Total posts: 4,363
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
By that logic, Americans should give the southwest territory back to the Mexicans and the rest to the nation back to the Indians.
Neither the Mexicans nor the indigenous tribes declared sovereignty of any portion of North America above the northern Mexico border, and, therefore, the Europeans occupied literally unclaimed land. Declaration of sovereignty is meaningful, and the Europeans declared it. Case closed on that matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
A good deal of the Arab-Israeli conflict centers on a postage stamp of land: specifically, the Temple mount. Let's observe the history of that postage stamp. A Jebusite by the name of Araunah leveled the top of Mt. Moriah [where Abraham took his son, Isaac, to sacrifice him, to make of it a threshing floor to winnow wheat grain from the chaff. David purchased the site for 50 shekels of silver, on which to ultimately build the temple. David did not [we know why], but his son, Solomon, did. No one since has purchased that land from David's descendants. The land was simply usurped, and still is. Land ownership, ill-gotten occupation notwithstanding, still means something, even after thousands of years.
The Palestinian encyclopedia, Al-Mawsu'at Al-Filastinniya, states that, "The Palestinians [are] the descendants of the Jebusites, who are of Arab origin."
So, who should legitimately own that postage stamp? History disagrees with Palestinian claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So am I. Ego can be corrupted, or it can be pushed away, too. Most of our battles are fought within the confines of our own minds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
It's pretty simple. Abraham bore two sons: Ishmael, by his wife's handmaiden, and Isaac by his wife, in that order. Ultimately, Abraham gave the birthright to Isaac. Jealousy pushed Ishmael's nose out of place. Further, Isaac begat Jacob [re-named Israel], and Jacob begat the House of Israel [12 sons], and Ishmael's progeny has been pushing, and the House of Israel pushing back ever since.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
absolute power will absolutely corrupt.
That is entirely dependent on one's corruptibility. Just because it is said no one is perfect does not preclude the potential to be so. Perfection insulates against corruption.
Yes, yes, I understand the argument that no one is perfect. Tell me, is there a legitimate reason why we age? At cellular level, there is absolutely no reason why the cell should not be immortal, but, they do suffer mortality. If we could figure out why that is so, and correct it, why should we not also figure out how to be perfect? I do not see either being error-prone, or indefinitely mortal as necessary restrictions, but then, as you know, I don't accept limitations. I acknowledge they exist, but do not acknowledge that they must exist.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Are they just “demons”...
Yes, or, no.
Do they develop...
Yes, or no.
I'm not writing a novel about this. I flesh out characters for a novel, but for this hypothetical? Nope. I could, but the need lacks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Morality, as a social construct, requires at least two people to have its effect.
Don't try to complicate what this says. One person, alone, needs no morality. I assume the instinct of self-preservation would prohibit the one to do harm to one's self. Yes, there are people who do that, but, almost never are they in their right mind, and would not cause self-harm were they healthy of mind, body, and spirit. Society, by its nature, is a construct or two, or more, persons. Morality has no effect unless there is a society simply because immorality may have effect on the entire society, small in numbers though it may be. To cause harm to others is immoral.
"Social construct" is simply that two or more people decide to band together with a common purpose of thought and action, such that they can anticipate that one has another's back. Construct, because we develop, or build mutual trust.
Morality may be "something else?" What else might it be? I'm not implying that. Morality, to me, is strictly the rules we apply to our treatment of others. Ours "rules" may differ, one to another, and, therefore, our treatment of one another. Law is what we often think of in these terms, and some want to separate law from morality, as if they are different, and even opposing concepts. We muddle and confuse because we also apply different labels: objective and subjective, to both law and morality. Law may be more easily construed as objective, since it applies to everyone with the jurisdiction of a particular law. But, somehow, morality suffers an assumed duality which I do not see. Since morality may not always align with law, such as how we deal with sexual relations - which some claim is the only application of morality - we, therefore, attempt their separation, as with church and state, when those concepts, as well have intersections wherein both attempt to improve our condition. That is appropriately so. Besides, that wording "separation" is not in the constitutional text, and the 1954 SCOTUS decision of Brown v. Board of Education found in exactly that intersecting purpose of church and state. We ought consider morality in that same fashion, but we don't.
A single person's actions, wholly separate from another and having no effect on another may have some consequences to that single person, but certainly to no other.
Again, don't complicate this. "A single person" is one who is alone; not a society [two, or more] As described above, why does one person need to consider morality. Two or more are either going to trust one another, or not, and we develop a mutual morality as a matter of that trust. I assume one person, alone, should trust them self. One person, alone, is not a society. Simple as that. I am not talking about a group of people all living in a tower of apartments, and they comprise a society, while next door, one person lives in a tent. Yes, that person is "alone," but it proximate to the apartment building and is, therefore, just in a different dwelling, but they will still interact because there is infrastructure with shops and such. They are, the loner and the apartment dwellers, a society. one person, alone, is they guy in the woods whereas a distance away, there is a group of homes and apartments, and even some tents.
In the first example, the one person in a tent may think and act completely separate from the apartment dwellers, and as long as his thoughts and actions have no affect on others, what morality is applied? Is it immoral that he chooses to live alone? No. As long as he acts on his own, without affect on others, there is no law or moralitry that is broken; society remains intact. But, let him think and act to trip one of the apartment dwellers, now, even though he lives alone, he has affected another person, perhaps even by injury, but even without causing injury, he has violated the social trust; he is immoral.
It is said no man is an island. No. A man living alone on an island is an island. He is not a society. A man living alone in the desert is an island. He is not a society. We call them hermits and recluses. These individuals are not society. Try to imagine the distinction. Does a solitary man like this have a consequence on society? No. Therefore, morality, to that man, is mute. It has no effect because he is having no affect on society. Get it? Yes, there are damn few of this sort, but, they do exist. Account for them.
Lack of linguistic precision? What does morality mean? What does mute mean? Does morality matter to a hermit who has no contact with society? What, then, does morality say to the hermit? Nothing. Morality, to him, is, therefore, mute.
If what you're doing impacts other people, then morality requires you obtain their consent.
Yes, but if what you're doing does not impact others, morality does not impose your need of consent, or anything else. Yes, I see now that the sentence I wrote has several errors. My hands are big. I need a keyboard half again as large as they are made. Most stuff is made for little people. I am not little. It's my problem, with its resulting key stroke errors. Most people can figure it out. That you refuse to try is on you.
You should have deleted...
You're my tutor, now? I don't pay you. You may work at your leisure, but don't expect I will follow.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Republicans try to make it special for their dogmatic reasons.
Oh. And Democrats have no dogma? You’re just bleeding all over the page because you cannot afford an astringent?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
All science, including philosophy, is imperfect. Therefore, the dilemma remains
Created:
-->
@Reece101
I repeat: you propose hypotheticals, and deny mine?
who says there cannot be a planet of demons? Your sock puppet?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Why not just reveal the source, and let chips fall as they will. or, for that matter, do your own research on the matter, and whether you reveal the conclusion of that research, or not, you will end up being more satisfied than by anything we might turn up, if there's interest in looking. I'm not. As potentially blockbuster as this story might be, if true, if major media markets are mute on the subject, I'm highly suspicious.
As anyone knows, anyone can post jut about anything without serious reproach because no one has any imposition to publish valid information on the Internet. Most of it is tabloid-quality junk, or worse. There are servers upon servers containing utterly useless information. It's a shame, because a gatekeeper simply does not exist, and if there was, I doubt its integrity, as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
What fallacies? Your argument of my fallacies depends on acceptance of your denial of authority, and the potential for that authority to be evil. I simply remove the potential. I cannot do that? I don't believe in limitations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That's fine, but it happens to restrict even those who acknowledge God, but a God who grants to man free agency to be good on one's own, unlimited choice, without even the acceptance of coercion by way of commandment, because God's commands do not remove man's free agency. I know free agency is a subject with which you disagree, and, apparently, so does Euthyphro. So, argue for your limitations; I'll bow out as one who does not accept limitations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
And I am obviously saying the dilemma is self-restricting the discussion. Why?
Created:
Posted in:
My #22 was not entirely correct because both posits of a syllogism must be correct to legitimize the conclusion. What I missed saying is that both posits can be correct and the conclusion may still be false. Example:
P1 Bird fly
P2 Camels walk
C. Butterflies swim
A syllogism cannot have any element you please. The logic must still hold, or the syllogism isn’t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
What’s your problem with authority? Your fear of potential bad consequences is doing your thinking. Think for yourself
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I’m surprised that an atheist contends God must have some play in the entire exercise. I’m a theist, but this subject exists entirely outside God, and you will notice I never mentioned God. You think that was coincidencidental?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Neither one, necessarily. Either choice comes with the presupposition that:
1. we are commanded to be good
2. goodness is limited by it being a command
The whole notion is absurd with either. Goodness supersedes. James Madison once wrote that if men were angels, we would not need government [law, or commandments]. We would know that by our free agency, which is the overarching ability to chose our thoughts and actions. regardless of commandments, or law, that choosing right action [goodness] will yield our greatest potential of freedom and light. Goodness is self-fulfilling and expanding freedom to eternal light. Evil is in choosing wrong thought and action, leading to an ultimate loss of freedom. Evil is self-limiting and expanding slavery to ultimate darkness.
Created:
Posted in:
@ Stephen
how is it "free will " if it comes with a death sentence?
Because death is not permanent, and is not a punishment. It is merely the end or mortal life, which is not an end to life. It is the portal to eternal life. I know you oppose that, but, isn't that just a self-limiting admission that there are limitations? A pessimistic view, in my book. Why should limitation be a prevailing view? What? Cannot find joy in this life? Perhaps it's the paradigm embraced. So, embrace another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
One ought to consider how the Egyptians felt after all the plagues when Moses wanted to take all their slaves out of Egypt because the Pharaoh was such a stubborn man, he could not see past the potential economic ruin of his civilization without slavery. Some folks in the US South had the same stubbornness, and caused the misery of so many of their own, and otherwise, for much the same reason, that continues to plague us today. Pessimism.
The Egyptians have been wondered about ever since, but few stop to realize that, to date, we've found little evidence that they worried enough to even write about the experience. Their civilization endured another 1200 years or so, flourishing until they, too, like every empire, again worried about the will to sustain it. We're there now, in the U.S. Why? Pissimism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Yes, and you can be hit by lightning, bitten by a shark, crushed by a meteor, and eaten by flies. If you spend wasted time thinking about all the bad things that can happen, it will surely affect your well-being. SSSSSSSTOPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!
It fails to even be a reasonable argument after a while. It's called pessimism. Change the 'e', and you have about all that is worth.
Created:
It is my impression that when these intersection experiences occur, it is by the consent of the spirits to allow our sense of them, and not by our initiation.. I believe they dwell among us, on a different plane, but may be unaware of us unless they will it, so I think they’re in control either way
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Oh, ye of little faith. In this instance, they are right. Why doubt? Appreciate that they are right. Appreciate that morality and legality can intersect for our good. If they don't wee have the means to stand and oppose. Individuals start revolutions when necessary, and, yes, that can go both ways.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I agree with all you say. The intersections are brief, and infrequent. I feel tremendously fortunate to have had the experience I did, in a completely awakened state, aware of my surroundings, a hospital room, alone, visiting a patient, my father-in-law, to whom I'd become very close over 27 years. He passed quietly away the following morning, with my mother-in-law in hand. That night before, I witnessed unseen, but not unfelt visitors from among the dead, including his mother, in whose home I had frequently been, and was aware of the aromas in that house, present then in the hospital room. I watched as he lay sleeping, unaware of my presence, but reacting to the visitors by frequent motions I eventually recognized as hugging others, all while he remained asleep to my perception. I was witnessing a joyful reunion of many souls, one living, the others, passed on. The room became so crowded, and, although I felt I was invited to witness these events, I suddenly felt I was no longer welcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Fortunately, we live in a society that is legislated by more than one or a few people. We are legislated, federally, by 535 representatives, a majority of whom must agree to pass legislation of any kind, and they are, on average, in Congress for 10+ years, each [what does that say for imposed term limits?], so the whims of social change are slow to be altered by legislation. Further, we have the ability to remove any who, by our collective reasoning, just at state level, or district level, are bad actors. So, your suppositions, while possible, are improbable. As a result, the law often leans on morality as guide, hence, age of consent, for example. And, do not forget that generally, at a local level, the judicial system works fairly consistently in the favor of our moral ground. Yes, there are exceptions. However, we have cone to believe, for example, that the Supreme Court is stacked to either the left, or the right. However, over the long haul since it was established in 1791 [230 years, and counting] the Supreme Court's most frequent decision result, by count, agree or oppose, is unanimous, by 59% of all decisions. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/supremes.htm
That says the stacked theory is just that, and not one that is very supportable by the numbers. Were you aware, by the way, that one of the most controversial decisions, at least in modern time, Roe v. Wade [1973], was decided 7-2, in the affirmative, and that of the 7, 4 Justices, including the Chief Judge, were appointed by Republican Presidents. So much for politics on the Court. It is generally a myth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
It is not providing empirical evidence. It is providing a rational scientific proof.
Proof is not providing empiric evidence, but it is providing scientific proof? What is scientific proof if not empiric evidence? "Science Produces Explanations That Can Be Tested Using Empirical Evidence" https://www.nap.edu/read/10865/chapter/4
The failure of your argument starts there, and concludes with
assuming the premises are correct.
for example:
if I ever see white swans then there is a probability I am correct.
Probability. At what confidence level? I am a certified six sigma black belt - a statistical expert. Probability is worthless without a confidence level, and it best by above 95% to be credible. So, what is the probability in 100 tries that I will find evidence disproving your white swan theory? Let's see...
I've just demonstrated your necessary 95% confidence level has fallen to an unacceptable 90% confidence level.
all men are mortal. Socrates is human - therefore Socrates is mortal.
A typical syllogism, many of which fail logic, and, therefore, are not. Case in point:
P1 All men are mortal
P2 Socrates is human
C. Socrates is mortal
P1 is not correct: mortality ends at death. Men die. The dead are no longer mortal, but remain as a being described as man.
P2 is correct; Socrates was human, and remains as such, even though dead.
C. is not correct because Socrates is no longer mortal.
Or, if you disagree with the concept of life after death, then P1 still fails because men in great numbers are dead. Mortality is still at an end. Both propositions must be correct for the conclusion to be correct, therefore, the conclusion fails because P1 fails. Additionally, Socrates is now a was, not an is. He is dead. Fail.
It is suggested that the biblical god is all knowing - all powerful - and all loving. All that needs to prove god is not true is by proving any of these things is not true.
Your assumption [not a given fact] is that God, being omni-whatever, must always act with that full-tilt omni-whatever that is allegedly possessed. Do you use all the whatever that you possess, all the time? Or do you limit the whatever you exert because all of it is not needed all the time? Do not assume God is any less capable of limiting the whatever he possesses if it is not needed - and you cannot prove it is otherwise.
Shall I go on, or is my case to date sufficient that your premise is faulty?
Created:
Posted in:
You're just assuming consent is a right,
No, consent is not a right, or it would be available to all. The law, with some credence allowed to medical/psychological expertise, determines that consent is an age-related matter, and that below a considered age, consent is not to be assumed as having been given due to immaturity, even if that immature person says they consent. Consent, therefore, is a privilege for a person to declare, and a hard barrier to any other. The barrier exists unless consent is lawfully offered, making consent a moral factor.
The apparent opposition to the idea of consent being a principle of morality, notwithstanding, being a stick in the mud where there is no mud is just a stick. As in, being stuck by one's own stubbornness.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I recognize that source, too. -That I disagree with the source, and its criticism of Trump [because everybody just camps on, don't they?] is well documented. We're going to argue this indefinitely, but I don't see the point. Agree to disagree. I'm done.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I have personal experience to know that the spiritual plane and ours can intersect. And why not? Spiritual and physical beings are both material; spirit is a more refined material than physical, but is still physical. Can you see the wind if it has not kicked-up dust? Yet, it is physical material; we just don't see it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
But that doesn't explain why violation of consent is immoral.I repeat my #2:
I repeat from my #2
In all other circumstance, when one person's actions do affect another, then consent must be present and expressed by that other person before the first may act on their own thinking to affect the other person[s]. To do so, otherwise, i.e., without their consent, the first person has violated the inherent rights of the other person, whether the action is considered by society as moral, or not.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
You certainly didn’t shut it down. You promoted the existence of physical demons.
Was I supposed to shut it down? Oh, pity me! I'm such a dolt. I didn't ask RM if he was serious. We're dealing here with hypotheticals. You can propose hype, but I cannot? You entered that realm in your #22, "If we're dealing here with..." That's a hypothetical, because "if" introduces a factor that is currently not true, as Benjamin began this string you've managed to disrupt by pettiness. You can theorize, but I cannot?, nor anyone else? Who made you grand fubah?
Then, still in #22, concluding your hype, you say:
1. They already far outmatch our technology.2. They’ll probably be on a campaign to wipe out life that they deem threatening.
So, if their tech outmatches ours, what is the rationale that they find us threatening, and thus must be wiped out? What threat, if were stone age by comparison, and they can hurl stones interstellar distances? When we've barely hurled a stone beyond our little solar system? Economies of scale, my friend, find you sorely wanting. What RM may have intended by his introduction of demons is so far outside your reach, does it matter that you don't know, either, since you asked, and I didn't? You can theorize, just make sure your theory holds water. Your #22 can't hold a drop. Nope, just shift the blame of ignorance to fauxlaw, and you're cool. Glad you can sense temp, because there's not much else in the brain bucket. I'm done with your pettiness. Go accuse someone else, for a change, but be certain your weapon is not a mirror. Shows all your faults, too.
Created:
Posted in:
But that doesn't explain why consent should be the first principle of morality.
Consent is a first principle strictly because the lied-to person likely gave no consent to be told a lie, so the ultimate consequences, as I said, belong to the liar. The liar violated consent by not allowing nor accepting consent from the person lied to.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
What point? The errant point that I brought up demons? Sorry, that bird has flown, so that must be an egg, not a point on the head. You have no point.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Yet you’ve brought up demons on a topic about aliens.
Doing poor research is one sign of mental instability, my friend, yet you accuse that of me? You will notice that it was RM's #14 post that brings up demons, not me, babe. Take it somewhere else. Take yourself with it.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Faith is a matter that can lead only to truth, if faith is what is being applied. That is its distinction from belief, which only may, but may not lead to truth. Most people align truth and belief together. They may be related, but are not the same thing in that respect. It is impossible to have faith in a lie, or even an unknown that is not true. It will not ultimately sustain as true, and, by the sure knowledge that it can be revealed by the Holy Spirit, can be perceived without waiting fro God to tell us. In fact, the assuran ce by the Holy Spirit is God telling us. "Waiting for God" is the right characterization. He will reveal as we show our determination to know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Lying is an act that almost always injures the liar, first. Besides, your subject is consent, in the which lying is not a factor. A secondary person is not obliged to con sent to the lie.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yeah, I notice the link is messed up. I’ll correct when I get home.
Created:
Posted in:
I’ll agree voting is weak - no satire. In 1 year, I have 10 ties. 7 are no vote ties.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Rather than pontificate, why don’t you read both statutes I’ve cited. They disagree with one another relative to personhood. And a fetus is only mostly unconscious, but not 100%. I’ll cite
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Morality, as a social construct, requires at least two people to have its effect. A single person's actions, wholly separate from another and having no effect on another may have some consequences to that single person, but certainly to no other. And, generally speaking, whether it is moral, or not, that a single person act without consequence to anyone else, has society really suffered due to those actions? If not, then morality is mute. The only code that acting, singular person has broken is that of his own well being. That, lone, ma have some effect on another, but it has not a moral effect on anyone else. A sense of loss of some degree, but not a sense of loss of morality.
In all other circumstance, when one person's actions do affect another, then consent must be present and expressed by that other person before the first may act on their own thinking to affect the other person[s]. To do so, otherwise, i.e., without their consent, the first person has violated the inherent rights of the other person, whether the action is considered by society as moral, or not.
Created:
Seems we are confused about what constitutes a spirit being. Spirit matter is still matter. It just does not have properties we currently understand as being material, or physical, if you want to use that gross concept [gross in the meaning that it is not specified sufficiently]. Spirit matter is refined, and, typically, not seen - as if "seeing" were the only means of its sensation. Consider it something like water, which actually exists in at least three forms: liquid, solid, and gas. There is, however, a fourth. Liquid water requires a. minimum of six molecules of H2O to exhibit as liquid. Five or less, it is not liquid, but something else. It's not solid, and its not really gas, even though the molecule is a combination of two gasses. Spirit matter is something like that. A plasma? Perhaps that is the best scientific description.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
the consequential fear of the unknown.
Who says Christianity results in a fear of the unknown? Your pocket mouse? Faith is the medium by which all fear is defearted. It must be applied, and it is a greater forc e than mere belief. If you don't get that, you don'r understand what failth is, how it operatres, or what it can accomplish. Without it, yes, fear is a mighty force. A force that is in us to repel.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You misunderstand. True, the fetus cannot develop any item on my list in gestation, which was my point: development does not conclude at the end of gestation, as was your #27. What consciousness has anything to do with it is beyond me, but yu brought that up, too. You also claimed in #27 that personhood either is had, or it isn't. I replied that 1 USC 1 § 8 differed from the Victims of Unborn Violence Act, because the latter recognizes personhood even in pre-natal condition since the perp of such a crime can be charged with murder of the fetus. Only a person can be murdered; no other life form.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
that's the entire point of gestation - developing.
Pregnancy = gestation.
Post-natal condition =/= gestation or pregnancy.
Development occurs during gestation, and beyond it, such as:
- breathing air
- brain development
-skeletal development
-oral consumption of food
- size and weight of the entire organism
- cognitive development
etc.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Even dogs, and other animals dream. They are not persons, and dreaming occurs in unconsciousness, just barely below the conscious level, but beyond it, nonetheless. Other animals think, as well, but still are not persons. We just happen to be the animal species blessed with the ability to think at a greater rate and ability than by instinct. Consciousness is not unique to humans, and its disconnected state is not unique to humans. And, there is a distinction between consciousness, and self-awareness, as not all animal species are self-aware, but they all exhibit consciousness and un. Therefore, consciousness is not a relevant factor in personhood at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
more prudent to concede
The question stands: why Christians over any other religion? What advantage is gained by other religions that would conclude that it is prudent for Christians to concede, since, as oromagi demonstrated, there are other religions suffering greater criticism against them than Christians? Is it, perhaps, a perspective that just is not valid?
Created:
-->
@Safalcon7
I would think the answer was obvious, given both the immoral exclusion of women, and the immoral choice of the object of the man's attention.
Created: