Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.

Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.

Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.

Seeking and demanding sanctity is one of the main five best rules of morality. Those rules shown below closely resemble most religious rules. For humankind to give an idea sanctity they must give sacrifice to it. The sacrifice that we must all do is deny women equality and give men a lower position in rulership. Men must bend the knee to women and elevate them to our ultimate sovereign. Those women and men who do not demand this are not in the best moral state of mind and should try to move to it.

We are all natural animals and follow the hierarchical rules of those species which have Alpha males. The main survival strategy of such a species is that the Alpha males will fight to the death to insure that the Beta females live.

Females, as the incubators of life and the most important within that species, must have the highest protection to insure that they will survive to continue the life of that species. Men, being the most physically powerful and having a more natural tendency to rule, must take a leadership role to insure this continuity. The Alpha of any species fights to insure that the Beta always has the highest position. The Kings and all other men IOW, must rule as the power behind the throne but the Queen is the one who must always sit on that throne and rule over the King.

The research done by Mr. Haigt shows that the right wings of religions and politics show more concern with tribalism than do the left wings. It appears then that if we are to move to the most advantageous moral position then it is to the right wings to promote it. As an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian, I am the left of center and not in the best camp to sell the view that women should rule even as I recognize that they should. The right has been given a wakeup call thanks to president Obama being re-elected. FMPOV then, the right needs a new platform if they are to survive, as they should to balance the political spectrum.

Generally speaking only; women are the weaker of the sexes and are better places to know what the requirements of survival are and should thus rule. Women should then demand the full protection and sacrifice of the Alphas males as that is the natural order of hierarchical species and must be to insure survival. This sacrifice gives sanctity to our species and insures it’s longevity. The religious and political right seem better suited to lead towards this end.

In my opinion, men and women who do not agree with this premise are not taking the best moral position for families or for society at large. This issue is more in the hands of men than women and in that sense men would be more immoral than women if they do not deny women equality and place women above themselves.

Should the religious and political right take up this best moral position and demand that equality be denied to all women and demand that they be given their rightful and natural position above men?

Please see the research and logic behind this premise.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHc-yMcfAY4

Regards
DL


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am wrote:Men have

Greatest I am wrote:

Men have no wombs and FMPOV are the best at child rearing. The numbers of deadbeat dads as compared to unwed mothers enforces that view.

 

 

Greatest I am wrote:

 Women need more protection than men as they bear children and generally are better at rearing them than men.  

 

I wish you'd make up your mind - I really can't tell which side of the fence you're on on this discussion..

 

And to answer your other question, no, I'm not saying fathers are better at rearing their children; I'm saying you've brought no empirical evidence to the table to support your hypothesis, so it's more speculation.

 

If you want to ascertain whether women, men, heterosexual couples, or gay couples are the best at child rearing, you need to first of all define your success criteria and then call up some sort of study that provides statistics pertaining to these. You've done none of this, so at the moment it's just spurious assumptions you're making.

 Here's a report that shows dual parent families consistently outperform single parent families in terms of the children's social standing, educational levels and other factors.  

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/222/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11205-004-6398-7.pdf?auth66=1354720892_a1c593503edad97f29b4c58078...

"For example, among children who were born to unmarried mothers, those who grew up with a single parent or in a step-family were less likely to complete high school than those who were adopted or who transitioned to living with two biological parents (Aquilino, 1996). One study showed that, for white youths only, a larger portion of childhood spent in a two-parent family was associated with lower probabilities of high school dropout, marijuana use, and teen par- enthood (Hauren, 1992). Among black youths, the time living with a two-parent family was associated with a decreased likelihood of serious illegal activity (Hauren, 1992). "

From this, I can extrapolate that men and women are both requirements to get optimum results in child rearing (I'm not going to go into same sex couplings here right now as it's a side note, and we're comparing single child-rearing against couples). There are obviously individuals that buck this trend, but that doesn't invalidate general outcomes.

So, in conclusion, if your contention is that women are more important than men and deserve a higher social standing because they are better at rearing children, my counterargument is that couples are better than a woman on her own, and therefore men and women deserve equality. And unlike you, I have evidence to show.

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4282
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Greatest I am wrote:Did you

Greatest I am wrote:

Did you note the words affirmative action?

Yes, which is why I asked you to clarify because "affirmative action" is a phrase that has several meanings. Originally it arose in an executive order by President Kennedy ordering government agencies to take "affirmative action" to ensure that applicants for government jobs were treated equally, not to give minorities special treatment- just make sure they were not being discriminated against. "Affirmative action" has since been used to describe a wide range of policies that have the intention of preventing discrimination in hiring- including policies such as quotas that give the targeted group an advantage over other groups. 

Although supporting affirmative action for women in regards to employment seems inconsistent with your other statements in this thread. You have repeatedly said that women are not equal and need to be protected because they can get pregnant and are better at rearing children. So given your premises that women need to be protected, provided for and are better at rearing children, does it not make more sense to pursue policies that discourage women from entering the workforce? After all, a mother that is at work is not at home raising the kids. Why some of these crazy kids even have families where the mother works full time and *gasp* the father stays home and raises the kids!

 

Greatest I am wrote:

Do you think the U S government was wrong in it's efforts at affirmative action in the past to redress societal discrimination?

I could spend years listing the ways I think the US government is wrong. I think most of the governments efforts to promote racial equality have been complete failures and the decline in discrimination we have seen in the latter half of the 20th century is more due to cultural change than government action. Remember, it was government that promoted Jim Crow laws, it was people like Martin Luther King who were willing to break the law and go to jail that got the publicity to bring about the cultural change.

I believe that by allowing people to be free and to interact positively and negatively with their fellow humans without government intervention that bigotry will die a natural death. When government coercion becomes involved it creates resentment, power struggles and can increase bigotry. All government laws should merely reference humans and make no special laws that differentiate one human from another. 

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I Am wrote:If you

Greatest I Am wrote:

If you cannot think any better than you have shown then I thank you in advance for not wasting my time.

Ok, I was wrong--I'm not done talking with you yet.

So, tell me, how is my thinking flawed? I contend people's value and worthiness of life are determined by their actions and, to a lesser extent, their thoughts.

I watched both videos you posted and have read about Jonathan Haidt before. Nowhere in any of that do I remember him advocating (or even addressing) the position that women are inherently more valuable and worthy of life than men. His research shows social conservatives have three additional "channels" by which they measure and understand morality. He tells social liberals to attempt to understand these channels, not to adopt or reject them.

 


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Men have no wombs and FMPOV are the best at child rearing. The numbers of deadbeat dads as compared to unwed mothers enforces that view.

 

 

Greatest I am wrote:

 Women need more protection than men as they bear children and generally are better at rearing them than men.  

 

I wish you'd make up your mind - I really can't tell which side of the fence you're on on this discussion..

 

And to answer your other question, no, I'm not saying fathers are better at rearing their children; I'm saying you've brought no empirical evidence to the table to support your hypothesis, so it's more speculation.

 

If you want to ascertain whether women, men, heterosexual couples, or gay couples are the best at child rearing, you need to first of all define your success criteria and then call up some sort of study that provides statistics pertaining to these. You've done none of this, so at the moment it's just spurious assumptions you're making.

 Here's a report that shows dual parent families consistently outperform single parent families in terms of the children's social standing, educational levels and other factors.  

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/222/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11205-004-6398-7.pdf?auth66=1354720892_a1c593503edad97f29b4c58078...

 

"For example, among children who were born to unmarried mothers, those who grew up with a single parent or in a step-family were less likely to complete high school than those who were adopted or who transitioned to living with two biological parents (Aquilino, 1996). One study showed that, for white youths only, a larger portion of childhood spent in a two-parent family was associated with lower probabilities of high school dropout, marijuana use, and teen par- enthood (Hauren, 1992). Among black youths, the time living with a two-parent family was associated with a decreased likelihood of serious illegal activity (Hauren, 1992). "

 

From this, I can extrapolate that men and women are both requirements to get optimum results in child rearing (I'm not going to go into same sex couplings here right now as it's a side note, and we're comparing single child-rearing against couples). There are obviously individuals that buck this trend, but that doesn't invalidate general outcomes.

So, in conclusion, if your contention is that women are more important than men and deserve a higher social standing because they are better at rearing children, my counterargument is that couples are better than a woman on her own, and therefore men and women deserve equality. And unlike you, I have evidence to show.

 

 

My bad on that first quote.

 

Start at day one. Who is better at child rearing in answered by women because they can feed the child naturally while men cannot.

I agree with most of your other information and will only indicate that most two parent homes are in a better socio economic situation and that wealth has more to do with child rearing when comparing single or two parent families.

Regards

DL


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Greatest

Beyond Saving wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Did you note the words affirmative action?

Yes, which is why I asked you to clarify because "affirmative action" is a phrase that has several meanings. Originally it arose in an executive order by President Kennedy ordering government agencies to take "affirmative action" to ensure that applicants for government jobs were treated equally, not to give minorities special treatment- just make sure they were not being discriminated against. "Affirmative action" has since been used to describe a wide range of policies that have the intention of preventing discrimination in hiring- including policies such as quotas that give the targeted group an advantage over other groups. 

Although supporting affirmative action for women in regards to employment seems inconsistent with your other statements in this thread. You have repeatedly said that women are not equal and need to be protected because they can get pregnant and are better at rearing children. So given your premises that women need to be protected, provided for and are better at rearing children, does it not make more sense to pursue policies that discourage women from entering the workforce? After all, a mother that is at work is not at home raising the kids. Why some of these crazy kids even have families where the mother works full time and *gasp* the father stays home and raises the kids!

 

Greatest I am wrote:

Do you think the U S government was wrong in it's efforts at affirmative action in the past to redress societal discrimination?

I could spend years listing the ways I think the US government is wrong. I think most of the governments efforts to promote racial equality have been complete failures and the decline in discrimination we have seen in the latter half of the 20th century is more due to cultural change than government action. Remember, it was government that promoted Jim Crow laws, it was people like Martin Luther King who were willing to break the law and go to jail that got the publicity to bring about the cultural change.

I believe that by allowing people to be free and to interact positively and negatively with their fellow humans without government intervention that bigotry will die a natural death. When government coercion becomes involved it creates resentment, power struggles and can increase bigotry. All government laws should merely reference humans and make no special laws that differentiate one human from another. 

 

 

I do not promote a policy of discouraging women to not enter the work force and do promote that governments make sure, even by quota, that women are well represented in any male dominated work when applicable.

 

Regards

DL 


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Greatest

blacklight915 wrote:

Greatest I Am wrote:

If you cannot think any better than you have shown then I thank you in advance for not wasting my time.

Ok, I was wrong--I'm not done talking with you yet.

So, tell me, how is my thinking flawed? I contend people's value and worthiness of life are determined by their actions and, to a lesser extent, their thoughts.

I watched both videos you posted and have read about Jonathan Haidt before. Nowhere in any of that do I remember him advocating (or even addressing) the position that women are inherently more valuable and worthy of life than men. His research shows social conservatives have three additional "channels" by which they measure and understand morality. He tells social liberals to attempt to understand these channels, not to adopt or reject them.

 

 

Do you believe that children should get the first seats in the lifeboats?

If so, who is best suited to take care of these children? Men or women?

Should the strong fight to protect the weak or should the weak fight to protect the  strong?

 

Generally speaking, even as we likely both know some women who would clean our male clocks in a fight, who is generally stronger? Men or women?

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4282
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Greatest I am wrote:I do not

Greatest I am wrote:

I do not promote a policy of discouraging women to not enter the work force 

Why not? 

 

Greatest I am wrote:

and do promote that governments make sure, even by quota, that women are well represented in any male dominated work when applicable.

Why? You say that men and women are not equal and shouldn't be equal but support a policy that purports to encourage equality? (I don't believe quotas create or encourage equality at all but for the sake of discussion, let us assume that it works more or less as advertised) It seems to me that you are trying to have it both ways, maybe I am just not understanding your main position. In your first post you went so far as to claim that morality required that we deny women equality. 

If denying women equality is moral, wouldn't a policy that encouraged equality be immoral?

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Greatest

Beyond Saving wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

I do not promote a policy of discouraging women to not enter the work force 

Why not?

 

Greatest I am wrote:

and do promote that governments make sure, even by quota, that women are well represented in any male dominated work when applicable.

Why? You say that men and women are not equal and shouldn't be equal but support a policy that purports to encourage equality? (I don't believe quotas create or encourage equality at all but for the sake of discussion, let us assume that it works more or less as advertised) It seems to me that you are trying to have it both ways, maybe I am just not understanding your main position. 

 

If a woman wants to work outside of the home, who the hell am I to suggest she should not?

 

If I as a male, want to work in the home, who is anyone else to deny me?

 

You do not understand my main position because you are mixing the work place which deserves full equality of the sexes with the whole of life, survival and sanctity which cannot as it involves reproduction and the duty of both men and women towards the whole of society.

 

All should be allowed and encouraged to follow their natures and exceptions to the general rules can be allowed and even embraced as learning tools but we are rule following entities and general rules should be set and recognized.

 

Regards

DL

 

  

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am wrote: Start

Greatest I am wrote:

 

Start at day one. Who is better at child rearing in answered by women because they can feed the child naturally while men cannot.

I agree with most of your other information and will only indicate that most two parent homes are in a better socio economic situation and that wealth has more to do with child rearing when comparing single or two parent families.

Regards

DL

 Actually the link i posted takes wealth into account when making its observations. 
   And statistically men earn more than women. So where does that leave you, if you think wealth is the biggest factor? Surely by your own argument men are therefore more important? 

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4282
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Actually the link i posted takes wealth into account when making its observations. 
   And statistically men earn more than women. So where does that leave you, if you think wealth is the biggest factor? Surely by your own argument men are therefore more important? 

 

 

Perhaps he didn't notice because the link doesn't work. For some reason Springer doesn't let you link directly to the pdf.

Here is a link that will work.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11205-004-6398-7 

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4282
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Greatest I am wrote: If a

Greatest I am wrote:
 

If a woman wants to work outside of the home, who the hell am I to suggest she should not?

 

If I as a male, want to work in the home, who is anyone else to deny me?

The same guy who thinks it is his place to suggest that women shouldn't be treated equal?

Who are you to suggest that an employer should hire a female regardless of the employer's preferences? I don't know, but apparently you have no problem suggesting laws to force that. If you are going to go down the road of saying government can and should pass laws to correct what you view as moral injustices I don't see why suddenly you let the preferences of some people get in the way while you freely trample the preferences of others. But my main point was that this particular stance doesn't seem cohesive with your stated values. You say it is so, ok, still a little perplexed but that is my problem not yours. 

 

Greatest I am wrote:
 

You do not understand my main position because you are mixing the work place which deserves full equality of the sexes with the whole of life, survival and sanctity which cannot as it involves reproduction and the duty of both men and women towards the whole of society.

It only involves reproduction if a couple decides to reproduce. If a couple decides to reproduce, then I agree that they bear the responsibility of making sure that the child is cared for. Whether they decide to set up a relationship where the male is superior to the female, the female is superior to the male or one where they are both equal seems completely irrelevant to me as long as both parties are consenting to the form of the relationship. I don't see one relationship as morally superior to the others. Which I assumed your OP was taking a definite stand that the only (or at least most) moral relationship is one in which the female is superior to the male.

But using that understanding of your point makes the whole "women first" tangent utterly pointless. Which is why I assumed your point was that males should treat females as superior and be protective of them not only in personal relationships but with strangers in public as well- which naturally extends to the workplace since most of our interactions in public occur at someones workplace.    

 

Greatest I am wrote:

All should be allowed and encouraged to follow their natures and exceptions to the general rules can be allowed and even embraced as learning tools but we are rule following entities and general rules should be set and recognized.

Why do we need rules? Do you believe that people are incapable of governing themselves? That seems at odds with the spirit of your two rhetorical questions at the beginning of this post. Why do you reject rules for who works where but then suggest that we should accept your rule of allowing/making women rule men? Or your rule that women should necessarily be saved first? I reject the idea that such rules are either needed or desirable outside of an individual following their personal preferences. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I Am wrote:Do you

Greatest I Am wrote:

Do you believe that children should get the first seats in the lifeboats?

What makes children necessarily more valuable and worthy of life than adults? Even those who do horrific things were babies and children once.

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

who is best suited to take care of these children? Men or women?

All other things being equal, children are best cared for by BOTH of their biological parents. I have no idea, even in general, which one does a better job.

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

Should the strong fight to protect the weak or should the weak fight to protect the strong?

This statement from Beyond Saving describes my thoughts very well:

Beyond Saving wrote:

People should protect whomever they desire to protect. I don't think that strength necessarily conveys an obligation to protect another person on its own. Nor do I believe that people can be clear cut into weak/strong categories. A person can be both at one time and the reality is that physical strength is far less important today than it was in the past. The vast majority of people will go through their lives without a serious physical conflict.

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

who is generally stronger? Men or women?

Statistically, the average man is physically both larger and stronger than the average woman.

 


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

 

Start at day one. Who is better at child rearing in answered by women because they can feed the child naturally while men cannot.

I agree with most of your other information and will only indicate that most two parent homes are in a better socio economic situation and that wealth has more to do with child rearing when comparing single or two parent families.

Regards

DL

 Actually the link i posted takes wealth into account when making its observations. 
   And statistically men earn more than women. So where does that leave you, if you think wealth is the biggest factor? Surely by your own argument men are therefore more important? 

  

 

Wealth is a factor but not the biggest for a healthy family life.

Was your home guided or made happy by wealth or by love?

Which of your parents did most of the rearing?

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am

Greatest I am wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

 

Start at day one. Who is better at child rearing in answered by women because they can feed the child naturally while men cannot.

I agree with most of your other information and will only indicate that most two parent homes are in a better socio economic situation and that wealth has more to do with child rearing when comparing single or two parent families.

Regards

DL

 Actually the link i posted takes wealth into account when making its observations. 
   And statistically men earn more than women. So where does that leave you, if you think wealth is the biggest factor? Surely by your own argument men are therefore more important? 

  

 

Wealth is a factor but not the biggest for a healthy family life.

Was your home guided or made happy by wealth or by love?

Which of your parents did most of the rearing?

 Regards

DL

 

 

If the biggest factor is love, and we also accept that single parents rear children less successfully on average (My patents divorced when I was 13 btw, but we're talking statistically, not individual cases), then by that logic single parents love their children less.

 


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Greatest

Beyond Saving wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
 

If a woman wants to work outside of the home, who the hell am I to suggest she should not?

 

If I as a male, want to work in the home, who is anyone else to deny me?

The same guy who thinks it is his place to suggest that women shouldn't be treated equal?

Who are you to suggest that an employer should hire a female regardless of the employer's preferences? I don't know, but apparently you have no problem suggesting laws to force that. If you are going to go down the road of saying government can and should pass laws to correct what you view as moral injustices I don't see why suddenly you let the preferences of some people get in the way while you freely trample the preferences of others. But my main point was that this particular stance doesn't seem cohesive with your stated values. You say it is so, ok, still a little perplexed but that is my problem not yours. 

 

Greatest I am wrote:
 

You do not understand my main position because you are mixing the work place which deserves full equality of the sexes with the whole of life, survival and sanctity which cannot as it involves reproduction and the duty of both men and women towards the whole of society.

It only involves reproduction if a couple decides to reproduce. If a couple decides to reproduce, then I agree that they bear the responsibility of making sure that the child is cared for. Whether they decide to set up a relationship where the male is superior to the female, the female is superior to the male or one where they are both equal seems completely irrelevant to me as long as both parties are consenting to the form of the relationship. I don't see one relationship as morally superior to the others. Which I assumed your OP was taking a definite stand that the only (or at least most) moral relationship is one in which the female is superior to the male.

But using that understanding of your point makes the whole "women first" tangent utterly pointless. Which is why I assumed your point was that males should treat females as superior and be protective of them not only in personal relationships but with strangers in public as well- which naturally extends to the workplace since most of our interactions in public occur at someones workplace.    

 

Greatest I am wrote:

All should be allowed and encouraged to follow their natures and exceptions to the general rules can be allowed and even embraced as learning tools but we are rule following entities and general rules should be set and recognized.

Why do we need rules? Do you believe that people are incapable of governing themselves? That seems at odds with the spirit of your two rhetorical questions at the beginning of this post. Why do you reject rules for who works where but then suggest that we should accept your rule of allowing/making women rule men? Or your rule that women should necessarily be saved first? I reject the idea that such rules are either needed or desirable outside of an individual following their personal preferences. 

 

Why we need rules? 

Do you really think anarchy and chaos would serve us well?

Rules means that there is an authority that will enforce them. That is the only thing at present that keeps those who would abuse us from doing whatever they want to whoever they want. Sure we should keep the number of rules as low as possible to give us as much freedom as possible but with freedom comes the responsibility to insure that all have them.

We both know that if the lifeboat rule was not in place that cowardly men would push women back on the ship to save themselves.

There are many Captain Cowards around.

Regards

DL

 

 


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Greatest

blacklight915 wrote:

Greatest I Am wrote:

Do you believe that children should get the first seats in the lifeboats?

What makes children necessarily more valuable and worthy of life than adults? Even those who do horrific things were babies and children once.

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

who is best suited to take care of these children? Men or women?

All other things being equal, children are best cared for by BOTH of their biological parents. I have no idea, even in general, which one does a better job.

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

Should the strong fight to protect the weak or should the weak fight to protect the strong?

This statement from Beyond Saving describes my thoughts very well:

Beyond Saving wrote:

People should protect whomever they desire to protect. I don't think that strength necessarily conveys an obligation to protect another person on its own. Nor do I believe that people can be clear cut into weak/strong categories. A person can be both at one time and the reality is that physical strength is far less important today than it was in the past. The vast majority of people will go through their lives without a serious physical conflict.

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

who is generally stronger? Men or women?

Statistically, the average man is physically both larger and stronger than the average woman.

 

 

You do not seem to recognize that you have a duty to mankind or family and do not thing the stronger should pirotect the weaker or that passing on our genes to our children and insuring they outlive adults is the thing to do. Do you have any sense of duty and what is it?

 

"What makes children necessarily more valuable and worthy of life than adults?"

 

They hold the genes that you should be interested in passing down.

 

Do you think parents should bury their children or that children should bury their parents. Your view says that it does not matter. Perhaps your instincts have lost the desire to pass on your genes.

 

Regards

DL  

  


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am wrote:Rules

Greatest I am wrote:

Rules means that there is an authority that will enforce them. That is the only thing at present that keeps those who would abuse us from doing whatever they want to whoever they want.  

Rules don't stop this at all. That's why they are broken often and regularly.

Being locked up stops the sociopaths and most dangerous criminal types. Rules mean jack shit to them.

 

 

Greatest I am wrote:

 "What makes children necessarily more valuable and worthy of life than adults?"

They hold the genes that you should be interested in passing down.

That's only true of YOUR children - an average child or an average (breeding age) adult, neither directly related to you should weigh roughly evenly in your consideration, genetically speaking. If anything, the adult should weigh slightly higher, as on a species level they have already succeeded in getting to breeding age, whereas the child has not, and may never. If you are a man, an adult, breeding age woman should weigh slightly higher still, as they are a potential carrier for your genes into the next generation (and vice versa).

 

 


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Rules means that there is an authority that will enforce them. That is the only thing at present that keeps those who would abuse us from doing whatever they want to whoever they want.  

Rules don't stop this at all. That's why they are broken often and regularly.

Being locked up stops the sociopaths and most dangerous criminal types. Rules mean jack shit to them.

 

 

Greatest I am wrote:

 "What makes children necessarily more valuable and worthy of life than adults?"

They hold the genes that you should be interested in passing down.

That's only true of YOUR children - an average child or an average (breeding age) adult, neither directly related to you should weigh roughly evenly in your consideration, genetically speaking. If anything, the adult should weigh slightly higher, as on a species level they have already succeeded in getting to breeding age, whereas the child has not, and may never. If you are a man, an adult, breeding age woman should weigh slightly higher still, as they are a potential carrier for your genes into the next generation (and vice versa).

 

 

You are right that rules mean nothing to the sociopath but the rule that that says that you can lock them up means quite a bit to you does it not?

 

Thanks for agreeing that women are more important to reproduction than men.

 

You seem to recognize that the gene line should be protected. It should be all so think globally and not just of your own. The man who protects your offspring does his duty to the species and so should you in protecting his.

 

Reciprocity is fair play and a moral tenet.  

 

Regards

DL

 

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am wrote:Thanks

Greatest I am wrote:

Thanks for agreeing that women are more important to reproduction than men.

Who said that? I didn't. I gave an example from a man's point of view, and specifically stated it is equally true in reverse from a woman's point of view.

 

 

Greatest I am wrote:

You seem to recognize that the gene line should be protected. It should be all so think globally and not just of your own. The man who protects your offspring does his duty to the species and so should you in protecting his.

 

Ok, staying within this paradigm of passing on genes as the most important factor in reproduction and rearing, then you're partially correct; however you are missing an important part. Yes, as a species we should all have an interest in protecting other members of the species, because those members contain high numbers of genes similar to our own. so from my perspective saving a human's life is more important than saving a chimps, and saving a chimp's is more important than saving a worm.

However, WITHIN the human species there is still variation in the percentage of genes an individual shares with other individuals. You will share a very high level of similar genes to your father; your son will be very genetically similar to you and your wife. Therefore I should be more willing to save my son's life than another random human's. I should save my own life before my son's, if I'm still breeding age, because the ratio of genes is 1:1 for me, and slightly less than that for my son compared to me. So on a scale of which individual should I save, it should be:

Me > close relatives > distant relatives > random humans > chimps > worms

Now when it comes to saving more than one person it starts getting into probabilities (homework - should I save myself or my 3 brothers?), but my point is that in the selfish interests of your genes, you should save individuals with the highest similar numbers of genes to you irrespective of sex.

Genetically Age counts against you - if you can no longer breed you're genetically worthless except to help raising relatives' young, and the more junior an individual is, the less likely they are to live to breeding age - and so more effort would need to be invested by other family members to get them to the stage where they can pass on genes. Therefore, if given an ultimatum, you should save the older/healthier child. This is seen in nature regularly (runts of the litter rarely survive to maturity).

 

 

 

 

 

 


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I Am wrote:They

Greatest I Am wrote:

They hold the genes that you should be interested in passing down.

Genes are not the most important factor in creating a good society.

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

Do you think parents should bury their children or that children should bury their parents.

While both are quite sad, I think most parents (and children) would prefer the latter.

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

Perhaps your instincts have lost the desire to pass on your genes.

Since I'm autistic, passing on my genes would be detrimental to society. Fortunately, there are many other, and better, ways I can help. Besides, is underpopulation among humanity's current problems?

 

I'll address your first question a bit later.

 


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Thanks for agreeing that women are more important to reproduction than men.

Who said that? I didn't. I gave an example from a man's point of view, and specifically stated it is equally true in reverse from a woman's point of view.

 

 

Greatest I am wrote:

You seem to recognize that the gene line should be protected. It should be all so think globally and not just of your own. The man who protects your offspring does his duty to the species and so should you in protecting his.

 

Ok, staying within this paradigm of passing on genes as the most important factor in reproduction and rearing, then you're partially correct; however you are missing an important part. Yes, as a species we should all have an interest in protecting other members of the species, because those members contain high numbers of genes similar to our own. so from my perspective saving a human's life is more important than saving a chimps, and saving a chimp's is more important than saving a worm.

However, WITHIN the human species there is still variation in the percentage of genes an individual shares with other individuals. You will share a very high level of similar genes to your father; your son will be very genetically similar to you and your wife. Therefore I should be more willing to save my son's life than another random human's. I should save my own life before my son's, if I'm still breeding age, because the ratio of genes is 1:1 for me, and slightly less than that for my son compared to me. So on a scale of which individual should I save, it should be:

Me > close relatives > distant relatives > random humans > chimps > worms

Now when it comes to saving more than one person it starts getting into probabilities (homework - should I save myself or my 3 brothers?), but my point is that in the selfish interests of your genes, you should save individuals with the highest similar numbers of genes to you irrespective of sex.

Genetically Age counts against you - if you can no longer breed you're genetically worthless except to help raising relatives' young, and the more junior an individual is, the less likely they are to live to breeding age - and so more effort would need to be invested by other family members to get them to the stage where they can pass on genes. Therefore, if given an ultimatum, you should save the older/healthier child. This is seen in nature regularly (runts of the litter rarely survive to maturity).

 

 

No argument except with your gene hierarchy of protection.

If we were led strictly by that, you would let a son die and save a brother or sister. His genes are the closest to your own. Breeding age is also a factor and we agree on that.

 

Our next issue should be child rearing and who is more fit to do so.

 

At birth, the woman is the obvious choice for man to protect and elevate as she is the only one who can naturally feed it thanks to her breasts. At that point in time she is more important than the male to the baby.

Over time this changes somewhat but to reverse the situation means lowering her status and just treating her as a breeding and feeding machine and FMPOV, this would be immoral and thus the whole picture of the family would lose sanctity.

 

Regards

DL 

 


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Greatest

blacklight915 wrote:

Greatest I Am wrote:

They hold the genes that you should be interested in passing down.

Genes are not the most important factor in creating a good society.

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

Do you think parents should bury their children or that children should bury their parents.

While both are quite sad, I think most parents (and children) would prefer the latter.

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

Perhaps your instincts have lost the desire to pass on your genes.

Since I'm autistic, passing on my genes would be detrimental to society. Fortunately, there are many other, and better, ways I can help. Besides, is underpopulation among humanity's current problems?

 

I'll address your first question a bit later.

 

 

You say that genes are not the most important part to creating a good society without showing what you think is. You should offer an argument without having to be asked. It saves time and allows me to return with an argument against instead of just a request for your argument. That is how debate is done my friend."

 

"Since I'm autistic, passing on my genes would be detrimental to society."

 

How short sighted you are my young friend.

 

Would you have advised the mothers of people like Stephen Hawkins or Mozart to not pass on their genes because they were not closer to the status quo?

 

A better society is created out of ideas be they from an autistic person or from one closer to the status quo.

 

Regards

DL

 

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am wrote:No

 

Greatest I am wrote:

No argument except with your gene hierarchy of protection.

It's you who brought up gene similarity as a reason for choosing who to save:

Greatest I am wrote:

"What makes children necessarily more valuable and worthy of life than adults?"

They hold the genes that you should be interested in passing down.

 

Greatest I am wrote:

If we were led strictly by that, you would let a son die and save a brother or sister. His genes are the closest to your own. Breeding age is also a factor and we agree on that.

 

Not true, I can potentially share anything from 0% to 100% of genes with my brother (that's only the ones of hereditary interest - we'd obviously share all the ones both our parents also share). However I will definitely share 50% of hereditary genes with my son. If you don't understand this I can describe it further with some examples.

I'd also point out that I am not espousing genetic similarity as a basis for morals - I was merely working within your own paradigm.

 

Greatest I am wrote:

Our next issue should be child rearing and who is more fit to do so.

 

Ok, so you're dropping the genetic argument then. So that means you've not answered the question it stemmed from yet: "What makes children necessarily more valuable and worthy of life than adults?"

 

Greatest I am wrote:

At birth, the woman is the obvious choice for man to protect and elevate as she is the only one who can naturally feed it thanks to her breasts. At that point in time she is more important than the male to the baby.

 

Who's point of view are you looking at? you start with the male and end with the baby, so this is not a consistant observation.

 

At this point I'd like you to let me know, are we talking about modern society, or more along the lines of our hunter gatherer ancestors? Babies can be successfully bottle-fed (it's agreed that it's not as good as breast milk, but it's an acceptable alternative) so your 'breasts' point is not relevant in modern society. In a hunter gatherer society, the male is extremely important as a means of protection to both the female and baby, and for finding a source of nutrients to the mother (meat), which enables her to breastfeed in the first place. 

 

Greatest I am wrote:

Over time this changes somewhat but to reverse the situation means lowering her status and just treating her as a breeding and feeding machine and FMPOV, this would be immoral and thus the whole picture of the family would lose sanctity.

So you're saying over time the woman becomes less important to the man than the baby? If you believe that, why wouldn't this this also be true that men become less important, from the woman's perspective? You are fallaciously presupposing a greater importance attached to who men find important, rather than treating both male and female viewpoints equally, and so are guilty of inequality of thought while at the same time trying to fight for the right of women to become more important than men, which is hypocritical.

 

If I reverse the argument you've made you should see this:

"At birth, the man is the obvious choice for woman to look after and elevate as he is the only one who can naturally fight off danger thanks to his muscles and weaponry skills. At that point in time he is more important than the female to the baby.

Over time this changes somewhat but to reverse the situation means lowering his status and just treating him as a breeding machine and bodyguard and FMPOV, this would be immoral and thus the whole picture of the family would lose sanctity."

Now the woman seems to be the subjective root of importance in the family - is that any better? Or do you see that both are equally important for successful rearing?

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4282
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Greatest I am wrote:Why we

Greatest I am wrote:

Why we need rules? 

Do you really think anarchy and chaos would serve us well?

I was distinguishing between rules and laws. Laws being implemented through force. Rules being voluntary things we might say people should follow but are unwilling to use physical force to coerce people. I think that for most situations that anarchy and chaos are great, the only time anarchy breaks down is when someone attempts to impose their rules on others so ironically we need laws to prevent people from imposing their rules. The biggest danger in anarchy is a lack of anarchy.

I can agree that we need a law punishing you for killing me or punishing me for killing you. But do we need a "women first" rule? I don't think so.  

 

Greatest I am wrote:

Rules means that there is an authority that will enforce them.

I think it would be prudent for the sake of discussion for us to agree to distinguish between laws which are enforced using police power and rules. Based on what you have said so far I do not think you would support throwing men in jail for getting on a life boat when a woman was still on the ship, although you do support a general rule of women first. Please correct me if I am wrong. I agree we need laws for actions that as society we deem so destructive that it is appropriate for us to use collective force to prevent them. I am not so convinced that we need a set of rules outside of those. 

 

Greatest I am wrote:

That is the only thing at present that keeps those who would abuse us from doing whatever they want to whoever they want.

Nonsense. Last night I kept myself from beating the shit out of a misogynist asshole at the bar, I was hardly thinking of any rules since as a regular customer I was quite confident (and I confirmed after said asshole left) that the barmaid would testify to the police that he threw the first punch. However, even in my inebriated state I was able to restrain my desires because I recognized that the temporary pleasure I would derive from smashing his face in the bar was merely temporary. People exercise such self restraint on a daily basis whether there is a rule or not.

 

Greatest I am wrote:

We both know that if the lifeboat rule was not in place that cowardly men would push women back on the ship to save themselves.

There are many Captain Cowards around. 

I don't know that, please provide some evidence- in the history of naval disasters there have been very few captain cowards. Hence why you can say "captain coward" and I know precisely the individual you are referencing.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
Your parents are a and

Your parents are a and b. You and your siblings are 1/2a and 1/2b Your children are ½ of 1/2a and 1/2b + ½ of your wife 1/2c + 1/2d ---- c and d coming from her parents. Note that your closest match is your siblings and not your children. This also shows the impossibility of your “0% to 100% of genes with my brother”, is wrong as you cannot have 0% of your sibling’s genes. They will always be close to 100%. Conclusion. If the goal is to preserve your closest genetic match then your sibling is to be saved and not your child. If you cannot see this then refute it. ---------------------- “Who's point of view are you looking at?” From the POV of the gene pattern that both parents want to pass down, the babies. -------------------------- “So you're saying over time the woman becomes less important to the man than the baby? If you believe that, why wouldn't this this also be true that men become less important, from the woman's perspective? You are fallaciously presupposing a greater importance attached to who men find important, rather than treating both male and female viewpoints equally, and so are guilty of inequality of thought while at the same time trying to fight for the right of women to become more important than men, which is hypocritical.” Stop putting word in my mouth and then branding me based on your words or this dialog ends with this post. I do not practice hypocricy and if you think I do then go away. I am saying that both the mother and father will if need be sacrifice their lives for the children. Regards DL


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 I'd propose a minarchist

 I'd propose a minarchist government rather than anarchy - that way you can have a system of laws and their enforcement (and maintenance of general infrastructure if you so wish), pertaining only to protection of individuals and property, and free-market everything else.


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
The description for that

The description for that style of governance includes.

"the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected,"

Which goes against free market which is likely why no one speaks of it. On the face of it, it seems to be an impossible system where if all goes well in the transaction then the participants want full freedom yet if it goes south, they want government intervention.

Regards
DL


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Greatest I am wrote:Your

 

Greatest I am wrote:

Your parents are a and b. You and your siblings are 1/2a and 1/2b Your children are ½ of 1/2a and 1/2b + ½ of your wife 1/2c + 1/2d ---- c and d coming from her parents. Note that your closest match is your siblings and not your children. This also shows the impossibility of your “0% to 100% of genes with my brother”, is wrong as you cannot have 0% of your sibling’s genes. They will always be close to 100%. Conclusion. If the goal is to preserve your closest genetic match then your sibling is to be saved and not your child. If you cannot see this then refute it.
I certainly do refute this. You do not understand genetics. I am just about to leave work now, but I'll respond with a run through of why you're wrong when I get home.  
Greatest I am wrote:
---------------------- “Who's point of view are you looking at?” From the POV of the gene pattern that both parents want to pass down, the babies. 
 Back to genetics - the goal isn't  to preserve the baby because it has the best objective gene pattern out of the three of you - the goal is to preserve it because it's carrying as many of your genes as it can - 50%. It also carries 50% of your partner's genes; actually from your gene's point of view that's a weakness, but it's the only way they can propagate themselves, so it's a trade off they have to make. Ideally they'd prefer a complete clone, with 100% the same as themselves. This is the basis of the book "The selfish gene" by Dawkins that I'd suggest reading if you find this stuff interesting. In a game where only one can survive, from a genetic point of view each individual should choose itself, unless that individual can no longer breed, in which case they should choose the individual with the highest number of similar genes to themselves - the child.  
Greatest I am wrote:
-------------------------- “So you're saying over time the woman becomes less important to the man than the baby? If you believe that, why wouldn't this this also be true that men become less important, from the woman's perspective? You are fallaciously presupposing a greater importance attached to who men find important, rather than treating both male and female viewpoints equally, and so are guilty of inequality of thought while at the same time trying to fight for the right of women to become more important than men, which is hypocritical.”  Stop putting word in my mouth and then branding me based on your words or this dialog ends with this post. I do not practice hypocricy and if you think I do then go away.  
 Where am I putting words in your mouth or branding you? I maintain that your argument is hypocritical because you have a problem with the supposed lowering of status of women, have no problem with lowering the status of men (your OP is about women being more important) but you also state "Reciprocity is fair play and a moral tenet. " - it's only fair play if it's even, which therefore means both man and woman must fairly participate, and therefore be equal.  
Greatest I am wrote:
I am saying that both the mother and father will if need be sacrifice their lives for the children. Regards DL
 This is actually the first time you've stated this. You're moving the goalposts constantly in this debate. You've still not answered:"What makes children necessarily more valuable and worthy of life than adults?" (Well you answered it but then rescinded your answer) "Are we talking about modern society, or more along the lines of our hunter gatherer ancestors?" 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4282
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Greatest I am wrote:Your

Greatest I am wrote:

Your parents are a and b. You and your siblings are 1/2a and 1/2b Your children are ½ of 1/2a and 1/2b + ½ of your wife 1/2c + 1/2d ---- c and d coming from her parents. Note that your closest match is your siblings and not your children. This also shows the impossibility of your “0% to 100% of genes with my brother”, is wrong as you cannot have 0% of your sibling’s genes. They will always be close to 100%.

Please provide evidence because I believe you are completely making that up. It has been over a decade since I seriously researched genetics so I am not completely up to date on the subject, but from what I remember all humans have over 99.5% identical genes- that is why we are human as opposed to being born a dog or a fish. So the only thing that is relevant are the genetic differences between the parents, which in the grand scheme of things is pretty insignificant. Of those, children get roughly 50% from the father and roughly 50% from the mother.

I say roughly because there is a small amount of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which comes 100% from the mother, so all children of the same woman have identical mtDNA except in the rare occurrence of mutation, but aside from the mtDNA it is possible for siblings to have completely different outcomes in which differences they inherit.

Since parents generally are not polar opposites and can have many genes that overlap (for example, both parents might carry the gene for brown hair, greatly increasing the odds of all of their children having brown hair) , generally a child will share over 50% of their genetic variance with their siblings. It is possible, however unlikely, that siblings will inherit completely opposing DNA and genetically be no more similar to their sibling than they are to the neighbor across the street except for the mtDNA. It is impossible to share 0% of your DNA with your sibling and still both be human (or even carbon based lifeforms), it is perfectly possible to share 0% of your parents genetic differences with your sibling- which I think it is pretty obvious that GodsUse was referring to the genetic differences only. 

To illustrate this you can take a deck of play cards and separate it into two piles one with the red cards one with the black. Shuffle both piles and deal half the cards from each pile. Do the same with a second deck and compare the cards. The vast majority of the time, roughly 50% of the cards will be the same, but it is possible that the cards you have dealt from the separate decks will be identical or completely opposite. Same thing with your genes. But as I noted, in practice the parents are generally not polar opposites and while you only get 50% of your genetics from your father it is likely that you share more than 50% of potentially variable genes with him because your father probably has many genes that are identical to your mothers and whether you get them from your mother or father is irrelevant- you are going to get the same gene unless it mutates.

 

Science geeks out there, if I got anything wrong here please correct me. As I noted, I was very intrigued with cloning about 15 years ago and did a lot of study on the subject but since my curiosity was satisfied I have not kept up with the newest research beyond the occasional layman article so if anything I have said is inaccurate or if new discoveries have been made in this regard please correct me.  

 

edit: broke my wall o text into this newfangled invention called paragraphs Smiling

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Greatest

Beyond Saving wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Your parents are a and b. You and your siblings are 1/2a and 1/2b Your children are ½ of 1/2a and 1/2b + ½ of your wife 1/2c + 1/2d ---- c and d coming from her parents. Note that your closest match is your siblings and not your children. This also shows the impossibility of your “0% to 100% of genes with my brother”, is wrong as you cannot have 0% of your sibling’s genes. They will always be close to 100%.

Please provide evidence because I believe you are completely making that up. It has been over a decade since I seriously researched genetics so I am not completely up to date on the subject, but from what I remember all humans have over 99.5% identical genes- that is why we are human as opposed to being born a dog or a fish. So the only thing that is relevant are the genetic differences between the parents, which in the grand scheme of things is pretty insignificant. Of those, children get roughly 50% from the father and roughly 50% from the mother.

I say roughly because there is a small amount of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which comes 100% from the mother, so all children of the same woman have identical mtDNA except in the rare occurrence of mutation, but aside from the mtDNA it is possible for siblings to have completely different outcomes in which differences they inherit.

Since parents generally are not polar opposites and can have many genes that overlap (for example, both parents might carry the gene for brown hair, greatly increasing the odds of all of their children having brown hair) , generally a child will share over 50% of their genetic variance with their siblings. It is possible, however unlikely, that siblings will inherit completely opposing DNA and genetically be no more similar to their sibling than they are to the neighbor across the street except for the mtDNA. It is impossible to share 0% of your DNA with your sibling and still both be human (or even carbon based lifeforms), it is perfectly possible to share 0% of your parents genetic differences with your sibling- which I think it is pretty obvious that GodsUse was referring to the genetic differences only. 

To illustrate this you can take a deck of play cards and separate it into two piles one with the red cards one with the black. Shuffle both piles and deal half the cards from each pile. Do the same with a second deck and compare the cards. The vast majority of the time, roughly 50% of the cards will be the same, but it is possible that the cards you have dealt from the separate decks will be identical or completely opposite. Same thing with your genes. But as I noted, in practice the parents are generally not polar opposites and while you only get 50% of your genetics from your father it is likely that you share more than 50% of potentially variable genes with him because your father probably has many genes that are identical to your mothers and whether you get them from your mother or father is irrelevant- you are going to get the same gene unless it mutates.

 

Science geeks out there, if I got anything wrong here please correct me. As I noted, I was very intrigued with cloning about 15 years ago and did a lot of study on the subject but since my curiosity was satisfied I have not kept up with the newest research beyond the occasional layman article so if anything I have said is inaccurate or if new discoveries have been made in this regard please correct me.  

 

edit: broke my wall o text into this newfangled invention called paragraphs Smiling

 

^This.  

 

I was indeed referring only to the genetic differences when I said "that's only the ones of hereditary interest - we'd obviously share all the ones both our parents also share" - genetic differences is admittedly more succinct.

SO GIA, please don't come in hard on a subject when you're easily proven to be completely wrong on it - these forums host a plethora of educated people who can and will call you on it.

(PS Beyond you didn't mention Y-DNA which is only present in the paternal line and can be used to check for paternal-only lineage. But otherwise a strong couple of paragraphs pulled from the recesses of your mind).

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 on a re-read i realize i

 on a re-read i realize i took your quote on reciprocity out of context.  I withdraw that and apologise. 

 I'd appreciate if you could address the two unanswered questions which i mentioned in my above post. 

 


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I Am wrote:You say

Greatest I Am wrote:

You say that genes are not the most important part to creating a good society without showing what you think is. You should offer an argument without having to be asked. It saves time and allows me to return with an argument against instead of just a request for your argument.

Perhaps I should have. This time, however, you provided the answer yourself: "A better society is created out of ideas". Knowledge is what's most important for making a good society. Furthermore, reproduction is not required for me to successfully share my ideas with others.

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

How short sighted you are my young friend. Would you have advised the mothers of people like Stephen Hawkins or Mozart to not pass on their genes because they were not closer to the status quo?

On the contrary, it is my foresight that lets me know I should not reproduce. The positive effects of autism only outweigh the negative at the high-functioning end of the spectrum, and any children I have will be both more likely to be autistic and less likely to be any higher-functioning than I am. Besides, neither of my parents have autism or depression, and they still made me.

 


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
Blacklight My last word on

Blacklight

My last word on personal matters.
You are brighter than some I know who are normal and society has no idea as yet what benefits might come out of autism as you people are potential savants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTGuL4ng5Go

Einstein's E=mc2 has to be refuted before we can exceed the speed of light. If it can be refuted, it will likely be an autistic person who does it.

I am not sure if your trait always gets passed down or not but other genes that have been isolated for other conditions have led to breakthroughs in other diseases and that is why I value all genetic lines even if most would not want them. For all we can tell at this point in time, autism research might hold the cure for cancer. We do not know how much value to put on those who are genetically unique.

Quality of life for those like you is what we have to also consider, for abortion for instance, but we could be trying to rid ourselves of what might ultimately save us.

Live long and prosper.

Regards
DL


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Greatest

Beyond Saving wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Your parents are a and b. You and your siblings are 1/2a and 1/2b Your children are ½ of 1/2a and 1/2b + ½ of your wife 1/2c + 1/2d ---- c and d coming from her parents. Note that your closest match is your siblings and not your children. This also shows the impossibility of your “0% to 100% of genes with my brother”, is wrong as you cannot have 0% of your sibling’s genes. They will always be close to 100%.

Please provide evidence because I believe you are completely making that up. It has been over a decade since I seriously researched genetics so I am not completely up to date on the subject, but from what I remember all humans have over 99.5% identical genes- that is why we are human as opposed to being born a dog or a fish. So the only thing that is relevant are the genetic differences between the parents, which in the grand scheme of things is pretty insignificant. Of those, children get roughly 50% from the father and roughly 50% from the mother.

I say roughly because there is a small amount of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which comes 100% from the mother, so all children of the same woman have identical mtDNA except in the rare occurrence of mutation, but aside from the mtDNA it is possible for siblings to have completely different outcomes in which differences they inherit.

Since parents generally are not polar opposites and can have many genes that overlap (for example, both parents might carry the gene for brown hair, greatly increasing the odds of all of their children having brown hair) , generally a child will share over 50% of their genetic variance with their siblings. It is possible, however unlikely, that siblings will inherit completely opposing DNA and genetically be no more similar to their sibling than they are to the neighbor across the street except for the mtDNA. It is impossible to share 0% of your DNA with your sibling and still both be human (or even carbon based lifeforms), it is perfectly possible to share 0% of your parents genetic differences with your sibling- which I think it is pretty obvious that GodsUse was referring to the genetic differences only. 

To illustrate this you can take a deck of play cards and separate it into two piles one with the red cards one with the black. Shuffle both piles and deal half the cards from each pile. Do the same with a second deck and compare the cards. The vast majority of the time, roughly 50% of the cards will be the same, but it is possible that the cards you have dealt from the separate decks will be identical or completely opposite. Same thing with your genes. But as I noted, in practice the parents are generally not polar opposites and while you only get 50% of your genetics from your father it is likely that you share more than 50% of potentially variable genes with him because your father probably has many genes that are identical to your mothers and whether you get them from your mother or father is irrelevant- you are going to get the same gene unless it mutates.

 

Science geeks out there, if I got anything wrong here please correct me. As I noted, I was very intrigued with cloning about 15 years ago and did a lot of study on the subject but since my curiosity was satisfied I have not kept up with the newest research beyond the occasional layman article so if anything I have said is inaccurate or if new discoveries have been made in this regard please correct me.  

 

edit: broke my wall o text into this newfangled invention called paragraphs Smiling

 

I think you will find the answer here--------

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/71464-help-required/

 

I could not find the chart shown there but think it shows that I am correct.

If you do not agree you might debate with those who know more about genetics than I. Mine reply was based more on math and logic than genetics.

 

Regards

DL

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4282
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Greatest I am wrote:I think

Greatest I am wrote:

I think you will find the answer here--------

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/71464-help-required/

 

I could not find the chart shown there but think it shows that I am correct.

If you do not agree you might debate with those who know more about genetics than I. Mine reply was based more on math and logic than genetics.

 

Regards

DL

 

The chart only shows a crude estimation of the average. That would be the equivalent of me saying that if you flip a coin 100 times that 50 times it will show heads and 50 times it will show tails. On average, the statement would be correct. However, if you actually perform the experiment heads can show anywhere from 0-100 times. If you were attempting to guess the results beforehand your best guess would be 50 but if you perform the experiment multiple times you will see significant variance and most of the time your guess of 50 would be wrong. 

Similarly with genes, on average people will share 50% of their genetic variance with their siblings (and also 50% with their children), but in practice a person can have anywhere from 0-100% as GodsUse suggested. 

Your mathematical mistake is one of equivocation, you are assuming you and your sibling are the same 1/2a and 1/2b. 1/2a is not necessarily equal to 1/2a. For example, take it one step back. Your fathers genes are Aa, your mothers Bb. You will inherit some combination AB, Ab, aB or ab. (obviously an oversimplification because there are many more combinations since we have more than two genes)

Suppose you have four siblings and all inherit a different combination except one shares a combination with you. So you are AB and your siblings are Ab (50%), aB (50%), ab (0%) and AB (100%). So doing the math on average you share 50% of your genes with your siblings (50+50+0+100)/4= 50 however you have one sibling you share 100% with and another you share 0% with. 

OTOH, your children must have 50%. The mother being CD, and you being AB your children will be AC, AD, BC or BD. So basing the decision of whether to save sibling over the child with the sole goal being to protect your genetic code- it depends on which sibling. For two of the siblings it doesn't matter because they are equal to your child. With sibling ab it would be much better to choose your child and in sibling AB it would be better to choose the sibling. 

Now lets assume that you don't know what the genetic code of sibling X is but you know the four possibilities. It is best to save the child because 100% of the time you have achieved your goal and preserved at least some of your genetic code. If you save X there is a 25% chance that your genetic code has been completely eliminated.  

 

Edit: on re-reading this post it reads like something coming straight out of a Raymond Smullyan logic puzzle book. Just a random recommendation you should click the amazon link to your right and check out some of his books. For those with kids they want to teach logical thinking to they are great because they start very easy and build in difficulty to become very challenging by the end. Great exercise for the brain.   

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 It does not show that you

 It does not show that you are correct at all.

The first poster has grabbed an image from another blog writer, who is himself not being very clear in his article. The percentages he puts up are merely expected averages, not absolute figures. He quantifies this point somewhat obliquely in a response to one of the comments when he states: "If you have siblings, different genes in different combinations were passed onto then due to sexual reproduction creating a roulette effect, resulting in siblings sharing 'roughly' 50% of the genetic material, as well.  " - He should quantify this a little more in my opinion.

The second poster doesn't really answer the question.

I'm not sure how you can claim you were correct from this.

It's not a maths question, it's a genetic question which is how you were defining morality, so you can't just write it off as probability-based, especially when the assumptions when doing so lead to an incorrect outcome.

 

EDIT: IF you want some educated discussion on this I suggest this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=462325 - When the board members crunch the numbers, it turns out that the 'likelihood' is that you're more related to a sibling than either of your parents, but this is not guaranteed, as there is a variance in similarity among siblings, which parent-child relationships do not have. This is the point Beyond and I are making.

 


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
I mentioned that I could not

I mentioned that I could not find a chart showing my point but I do have a biologist stating that as fact in  this clip while speaking of bees and it does contain a graph in kin selection that also shows it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6dTU7KVpsg

 

This is my last argument here on this as it is off topic.

If you gentlemen wish to carry it further then I suggest we move it to that science link I put up as those there may have a better way of expressing it and the gentleman who put up that chart can deal with questions on it.

 

Regards

DL


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
  A new responder on that

  A new responder on that thread has said essentially the same thing that Beyond and I have, so I think your argument on this is dust.

 

So let's get back on target.

Your premises are that:

1) women are more valuable than men in general life and deserve to have a higher status.

because: They can feed children naturally

Please answer my question on whether you are talking about a modern society here, or philosophical hunter-gather society before we continue, as there are different points to be made concerning each.

because: they are better at rearing children than men (while you concede that actually a two parent family is statistically even better, rendering this justification unviable)

 

2) Children are more worthy to be saved than adults

because: "They hold the genes that you should be interested in passing down" - disproven above.

 

 

So far I do not consider that either of your assertions made above have any weight behind them. Would you care to restate your justifications / add new ones?

 

 


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
1) women are more valuable

1) women are more valuable than men in general life and deserve to have a higher status.

because: They can feed children naturally

Please answer my question on whether you are talking about a modern society here, or philosophical hunter-gather society before we continue, as there are different points to be made concerning each.

---------------------------------------

A good policy will go to all circumstances from one individual to the many.
To infinity IOW. From the beginnings of a society to the end of it with all possible situations taken into account.

You say modern society above and seem to think that men are no longer hardwired to be hunters and women to be gatherers. I do not agree. Man has not changed his basic nature for many years even as our mode of hunting and gathering has been made easier thanks to technology.

Men have always been and are still more rambunctious and risk takers as compared to women. Check the crime stats for proof of this. Look in any schoolyard to see who is doing the rough housing. Look in most homes or stores and you will find that the woman is more the gathering type than the males. Do you know many males who like to shop? I do not. Look at the armies. Do you see more men or more women?

Women have a higher status for society not only because they can feed the young at times of shortages, even if the trend is to bottle feed in modern societies, but because it would be silly and unjust for men to protect then during pregnancy and hold them above us then and then claw them back to equal or below us when they are not doing those two key aspects for society.

===============================

2) Children are more worthy to be saved than adults

because: "They hold the genes that you should be interested in passing down" - disproven above.

If our children do not hold the genes that we want to pass down then who is hell is holding them?

Again here. Think in infinite terms.

If old and beyond reproductive value, for a society that wants or needs to grow, as long as there are enough adults there to work to feed the young, the young are more valuable than the old. They can reproduce.

Imagine a city state with finite resources. If there are too many young as compared to the older that are required to sustain them, they will starve to death. If there are too many old who cannot sustain themselves, they will starve to death. A balance must be maintained for a society to maintain itself. This is what likely led the old city states to enact child sacrifice and reproductive laws. If there would have been too many children, some of the old would have had to be killed.

As I said, think in infinite terms with a society with unlimited resources and another with finite ones and either way children are the most important and then women and then the protecting males.

Regards
DL


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I Am wrote:A good

Greatest I Am wrote:

A good policy will go to all circumstances from one individual to the many. To infinity IOW. From the beginnings of a society to the end of it with all possible situations taken into account.

Um, is it even POSSIBLE to make a policy that comprehensive?

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

If our children do not hold the genes that we want to pass down then who is hell is holding them?

Uh, we are?  Besides, not everyone wants to pass their genes down. And, not everyone SHOULD pass their genes down.

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am wrote:1) women

Greatest I am wrote:

1) women are more valuable than men in general life and deserve to have a higher status.

because: They can feed children naturally

Please answer my question on whether you are talking about a modern society here, or philosophical hunter-gather society before we continue, as there are different points to be made concerning each.

--------------------------------------

A good policy will go to all circumstances from one individual to the many. To infinity IOW. From the beginnings of a society to the end of it with all possible situations taken into account. You say modern society above and seem to think that men are no longer hardwired to be hunters and women to be gatherers. I do not agree. Man has not changed his basic nature for many years even as our mode of hunting and gathering has been made easier thanks to technology. 

Men have always been and are still more rambunctious and risk takers as compared to women. Check the crime stats for proof of this. Look in any schoolyard to see who is doing the rough housing. Look in most homes or stores and you will find that the woman is more the gathering type than the males. Do you know many males who like to shop? I do not. Look at the armies. Do you see more men or more women? Women have a higher status for society not only because they can feed the young at times of shortages, even if the trend is to bottle feed in modern societies, but because it would be silly and unjust for men to protect then during pregnancy and hold them above us then and then claw them back to equal or below us when they are not doing those two key aspects for society.

You're making an assumption that men protect women during pregnancy because they consider them more important - thus providing them a higher status. Where do you get this from? Just because I'll give up my seat to a pregnant woman on a bus doesn't mean I consider her more important - I'll do the same for an old man, or someone with a broken leg. That's just politeness in society, based on making it easier for someone to get on with their day with minimal difficulty.

You could make an equivalent claim that women gather food for men to make them strong in times when they need protection, and so are considering them more important. Why is this viewpoint less valid than yours?

Your viewpoint is overly simplistic, assuming that all men have to give in society is 'protection' whereas this is simply not true. In modern society a man is capable of looking after a child every bit as well as a woman, and given that this is the case, must be afforded equal status in child-rearing terms. To do otherwise is unjust.

Greatest I am wrote:

2) Children are more worthy to be saved than adults 

because: "They hold the genes that you should be interested in passing down" - disproven above. 

If our children do not hold the genes that we want to pass down then who is hell is holding them? 

Again here. Think in infinite terms. If old and beyond reproductive value, for a society that wants or needs to grow, as long as there are enough adults there to work to feed the young, the young are more valuable than the old. 

They can reproduce. Imagine a city state with finite resources. If there are too many young as compared to the older that are required to sustain them, they will starve to death. If there are too many old who cannot sustain themselves, they will starve to death. A balance must be maintained for a society to maintain itself. This is what likely led the old city states to enact child sacrifice and reproductive laws. If there would have been too many children, some of the old would have had to be killed. As I said, think in infinite terms with a society with unlimited resources and another with finite ones and either way children are the most important and then women and then the protecting males.

Regards DL 

 

Do you really want to go done the genetic route again? If you don't then don't bring it up, because you've shown your knowledge is not up to snuff in that discussion. I'll ignore your first sentence and assume you don't.

Children CANNOT reproduce until they reach puberty. Therefore by your own argument you should place prepubescent children below reproductive adults in the order of saving importance. You are really not making sense in your paragraph above because in one breath you say " a balance must be maintained for a society to maintain itself" and then immediately afterwards say children are more important to save. That would be upsetting the balance, would it not?


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Greatest

blacklight915 wrote:

Greatest I Am wrote:

A good policy will go to all circumstances from one individual to the many. To infinity IOW. From the beginnings of a society to the end of it with all possible situations taken into account.

Um, is it even POSSIBLE to make a policy that comprehensive?

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

If our children do not hold the genes that we want to pass down then who is hell is holding them?

Uh, we are?  Besides, not everyone wants to pass their genes down. And, not everyone SHOULD pass their genes down.

 

You may be right but at this point in time, as with the examples shown above, we do not know which defective gene could be the one needed to save us from some upcoming killer virus. We might throw out the baby with the bath water. If they are actual mistakes, then we should try to learn from these mistakes, as we have already done through the isolation and tracking of defective genes, and learn even more from our mistakes instead of killing them off.

A good analogy of this is all the psychological information that we have learned from keeping murderers alive and studying them instead of killing them off and learning nothing.

Regards
DL


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 

Greatest I am wrote:

1) women are more valuable than men in general life and deserve to have a higher status.

because: They can feed children naturally

Please answer my question on whether you are talking about a modern society here, or philosophical hunter-gather society before we continue, as there are different points to be made concerning each.

--------------------------------------

A good policy will go to all circumstances from one individual to the many. To infinity IOW. From the beginnings of a society to the end of it with all possible situations taken into account. You say modern society above and seem to think that men are no longer hardwired to be hunters and women to be gatherers. I do not agree. Man has not changed his basic nature for many years even as our mode of hunting and gathering has been made easier thanks to technology. 

Men have always been and are still more rambunctious and risk takers as compared to women. Check the crime stats for proof of this. Look in any schoolyard to see who is doing the rough housing. Look in most homes or stores and you will find that the woman is more the gathering type than the males. Do you know many males who like to shop? I do not. Look at the armies. Do you see more men or more women? Women have a higher status for society not only because they can feed the young at times of shortages, even if the trend is to bottle feed in modern societies, but because it would be silly and unjust for men to protect then during pregnancy and hold them above us then and then claw them back to equal or below us when they are not doing those two key aspects for society.

You're making an assumption that men protect women during pregnancy because they consider them more important - thus providing them a higher status. Where do you get this from? Just because I'll give up my seat to a pregnant woman on a bus doesn't mean I consider her more important - I'll do the same for an old man, or someone with a broken leg. That's just politeness in society, based on making it easier for someone to get on with their day with minimal difficulty.

You could make an equivalent claim that women gather food for men to make them strong in times when they need protection, and so are considering them more important. Why is this viewpoint less valid than yours?

Your viewpoint is overly simplistic, assuming that all men have to give in society is 'protection' whereas this is simply not true. In modern society a man is capable of looking after a child every bit as well as a woman, and given that this is the case, must be afforded equal status in child-rearing terms. To do otherwise is unjust.

Greatest I am wrote:

2) Children are more worthy to be saved than adults 

because: "They hold the genes that you should be interested in passing down" - disproven above. 

If our children do not hold the genes that we want to pass down then who is hell is holding them? 

Again here. Think in infinite terms. If old and beyond reproductive value, for a society that wants or needs to grow, as long as there are enough adults there to work to feed the young, the young are more valuable than the old. 

They can reproduce. Imagine a city state with finite resources. If there are too many young as compared to the older that are required to sustain them, they will starve to death. If there are too many old who cannot sustain themselves, they will starve to death. A balance must be maintained for a society to maintain itself. This is what likely led the old city states to enact child sacrifice and reproductive laws. If there would have been too many children, some of the old would have had to be killed. As I said, think in infinite terms with a society with unlimited resources and another with finite ones and either way children are the most important and then women and then the protecting males.

Regards DL 

 

Do you really want to go done the genetic route again? If you don't then don't bring it up, because you've shown your knowledge is not up to snuff in that discussion. I'll ignore your first sentence and assume you don't.

Children CANNOT reproduce until they reach puberty. Therefore by your own argument you should place prepubescent children below reproductive adults in the order of saving importance. You are really not making sense in your paragraph above because in one breath you say " a balance must be maintained for a society to maintain itself" and then immediately afterwards say children are more important to save. That would be upsetting the balance, would it not?

 

 

In a finite resourced reality or any reality basically, children are our future. If they endanger the present then as the ancients did, they should be sacrificed. The same goes for women or men if they are destructive to the whole common and are over represented. Note that nature has an almost 50/50 rate of birth. Is that chance or is it a survival mechanism. I think it evolved to enhance survival.

In a perfect society, all should be allowed to follow their nature be they male, female or all the natures in between. We are a species of rule following entities and that is what we do all day, every day. Chaos and anarchy we do not allow.

Have you ever heard of the 8o/20 rule? It more or less says that rules will serve the 80% best and the 20% not so well.

My view is that rules should be set to serve morals. 20& will not like those rules as much as the 80%.

I gave this as an example of the best morals.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Do you agree with this or not?

If not give your best 5 rules of morality.

If you do agree in principle with them then describe what you think is meant by sanctity.

If we cannot agree on morals which is what guides my beliefs and rules, we will not get anywhere so please make that effort so I can see what the base is on which you have formed your opinion.

Regards
DL


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4282
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Greatest I am wrote:You may

Greatest I am wrote:

You may be right but at this point in time, as with the examples shown above, we do not know which defective gene could be the one needed to save us from some upcoming killer virus. We might throw out the baby with the bath water. If they are actual mistakes, then we should try to learn from these mistakes, as we have already done through the isolation and tracking of defective genes, and learn even more from our mistakes instead of killing them off. A good analogy of this is all the psychological information that we have learned from keeping murderers alive and studying them instead of killing them off and learning nothing. Regards DL

Nor do we know which gene will cause the destruction of our species. More than one animal evolved their way into extinction. Ultimately, much of what drives evolution is pure chance- their is no intelligence guiding evolution to ensure that a particular change in a species is going to aid its survival long term. A gene mutates and is either passed on or not, if it is passed on it is likely it will appear more frequently, if not the mutation ceases to exist regardless of whether or not the mutation is actually good for the species long term.

"Survival of the fittest" is a nice broad motif that can be used to teach evolution at a 3rd grade level, but when you start looking into the specifics, the survivors are not always the fittest. Much of what evolves is sheer dumb luck. Evolution does not have a goal and the changes that occur are not always in the best interests of the species in terms of future generations surviving. It simply exists, and like gravity, sometimes it is really useful and sometimes it will kill you. I have heard biologists suggest that ultimately evolution must lead to the extinction of a species because given infinite time you have infinite mutations and it is only a matter of time before a mutation that leads to extinction becomes dominant.

Since virtually all species from millions of years ago are extinct, there seems to be a significant amount of evidence to support this view. Perhaps as humans with our intelligence will be able to prevent that fate because we may become capable of micromanaging our genetic makeup so that our evolution will have an intelligence behind it. Of course, it is also possible that we will unwittingly mutate ourselves out of existence. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 With respect, You're

 With respect, You're evading the questions put to you.

We're talking about YOUR moral framework, which states that women and children are more important than men. I'm asking you to justify YOUR morality with respect to this.

 

My morals have nothing to do with this conversation. I'm attempting to work out how you justify the conclusions you have come to within your own paradigm. If you treated it as an axiom of your morality, then you'd have nothing to justify, but you didn't, you came to it as a conclusion based upon what I consider to be flawed premises.

I haven't had time to watch your link - but it looks like the same one in your OP, which as far as I could tell had nothing to do with treating women as more important than men.

 

 

 

 


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I Am wrote:and

Greatest I Am wrote:

and learn even more from our mistakes instead of killing them off

Nowhere have I suggested that we kill anyone off. However, I absolutely DO NOT support knowingly creating people with severe genetic disorders.

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

 

I gave this as an example of the best morals.

Well, I'm still not convinced the last three are legitimate sources of morality.

 


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Greatest

Beyond Saving wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

You may be right but at this point in time, as with the examples shown above, we do not know which defective gene could be the one needed to save us from some upcoming killer virus. We might throw out the baby with the bath water. If they are actual mistakes, then we should try to learn from these mistakes, as we have already done through the isolation and tracking of defective genes, and learn even more from our mistakes instead of killing them off. A good analogy of this is all the psychological information that we have learned from keeping murderers alive and studying them instead of killing them off and learning nothing. Regards DL

Nor do we know which gene will cause the destruction of our species. More than one animal evolved their way into extinction. Ultimately, much of what drives evolution is pure chance- their is no intelligence guiding evolution to ensure that a particular change in a species is going to aid its survival long term. A gene mutates and is either passed on or not, if it is passed on it is likely it will appear more frequently, if not the mutation ceases to exist regardless of whether or not the mutation is actually good for the species long term.

"Survival of the fittest" is a nice broad motif that can be used to teach evolution at a 3rd grade level, but when you start looking into the specifics, the survivors are not always the fittest. Much of what evolves is sheer dumb luck. Evolution does not have a goal and the changes that occur are not always in the best interests of the species in terms of future generations surviving. It simply exists, and like gravity, sometimes it is really useful and sometimes it will kill you. I have heard biologists suggest that ultimately evolution must lead to the extinction of a species because given infinite time you have infinite mutations and it is only a matter of time before a mutation that leads to extinction becomes dominant.

Since virtually all species from millions of years ago are extinct, there seems to be a significant amount of evidence to support this view. Perhaps as humans with our intelligence will be able to prevent that fate because we may become capable of micromanaging our genetic makeup so that our evolution will have an intelligence behind it. Of course, it is also possible that we will unwittingly mutate ourselves out of existence. 

I agree with most of this. Seeing as how the dinosaurs lived for millions of years, I do not think that man will be driven to extinction by his own genes. Mutations seem to work more on turning our genetic switches on or off and I cannot see our own genome killing us off but you are basically correct. It is a turkey shoot.

 

Regards

DL

 


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 With respect, You're evading the questions put to you.

We're talking about YOUR moral framework, which states that women and children are more important than men. I'm asking you to justify YOUR morality with respect to this.

 

My morals have nothing to do with this conversation. I'm attempting to work out how you justify the conclusions you have come to within your own paradigm. If you treated it as an axiom of your morality, then you'd have nothing to justify, but you didn't, you came to it as a conclusion based upon what I consider to be flawed premises.

I haven't had time to watch your link - but it looks like the same one in your OP, which as far as I could tell had nothing to do with treating women as more important than men.

 

My morality says that I have a duty to our species in terms of insuring it's longevity. Not just so that the genes I pass on live on but that my species does as I know that my genes cannot live for long all by themselves.

In species where the young need parental care, it is given or the species would die out. That makes care of the young rule number one. Rule number two would be to care for those that children rely on for care the most and that would be women. First while carrying the baby and secondly, under whatever conditions are around, to feed it. Note that in some countries, milk, other than the mothers is sometimes rare.

Note also that in most animal species where the male is the larger and stronger, like ours, the males are always first to protect the offspring and females be they pregnant or not.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Greatest

blacklight915 wrote:

Greatest I Am wrote:

and learn even more from our mistakes instead of killing them off

Nowhere have I suggested that we kill anyone off. However, I absolutely DO NOT support knowingly creating people with severe genetic disorders.

 

Greatest I Am wrote:

 

I gave this as an example of the best morals.

Well, I'm still not convinced the last three are legitimate sources of morality.

 

I did not say that you would kill off anyone existing. I was speaking to your decision to let your gene pattern die out and was pointing out how valuable it could be to humanity. It could also be harmful as I admitted above to another. We cannot know at this point in time. It is your choice though.

Let's look at the third moral principle.

In group bonding.

Have you not bonded naturally to your parents, siblings, friends or those around you if you do not happen to have parents?

 

How or to who can you apply the first two principles to if you have not bonded with anyone?

You would not need to care if you cared or did harm if you have not bonded or have affection for anyone. Right? 

Regards

DL 

 

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4282
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Greatest I am wrote:My

Greatest I am wrote:

My morality says that I have a duty to our species in terms of insuring it's longevity. Not just so that the genes I pass on live on but that my species does as I know that my genes cannot live for long all by themselves. 

Would you say there is a reason for this or is it just an arbitrary preference of yours?

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken