some of them.
There's 'something I can't put my finger on for the swathe of medieval fantasy that bothers me in manga/fantasy.
Whether it's alternate worlds bothering me for the. . arbitrary nature of it, the 'wish fulfillment or how terrifying I find the thought of someone being plucked from their reality.
The sudden shift in what defines reality, or a persons place in power, the odd way it happens bothers me.
Often for fantasy that 'doesn't have the alternate world schtick, I'm not sure.
'Something about the style I dislike.
The characters acting/value/importance, I'm not sure.
Often they feel, 'gimmicky somehow. I really don't know what it is.
Ah well, still I enjoy some anime.
@Topic
Baccano!
Mobile Suit Gundam, the 1981 trilogy of movies.
Created:
Posted in:
I use one of my books as a mousepad, and like wire attached mouse.
Don't know about prices though, just whatever the store has, works for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well when we get right down to it unregulated borders are in general preferable to regulated borders unless we have a specific reason to regulate them. This is based entirely upon my use of human empathy. It doesn't feel good to be shut out so no one should be shut out without a damn good reason.Now lots of borders are regulated. The borders of a liquor store may be regulated to prevent underage persons from buying alchohol for example. Sometimes there is a good reason and sometimes there isn't. Most regulation of borders between countries I feel in the case of humans passing over those borders is unnecessary. At most the regulation of dangerous materials crossing borders makes sense but not people. I propose that in order to make this distinction we put ourselves in the shoes of people who wish to cross the border. If it. Would be unjust for you to be prevented from crossing maybe it is just unjust.
I suppose I can understand such a point of view, though I disagree with it.
To me it's. . A taste similar to Anarchism, the idealistic type that some people speak of.
Just doesn't seem functional to me.
. . .
Perhaps I take too 'pessimistic of a view, but I see the world, and nations, as one of adversaries, enemies, currently anyhow. Clans and tribes in many countries, were once rivals, until they united together into countries, by means of what they held in common. Language, culture, other enemies.
It seems to me, to a countries advantage, to know who foreign individuals are, attempting to gain entry, and if they choose. Refuse them entry, whether for reasons or suspicions. Criminal history, Nationalism, Extreme political stances, would be ones that come to mind that seem reasonable for the USA to refuse entry.
Other countries, could go further for more totalitarian and extreme reasons themselves.
Whether because of culture, race, intelligence, money, ability, genetics. (Not saying I would or wouldn't support such reasons, just that some nations could impose them, and some people find them reasonable)
Countries/Communities/Governments, 'tend to have a duty to it's people I'd say.
Two duties that occur to me in this moment, are it's people's safety, and their needs.
Without vetting people before their entry, ensuring that they have a sense of duty to their new country, an understanding of it's laws.
I have difficulty in seeing how it is right, to just let them in.
. .
Though perhaps many citizens 'already in the country, may not meet such standards themselves.
I worry a 'bit about how it reminds me of those Jim Crow pre-voting tests, that surely a great many of the white people would not have been able to pass.
Mm,
One makes some allowances for one's own tribe.
I'd say we have open borders between 'our states and cities in the USA, same with Canada and having open borders between 'it's provinces and cities, I assume.
Created:
-->
@Castin
@keithprosser
@Castin
For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "Formal dogmatic atheism is self-refuting, and has never de facto won the reasoned assent of any considerable number of men. Nor can polytheism, however easily it may take hold of the popular imagination, ever satisfy the mind of a philosopher."Dawkins: "It is not clear why the change from polytheism to monotheism should be assumed to be a self-evidently progressive improvement."I must say it isn't clear to me either. Do you believe polytheism is somehow less evolved than monotheism? If so, why? And if not, why do you think others do?
I don't think that polytheism is less evolved than monotheism, just evolved in a different direction.
Though I'm 'incredibly lacking in knowledge in polytheist religions, I'd imagine that some of them are and have been pretty fancy/intricate.
I'd imagine there's old Greek and Roman philosophers who made arguments 'for and 'against realities requiring the existence of these many deities. Though I'm not familiar with any of them. I'd like to point out that a 'lot has been lost in the ravages of time, people and their writings I mean.
I'd imagine others might see polytheism as less evolved, if they don't see so much of it. Might give them the impression that it was taken over/replaced by monotheism.
Also, maybe a number of monotheistic arguments are tailored for the single deity, so they're not familiar with the arguments and reasons a polytheist might give.
Maybe polytheistic religions capable of being similarly discounting of monotheism?
Lastly, maybe it's more common for monotheistic religions to discount other religions, than polytheistic religions to discount other religions.
I'm not certain on that last one though.
@keithprosse
Christianity has always struggled to reconcile the judaic ideal of monotheism with having two (at least) foci of worship.We also see that 'duotheism' is attractive, with a pairof gods, one presentig light and the other dark. In the Abrahamic faiths the role of 'dark god' is satan.
Christianity speaks often enough about numerous 'false idols a man might make, though in modern times they're often metaphorical I'd think. Greed, Pride, the Self and such.
Doesn't really offer any good deities other than God though, him being the only one they see as 'true.
Virtues as seen as positive pursuits though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
I'd agree with the listing of genres.
And that people often prefer some synthesis and mixing of genres, rather than one purely on it's own. (Though I 'think there are some few exceptions)
But you yourself, it seems to me concede the comedy genre itself dancing with a pint of drama.
And that's the crux I'd argue,
That though the different genres 'can stand by themselves, it's much more common/easier with they support one another to degrees.
But again, I'm missing what makes it 'more genuine than other mixings, say a romantic thriller, or a horrific drama.
When you say,
comedy actually transcends the media boundary and plays an intrinsic role in reintroducing the entire scenario.
I don't quiet get your meaning there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
Well, if by genuine, you mean natural.
I'd say humanity possesses a plethora of natural emotions, or habits of the subconscious.
I'm fond of it myself, though I have difficulty in seeing what makes it 'exceptional to other genres, other than personal preference.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not sure about 'genuine, but I'd agree comedy is rather encompassing.
From the lows of gallows humor, to more light hearted moments.
Though 'conflict is rather encompassing as well, I suppose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
When you say open borders, what do you mean by that?
Only closed border I can think of off the top of my head would be that one tribe on an island somewhere, that kills anyone who tries to talk to them.
Though likely there's some/many countries with rather closed borders I simply haven't read about.
When people say open borders, what I hear somehow, is 'unregulated borders.
. . .
I 'am fond of necromancing old posts, though I 'do do it out of an interest in the topics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't think it'd be out of line, but that doesn't mean everyone else has the same opinion.
According to Wikipedia, she wrote the poem in 1883, more than a hundred years after 1776, and America's Declaration or Independence.
. . . I don't think one can say without reservation, that America was formed with a unified understanding and agreement of the acceptance and encouragement of any and all immigrants to America.
Though it seems a popular opinion, I'd say.
One that many of it's citizens and public servants have spoken with great passion about, throughout America's history.
And, in many nations of old.
For when humans less populously covered the Earth, they were wisely viewed by rulers as a source of power and influence. That made colonizing hinterlands possible, filling up the ranks of armies, supporting the economy, the holding and pushing of lands already populated.
Whether China in it's many occurrences of divided states, seeking advantage over one another,
Or Rome expanding outward throughout the world, until the hearts and spirits of it's people had changed, and given in more to being 'paid for their duty to their people, given in more to 'indulging themselves, than tempering themselves. Rambling a bit.
Anyway, the opposition,
America no longer possesses the wild west, has boomed in population.
And even when it was growing, many of it's people did not appreciate newcomers not of their ilk or culture, heritage or nature.
Not saying I 'support that, just noting humans have a prevalence to tribalism.
And it seems a reasonable enough value for people to assume to my way of thinking, though I prefer individualism.
Even if Emma Lazarus wrote a poem, it doesn't mean everyone agrees with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"The World Outside The Cave" is "The Apartment" (what you "see" when you turn off your game, also known as GNOSIS).
Why is the world outside of the game, knowledge?
It seems to me that knowledge is simply what we have data on,
I suppose I'm a bit Empiricist at times, though I see the value of Rationalism.
Rationalism at times sounds a bit like theory-ism to me.
The knowledge of the game seems to me as objectively valid, as the knowledge of the apartment, or outside the cave.
I'm not sure that Cypher is wrong, in the Matrix.
Even if something is a simulation, or a shadow of some other part of reality, it doesn't disown the fact that the shadow is part of reality.
It's simply. . . Well, it's 'maybe context that bothers people.
The idea of being 'chained in the cave, ignorant, in lesser living conditions, 'fooled into thinking it 'all there is to reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't think it's that gamers of MMORPGS are unaware that there are parts of life,It's a metaphor for your experience of living and communicating.What goes on "inside your own head" is PRIVATE GNOSIS.What you see and do and say to OTHER PEOPLE is "IN GAME".
Gnosis, I forget what that word is, reminds me wither of religion or rocks.
One Google later "Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge."
Ah, I see.
Well, I suppose people 'do have their own thoughts/perceptions/experiences, that can be difficult to share and express to other people.
I suppose a person can view an individual as stuck inside their own head, only able to interact with others in a . . . roundabout, or indirect way.
. . .
Man 'does only experience, only 'know part of reality I suppose, by dint of his limitations as a human, limitations of current history and technology.
Still, he's not unaware that more exists I think.
. .
The Cave allegory of Plato, I tended to accept at face value, as I recall.
Some bit of meaning about truth/knowledge,
How man's often trapped to certain fixed points of view, get good at seeing those fixed points of view, using them in life, and explaining life 'by them.
But how empty they might seem to a person who sees more, beyond the cave, how terrible it is to be chained again, how worthless that cave world is now to him, in light of his new experiences outside the cave.
How anathematical that man's views might be, to those used to seeing the world in the dark.
Eh, I'm rambling a bit, I only somewhat remember the Cave allegory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It's rather impressive how much technology and science there is at the moment, more than we know what to do with, or more than we've properly integrated into our current society, I'd say.
And indeed, it 'does seem to be still building, growing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't think it's that gamers of MMORPGS are unaware that there are parts of life, other than a video game. It's just the part they prefer to focus on.
I suppose there's something to be said for people who enjoy trying new experiences, checking out other aspects of life, but the grass is green enough on the sides of some people's fences.
Fun use of Plato's Cave though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
First made me think of a phone ad, then some other type of ad.
Seems like it could be a useful tool, even if currently simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not quite sure, having not thought deeply about it before. My eldest brother tried to get me to read The Law by Frédéric Bastiat, but I found it difficult to read.
Don't really have a strong opinion about it, but in America, I think the law exists To protect society at large, as well as the individual.
Perhaps people have difficulty balancing that at times, or individuals find their ethics and moralities at odds with others, of what is meant by living a fulfilling or righteous life,
To themself, or others.
Law can be different depending on where you go though, in the world.
Whether talking about countries, or more specific contexts such as parents, games, country club.
Created:
-->
@Castin
What does your family think of Revelations 21:8? John 3:18, Mark 16:16, etc?
Well, asked my eldest brother his thoughts, he takes the view of Revelations 21:8 being metaphorical death of the evil in a person, that they'll be reforged/reborn through some sort of experience in the afterlife, until the evil in them is burned away, again metaphorically.
He thinks that believing that Jesus is not all a person needs to do, but it is more about believing in and following his teachings and what is right. Says that even demons in the Bible acknowledge Jesus to be the son of God, My brother said something about the connotations of a Greek word that I forget.
Said he did not think it's the washing away of dirt that saves a person, but the appealing of god, a clean heart, or clean mind.
My eldest brother has more reasonings and references to the Bible for exactly 'why he believes this, and would likely complain at my summery of his thoughts not truly explaining what he thinks, but I don't care quite enough to put it all together.
Created:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Sorry for the rambling nature of my post, but the mood took me.
I'm not sure what I'd say about the ethics of couch potatoes.
They don't fit the mold of 'traditionally good ethics, that most people I know in person have.
. . . If one is not 'good, is one 'evil. . .
I think I'd rather say neutral, though certainly to many good people, evil is the absence of good.
Some people's ethics are self serving,
“Not at all. One man cannot wrong another man. He can only wrong himself. As I see it, I do wrong always when I consider the interests of others. Don’t you see? How can two particles of the yeast wrong each other by striving to devour each other? It is their inborn heritage to strive to devour, and to strive not to be devoured. When they depart from this they sin.” - Wolf Larsen
Though that character sounds a bit of traditionally recognized evil I suppose.
I'm reminded a bit of the Eloi, in the piece of fiction, The Time Machine.
In the story, a man creates a time machine and ends up traveling to the far future, where it seems humanity has undergone an extreme apocalypses.
The great cities, societies, and learning, all fallen and crumbled. To dust much, and what left, overgrown.
He 'does find two groups of people though, one of which was the 'Eloi.
The Eloi live a simple communal life, adorn themselves with flowers, dance, and sing in the sun.
But are lazy, weak, apathetic, to the point they don't even save one of their own from drowning in a river, an Eloi named Weena. Instead that task falls to the time traveling protagonist.
And it's that apathetic angle I want to focus on for them, but before that, there 'was another people the time traveler found.
The 'Morlocks.
Those humans who escaped underground during the apocalypse, and yet still retained some of mankind's technology.
In the fiction, The Time Machine, it is the Morlocks who provide food and clothing to the Eloi, yet the Morlocks are also the antagonists of the bit of fiction. For they are cannibals, and prey upon the Eloi when night comes, and they can venture out from the darkness beneath the earth.
And in this debate, I ramble even more disjointedly about inaction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If I locked you in a room with a piece of paper and a pencil, could you commit a crime?If you showed that piece of paper to other people, either by posting it in a public place or by giving away copies, could that be a crime?According to some legal systems I 'think I 'could commit a crime in the first case.And according to some legal systems I'm certain it would be possible to commit a crime in the second case.Do you think this is logically defensible?
From some points of view, I'd say so.
Depends on the societies values, laws, presuppositions, and what not.
Something making 'logical sense, only 'does so, based on what rules are in place.
At least I 'think such.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
Huh, actually, it seems two of my family members take that whole dismemberment literally.
Though there's some nuance to their point of view on it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I 'could do that, but I like talking about who I voted for, though I 'could lie I suppose.
I'd rather not lie about who I voted for, and I don't 'dislike the idea of third parties gaining 'some more influence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
'My take of it, is that if something makes it easy to sin, it's better to not have it.
Seeing on how many sins are related to the harming of others, it's better to remove something that harms others, than to keep it.
If for example you own a fancy car, and it causes you excessive pride and disregard and harm of others in your actions, better to sell or give the car away.
It's not a saying I think I'd take literally, most of the time, though I imagine some people have.
I suppose I'll also agree that 'some people are taught to hate themselves for their sins.
Whether in a religion, or behavior in a society.
I'd rather people practiced Love the sinner, hate the sin.
(Though I don't 'think that's from the Bible)
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Personally I'd rather vote for Trump, but as I like my family liking me, I'll probably vote for a third party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
Not criticism, but curiosity,
How are people punished for thinking?
Related to religion I mean.
Unrelated to religion, we punish people often enough for their thoughts, though usually on their political or social views.
Through condemnation, or dislike, shaming.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Myself, I'm fairly self interested, rather than community interested.That is a common condition. If it were not for self interest overcoming our sense of empathy would we even need ethics?
We might still disagree on how to best help other people I suppose, or what constitutes a virtuous life, thus still requiring ethics, even in a less 'self interested human race.
Created:
Posted in:
I didn't watch the video, but to me the question feels like,
Are You Really Free Under Gravity?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So long as a 'significant amount of the justification is an appeal to authority.I think you should imagine that all the police and other officials are gone.Perhaps you're way out in the middle of nowhere, driving along a road and you see a stop sign.Would you stop?Perhaps you're way out in the middle of nowhere, driving along a road and you see a campsite, and a large bag of money.Would you take the money?
I'd 'probably stop.
Not sure though.
Large bad of money.
I'm afraid I might, if I thought I could get away with it.
The ramifications of the questions and answers, eludes me though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, some people actively seek therapy from mental health providers, because they find certain thoughts detrimental to their lives and/or other people.This should be 100% protected by medical privacy and not subject to legal scrutiny.Take the focus on being clean in some religions or practices, or in how they deal with the dead.I agree. Many "religious" guidelines have very practical benefits. However, these benefits are not contingent on worship of an unknowable cosmic peeping tom.I 'do enjoy not having the thought police on my brain, personally.If I locked you in a room with a piece of paper and a pencil, could you commit a crime?If you showed that piece of paper to other people, either by posting it in a public place or by giving away copies, could that be a crime?
A person's thought process 'does seem to become subject to legal scrutiny, 'once they have committed a crime.
It seems odd for a persons thoughts to only have become a sin, once they have acted 'physically upon them and been caught.
Seems reasonable enough to declare certain thoughts and patters to be bad.
Maybe not so reasonable to be an Orwellian society in which everyone's thoughts and actions are constantly monitored.
Having dirty dishes or an unclean room, can logically be declared 'bad, I think. Without there actually having to be an impetus to change said behavior, other than an individuals own will.
Well, I'm not religious, I just like noting that religion had/has practical applications.
According to some legal systems I 'think I 'could commit a crime in the first case.
And according to some legal systems I'm certain it would be possible to commit a crime in the second case.
Created: