Eloise
Offline Eloise, your quite brilliant aren't you. I haven't been able to find any posts of you describing what your belief system is. I see you have over 1500 posts and so I'm sure you've done this before, but if you wouldn't mind. Do you belong to any particualr religion, or is their a holy book you believe to be devinely inspired by a diety? I respect your posts very much, and I see you are thiest, I was just wondering what that meant for you. Do you just believe the universe was created and thats it, or is their more to it than that for you. From the logic in your posts I would assume your are a rational theist (someone who believes the universe was created, but doesn't claim to know anything with certainty about this creator.)
Just curious...
- Login to post comments
Frequently, Eloise. Eloise, I'm not going to go fishing- anybody who has read your posts has inevitably seen you skim into the woo a bit. It's not something I feel needs to be further demonstrated, Eloise.
Eloise, if you really don't understand the relevance, it's probably because you don't want to understand the relevance. You, Eloise, don't really read, or at least comprehend, anything I write anyway, so there's no point in trying to explain it to you further.
If anybody is curious about the relevance, I was very clear in my posts.
Your reasons, Eloise, for agreeing with the reforms are highly flawed- and those flaws are demonstrated by the history of the transition from strict utilitarian practices to those which respect human life for its own sake, Eloise.
Yes, and they are.
Yeah, you're totally right... it's really insulting to upstanding people like Ray or Ted to compare them to Eloise. Even Osama has excuses for his actions (I mean, he was pretty much born into it- Eloise made a choice to become a nutter).
Eloise is much worse than any of them, from an intellectual standpoint. That is my greatest concern here.
Your ignorance/denial of moral subjectivism is really striking, though.
Unless you don't care about that, or you think he's pretty much impotent. It's an opinion.
Some people don't like homosexuals.
I support gay rights, though I'm more inclined to think Ray is generally seen as a nutter, and not really effective at rallying more votes than that side would have had anyway.
Either way, Homosexual rights are happening whether the religious right likes it or not.
The woo that people like Eloise spout is far more dangerous and nefarious to reason than relatively harmless hate speech (which really only hurts the positions of the people advocating it).
Either way, though, the value of those policies is entirely subjective.
No, it's not "Obviously" a negative effect.
Some people think Islam is pretty good. They don't drink alcohol, for one (Eloise is a veritable booze-hound).
Anyway, Osama probably doesn't really care about that 'taking over the world' bit- he's primarily seeking political power to depose Israel and re-establish his regime in Afghanistan. Motivation to convert the world tends to wane after you get what you actually want.
Sure, he's pissed off, but there are causes of that, and the real results are more complex than what you suggest.
They may not be good in your opinion, but that doesn't mean they're as bad as the memes Eloise propagates.
It's subjective.
You know, you'd think so-- but apparently that's not the case.
I'm astounded that you throw yourself in behind Eloise, for one, and her woo woo. I think what you are doing is highly unethical.
That's my opinion. See? We have different opinions.
[examples of things you think are bad]
Yes, those are your opinions. I may or may not agree. However, I certainly won't agree that Eloise is any better.
Particularly, in my opinion, truth is one of the most important morals there are, and delusion itself is inherently bad. In that sense, Eloise is worse than those others because she believes her woo despite extensive education.
FYI, deities don't exist, so that torture isn't actually occurring. Just thought I'd let you know...
That's your opinion- I strongly disagree.
I think religions should be regulated in modern society, and be mandated to register a document outlining internal consistency with possible answers to all questions so people can look up official criticisms and responses rather than being misled and deceived. Adherents should have to pass a test demonstrating knowledge of this document's contents.
The people who insist on practicing internally inconsistent religions should be considered insane, and should either be put in crazy houses and medicated/deprogrammed, or if they otherwise elect, be isolated into medieval "reserves" where their memes can't spread, and they are denied technology or information deemed incompatible with their religious beliefs (they may at any time choose to leave the reserve for a crazy house to be cured via education, anti-psychotics, and deprogramming).
So yeah, not really inclined to agree.
Her dogma would suggest an end to certain kinds of health care and medical technology, and to creating safety measures that go beyond the bare minimum of utility.
This in itself is pretty insulting.
Her beliefs trivialize the value of life, and give her justification to harm other living things for her own pleasure.
I have, and she was.
Am not infinity plus one.
Well, I didn't think that was your opinion before, but you seemed to be implying it. I can't see why else you are defending Eloise- even praising her; virtually worshiping her.
You are dangerously close to having a goddess and becoming a theist.
Haha ya. I'm not defending her position, I'm defending the fact I see no reason to call her stupid and be hostile. I see no reason to call Luminon stupid and be hostile although he holds some "woo woo" beliefs. If you say she has truly insulted you, well I don't know whether or not that is true I'd like to see if it would warrant being called stupid. If I was having a discussion with luminon and someone came in screaming he was this and that and stupid and crazy I'd probably defend atleast the seemingly unwarranted hostility.
Ofcourse I understand morals are subjective, I like to think rational people can somewhat agree on the basics though, perhaps that is wishfull thinking. I can't entertain the idea that adopting and truly believing the "join or die" philosophy of fundemental Islam is morally equal to adopting and truly believing the phillosophy that the universe is god and everything is connected etc... "woo woo" stuff. I know the woohoo stuff pisses you off, sometimes it annoys me too. I didn't have the pleasure of being involved in your past conversations with her, so instead of calling her stupid and acting like a baby explain your objections with reason for me to go over. I barely understand her beliefs in the first place anyways (this universe god that doesn't "do" anything, afterlife but not really... I don't really get it) so explain to me how it is harmful. Other than the fact that you would consider it dellusional or simply untrue, that I understand, but how is it all harmful to me? And why should I be angry and hostile like you towards anyone holding her belief system?
But she *is* unintelligent- she has enough education to know better than to spout the woo she does, but she does it anyway. That's the only conclusion I can come to at the moment unless given evidence to the contrary.
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
Luminon is an idiot sometimes, but he does at least have an excuse- he's profoundly ignorant of science, and he's been indoctrinated by his parents to believe this stuff. A person can be intelligent and believe woo if they've never been properly exposed to science and critical thinking.
Eloise doesn't have Luminon's excuse- she has sought this shit out. It's pretty clear that she didn't understand a materialistic world, or is too emotional to comprehend reality- that's pretty damning evidence.
Luminon is also at least a little more open minded than Eloise, which is to his credit.
My statements were a matter of my perception of the facts of the matter, in so far as the evidence I have permits me. I would be gravely saddened if I learned that Eloise had an IQ over 130 or so, as this would be pretty dismal information with regards to my perspective of humanity.
He is a nutter; he's also pretty dense, but he has ignorance as an excuse. He may or may not actually be intelligent. He seems pretty young, so he may yet learn and grow out of the crazy.
For lack of critical thinking and science education, I may have gone the same way of woo as Luminon. I can at least sympathize with him.
Believing falsehood is believing falsehood- deliberately seeking it out in spite of education is worse.
All lies at odds with reality have moral consequences which are emergent from the lies themselves- Eloise's do too.
A fundamentalist Muslim at least values life for its own sake as per the belief (even if less than the value they hold for their belief itself).
I have done so in other posts in this thread. If you read them again and don't understand the basis of my criticisms, please ask questions and I will elaborate on those elements you did not understand.
If her actions were consistent with her belief system (which they are not, because she is a hypocrite), she would deny you certain basic forms of health care (even if you could afford them), and deny you certain safety regulations that protect your life every day.
The beliefs she holds are insulting and hostile to the value of life that we perceive around us, and focus on immediate, hedonistic pleasure above all.
Her beliefs are codified rationalizations for apathy that use pseudoscientific woo to justify themselves.
Do you think it is possible to discuss your beliefs convincingly with skeptics when you openly admit your beliefs are based on personal revelation?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
No Blake, you just weren't......
.....and this is because you are an idiot.
See. I can do it too.
You're wrong because you're an idiot, Blake, and I'm right because I already said so.
That makes me right (and the gaping pauses between my paragraphs make me right), and more rational than you......
I could go on all day but there's just no point repeating the same self-serving useless nonsense to an idiot like you who will never read nor comprehend what I am saying because you are an idiot and that makes me right so there booyah infinity plus one.
And you can't deny my absolutely holeproof argument that you are an impolite, amoral woo selling jerk because it is based on the irrefutable inarguable fact that I my delusions of grandeur, my self-importance, trumps absolutely every rational rebuttal you could possibly be bothered to post, ergo, you are the worst kind of idiot for not worshipping my string of non-sequitur insults, and I know this because you're an idiot and I am not.
If you don't understand that, its probably because you don't want to understand.
If anybody is curious about understanding this, I was very clear in my post.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
They are not because why? Blake? Because I am a hypocrite? that's what passes for rational point making in your book? Really?
Some other people might have different names for that, like .... say.... appeal ad hominem.... perhaps.
Utilitarianism is inconsistent with utilitarianism?
Oh dear.... you don't really understand what you're saying do you.
You have no basis for this. My beliefs are not hedonistic, I embrace diversity of existence in all forms, not just pleasurable ones. You have misunderstood and gone off half-cocked one or two too many times in this thread, that's all. But I do wonder if you will ever admit it.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I didn't mean to infer that my beliefs are based on personal revelation, Mellestad. Sorry if I gave you that impression, it's not the case.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
*ghasp* You DO have a sense of humor! Shock, horror.
I am hereby devastated by this scathing critique. Or amused- that too.
No no, silly Eloise, your hypocrisy is what permits your actions to be inconsistent with your belief system. Eloise, my explanations of which actions *would* be consistent with your belief system followed (thus demonstrating the inconsistency which exists, because you have not maintained these points, but attempted to rationalize them).
No Eloise, please read more carefully Eloise- I know the parenthetical may have thrown you off, but stick with it. That's an example of what *would* be consistent with your belief system, Eloise.
That you do not propose this is the demonstration of your hypocrisy, Eloise. I was merely being clear that this is not what you advocate, Eloise, because you are content to be a hypocrite.
Obviously your hypocrisy doesn't make you wrong Eloise- your being wrong makes you wrong (and I have demonstrated the nature of this wrongness)- and that makes you a hypocrite for not being consistent. The hypocrisy just permits the inconsistency, it doesn't cause it, Eloise.
Blah blah, yes... you also embrace death, and rocks, and the universe, Eloise. Thus my accusation of apathy, Eloise. Eloise, because all things are the same to you, you ultimately DO default to hedonism because it's what you physically prefer for your own selfish pleasure.
Eloise, try embracing an ascetic existence yourself, and I'll admit I may have been mistaken about your strict hedonism. I don't think you're capable of it, though, because selfish pleasure is your only real motivation, Eloise, all other things being the same to the point of fundamental apathy.
Either way, Eloise, your philosophy is still insulting and acidic to anything resembling intelligence or morality. If evil alien overlords wanted to destroy human civilization by seeding us with the most pervasive apathy imaginable, they couldn't do much better than sending you, Eloise, as their emissary.
If you aren't an idiot, then I would submit that you're pure dagnasty evil.
Of course they're based on personal revelation. Only *she* is committed enough to understand them- you see, you have to first be committed to believing them before you can understand them. Once you know they're true, then you can understand.
It's like this new suit I bought- at first I didn't understand it and thought it was invisible, but then when it was explained to me that I have to be committed to believing in and seeing a beautiful suit, and work hard at it, I'd see it- sure enough, I did!
Or was that a story I read somewhere...
I comprehend her beliefs just fine; certainly better than she does. FYI- they are false.
All this "It's too complicated to understand" is only as much to the point as the same thing spouted by Christians with regards to their deity.
It's quite easy to understand- it's nonsense.
Sometimes things are just what they seem to be.
fuckin' A! me too!
how do you know this, btw? did you go out for drinks together? some people have all the fun...
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
She has indicated it. It's just an example of how somebody could prefer Muslims taking over the world to Eloise's beliefs.
Alcohol drastically increases the burden of our health care system, both more directly (by damaging people's organs, and harming digestion and nutrient intake thus creating eventual systemic problems), and indirectly (assaults, rapes, and vehicle accidents).
Muslims taking over the world wouldn't be *all* bad. Not that *I* prefer it to secular society (I don't), but still, it just goes to show that there are reasons some people could not have a big problem with it.
How messed up/immoral a belief system is is a subject of opinion. Eloise's ranks well up there in my opinion, regarding the extent of harm, in the range of jihadists.
I'll just thank my lucky stars she's incoherent to most people, and probably lacks the amount of charisma needed to perpetuate her beliefs.
She's like this tiny, impotent, evil thing to laugh at. The ideas themselves, however, demand hostility.
What the hell on handlebars are you on about Blake? Do you just make shit up as it conveniences you or something?
I never have and never would say anything of the sort. I didn't commit to my beliefs to understand them, I committed, as I mentioned earlier, decades of my time to immersing myself in the ongoing human endeavour to understand the universe. If we all did it nothing else would be going on and I'm quite glad that other people are making tea and biscuits, building roads and configuring information systems. There's nothing wrong with them not liking or caring to take any interest in what I do, in fact there's everything right with that as far as I'm concerned.
So when I mentioned commitment I meant strictly the time put in to reading the books I read and studying the teaching that I study. If none of it interests you, I'm not asking you to change, whatever you're doing, my interests are no more important than that and I enjoy what I do so I have no problem committing to it.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I don't really think I need to point out that this is how you, again, prove your propensity to distorting the facts to suit your self.
Are you really going to stand by this ludicrous claim that saying I have no prejudice against intoxicating substances is equivalent to telling you I am an alcoholic?
Your notions of things being "indicated" or "evidenced" are very unique, I must say.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I thought you had implied that you partook in them, Eloise. Eloise, I don't really have any interest in searching for it. If you are a tea-totaler, Eloise, then perhaps I had misread.
Even if you don't drink, Eloise, that you have no objection to alcohol is still sufficient in my comparison with Islam (which is opposed to drinking).
Eloise, my point was only the relativity of social morality in the consequences of beliefs.
No, that's your domain Eloise- I wouldn't dare step on your toes by joining in on the "making shit up".
Oh Eloise, poor poor Eloise... of course you committed to your beliefs to understand them- you already believed it (at least wanted to believe it) before you started, you just had to take your good time to invent rationalizations for those ideas you wanted deep down inside to be true. You wouldn't have wasted so much of your life on this if you were indifferent- particularly since the answers are pretty obvious.
Eloise, that it took you decades to 'make that shit up' is just sad, and only speaks to very poor creativity on your part- not your effort of learning or any sense of critical thinking.
Either booze-hound or teetotaller is a false dichotomy, Blake. Your application of logic is incongruent with your claims of mastery in the area.
Some kind of slippery slope you mean?
But how is that any different to a christian claiming "without absolute god-given morality our societies will decay" ?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Oh hooray, more inappropriate venom and unwarranted assumptions for me. You have an endless supply it seems.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Eloise, I didn't imply that there weren't more severe insults- drunkard might be worse. However, drunkard also implies intoxication (which is more objective, and for which I lack evidence), whereas booze hound implies more nebulous qualities of excessive drinking (which is a matter of opinion).
Given the subjective nature of the insult, the only way in which you could claim that I am outright, objectively incorrect is if you didn't drink at all, Eloise.
Eloise, if it is my opinion that you are a booze hound, then logically, anybody who drinks *more* than you must also be a booze hound (perhaps in addition to something else, unless it has an upper limit). Eloise, given the subjective nature of the claim, unless at some point I claim that somebody who has been demonstrated to drink more than you is NOT a booze hound, neither my accuracy nor my logic is in error.
That is, tee-total vs. booze-hound isn't necessarily a false dichotomy, given that the bar for booze-hound is set low enough, Eloise.
That said, though, if you don't drink very much at all, I may have just called my own mother a booze-hound. In that case: Sorry mum.
No Eloise, I was just demonstrating how some teachings of Islam could be considered a good thing in the opinion of some- I was arguing with the statements of moral absolutism.
Aside from being better evidenced? It probably isn't.
Opinions regarding what is good or bad for society, or what society should be are just that- opinions- regardless of where they come from, and different people have different opinions. That was my point.
I think people like you should be locked away in loony bins. But that's my opinion- not everybody will be inclined to agree.
My mistake then. I thought something like this:
would fall under personal revelation?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Where did she say that? I asked her if she drank to which she replied something like "yes, my beliefs do not incorporated any rules against intoxicants." So on the matter of intoxicants Eloise believes it is up to the person (I'm speaking about responsible use of light intoxicats, I don't know where she stands on heroin junkies) it seems,. A muslim as you say is not allowing the other person to exercise their freedom when demanding they do not drink in the name of allah. Therefor I would conclude from this again that you have demonstrated the muslims postion is "less ethical" (subjectively ofcourse representing rational people who believe in basic freedoms of all men #23-right to have a f***ing drink or 2) than Eloise's, and a poor comparison.
I'll reread you earlier posts I'll be honest I skip over them because they're seemed to be no interesting material and it was like you were just causing a rukus.
How do you know if you're communicating with the universe?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Good question, let's get off this toddler tantrum bachelor reunion blooper of a discussion and get into some interesting stuff.
*sigh* The freedom of one person to harm another infringes on the others' freedom not to be harmed. Freedom is a balance, not a one-way track.
When I give you the freedom to drink, I take away our children's freedom to not be slaughtered by drunk drivers. But fuck the children, right?
No, I would be perfectly happy to infringe on your freedom to drink alcohol.
I'd be happy to infringe on your freedom to damage your internal organs and burden our health care system, which takes the freedom of others to be helped who haven't fucked themselves up on booze.
I'd be happy to infringe on your freedom to relinquish your self control, which takes away others' freedom to not be assaulted by drunks.
I'd be happy to infringe on your freedom to surrender your reflexes and motor functions, which takes away others' freedom to travel safely, without fear of rampaging motor vehicles. (People are well ready to ignore drunk driving laws when it's important-- when they're actually drunk)
Doing it in the name of Allah doesn't make any sense- but it is a superior social ethic in many respects.
Not every person prioritizes your right to fuck yourself up on booze over health care, social stability, and human safety. Maybe you do- that's your opinion.
That you think you can monopolize the opinions of all "rational people", and prioritize freedom based on your own whims is precisely the opposite of rationality.
Prohibition didn't work in practice because it created a black market which funded organized crime- that doesn't mean the morals behind it are bad ethics, though.
*sigh* When I speak of basic freedoms, ofcourse the freedom to harm others is not included. Again I am representing what most rational ethical poeple would agree the basics are.
This is bullocks the intoxication is not to blame, the person who chose to drive drunk is to blame. People have been shown to be equally as loopy and likely to make miscalculations when extremely fatigued and when under the influence of alcohol, does that mean you are against lack of sleep? Do you want to prohibit people from not sleeping well? No. But one shouldn't get behind the whell if he can't keep his eyes open. Responsilbe use of light intoxicants cannot be compared to making the choice to drive drunk. Here the decision that is unethical is not choosing to consume the beverage (which harms no-one), it is the choice to get behind the wheel while impaired (does directly endanger others). This one seems clear to me, others may disagree.
Seriously? Do you just make shit up and go from their? Where have I EVER said here that we were talking about people using any intoxicants light or heavy irresponsibly in access putting themselves in serious physical danger. We are talking about the right to responsibly enjoy a drink, not the right to drink yourself into oblivion on a daily basis. I'm willing to entertain your philosophy that we should crack down harder on people deliberately harming themselves enough that they drain the communities resourses that could be used for more productive members of society who did not make that choice, but only if you offer a more reasonable solution. "Remove the right to drink responsibly" as a solution is rediculous.
NO I'm trying my best to sum up some obvious basics that are my opigions and others I would consider rational. Yes this is subjective, and I'm glad it is, I'm glad I get to choose the opigions and positions that are more rational. I try my hardest to see everyone's side, and learn as much as I can. I have said multiple times in this thread others may disagree, but I am trying to quote the majority of who I would call "rational" folk.
Got any ideas for me to act even more creepy than I do now???????!!!! Your help is always appreciated!
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
You don't seem to have any concept that virtually every freedom allows one to harm others.
Do you eat meat? If you do, that freedom you enjoy is harming animals- directly through conditions of farming, and indirectly through habitat destruction, excessive agricultural runoff which affects the environment, and greenhouse gasses which contribute greatly to global warming which is starting to drive extinctions at an alarming rate.
If you don't care about all "others", and are only concerned with humans, the global warming is even harming other people by directly destroying coastal human habitats and creating more severe weather which destroys even more, driving mass migrations and producing new epidemics of disease.
Congratulations, freedom to produce and eat meat kills people.
Do you drive a car? Do you use electronics? Oh boy...
Your freedom to do shit that conveniences you, and pleasures you, hurts other people. The idea that we don't have the freedom to do things that hurt others is total bullshit.
Freedom comes at a balance- granting one freedom somewhere will almost always take another away somewhere else; the only ones that aren't really questionable is when somebody doesn't care about the freedom that he or she is losing.
That's funny... you believe personal responsibility actually works.
People are statistical machines- provide alcohol to a population, and a statistical number will abuse it and will kill people because of it.
Sure, we can arbitrarily punish the people who do, but that doesn't really help bring the victims back, and it doesn't really inhibit more people from doing it. Even severe punishment like the death penalty isn't a strong deterrent because people are idiots- they all think they're special; they think they're exceptions, and it won't happen to them, and they won't get caught. When they are deluded with the idea that there's a 0% chance of it happening to them, it doesn't matter how severe the punishment is-- it won't factor into the decision.
If I could? F*ck yes. Stop making assumptions.
If you'd pay attention, though, you'd see that I explained why prohibition didn't work. There's social morality, and then there's practicality- the two don't always mesh.
They shouldn't, but they do. They shouldn't be getting drunk, but they do. People don't do what they should do- they do what they can do. Very few people are that responsible, and even those who are can slip up.
When you drink, whenever you drink, you have a small chance of killing somebody because of it. You are that responsible for a potential murder each time you do.
Are you that naive? It's as though you're under the illusion that people have some kind of magical "free will", or that most people think about what they're doing at all- particularly when they're intoxicated. You have a very ignorant sense of social responsibility.
Give a population alcohol, and some of them will become drunk. Of those drunks, some will drive. Of those drivers, some will kill people. It doesn't matter if you punish them after or not.
People are largely mechanical, and while we know statistically what their actions will be, we have little control of what goes on in those highly random black boxes (too many variables). It's the fucker who gave them alcohol that's responsible for those deaths just as much as anybody else.
What you're saying is like:
"Gee, alls I did was put radioactive cobalt under your matress- it's not *my* fault you got cancer. It's the fault of those pesky isotopes for choosing to undergo radioactive decay, and it's the fault of the cancer cells for choosing to multiply instead of die like they should have when they were damaged."
Solution: Don't create the situation where that kind of thing will inevitably happen.
Unfortunately, as I've said, policies like prohibition aren't functional because they create a black market. However, though it may not work in practice, the essential social morality of it isn't necessarily off bat.
If I had a robot army to enforce my moral whims practically, I'd certainly do so.
Who or what is stopping them?
If alcohol is available, people will do this.
So, what, you want to install small devices in people to measure and report back to a data hub the BAC of every person, every minute throughout the day, and sound alarms when they drink too much?
This is technically achievable with technology similar to pace makers (trans-dermal battery charging); this would require forcing everybody to keep them charged up.
That has nothing to do with my point, though, which you missed- my point is that rational people can very easily be of the opinion that saving lives, or granting some other freedom to another group, is fully worth restricting some small freedom you may favor.
Really? I don't think you're trying your hardest to learn and see everybody's side:
Off the top of your head: What are my complaints about Eloise's beliefs besides the fact that they are bat shit crazy?
Without looking back, I doubt that you can list them.
You make a big deal about 'rational people believe this and agree with ME', but you don't seem to be following what I'm saying at all.
Two perfectly rational people can disagree on matters of opinion-- just not matters of fact. Opinions, or any of these ideas you are criticizing, have no quality of rationality unless they are internally inconsistent (in which case they can be said to be irrational).
Your sense of what rational even means is quite... irrational. One can not derive a should statement from any fact- only be rationally cognizant of the consequences, and thereby consistent towards a subjective goal.
While there is some measure of subjectivity in what constitutes a more or less rational position (because, ultimately, what constitutes a logical or illogical proposition is a binary affair), whether it is entirely rational or not is not for you to decide. That is, as much as you might like to be king of rationality, you don't get to choose what or who is rational- they just are so by virtue of being consistent.
Here, you are in the wrong.
oh, for chrissakes, who gives a flying fucking SHIT about any of this??? this thread was killed deader'n a doornail at least a week ago. it's like the threads with mind over matter and epistemologist. even I have basically been reduced to trolling the last few days, because there's literally NO MORE FUCKING COMMENTARY TO MAKE. it seems like suddenly (and i really feel this is a new phenomenon for this site) EVERYBODY is devoting all their energy to these fucking, pointless, circular threads and thus ONLY this kind of thread is getting started. christ...
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Aye... listen to me ya bloody git. If I makes me a post that's all over the gaff, that's my fookin' bizness! Listenin' to a cabbage like yeself gabber all day and noight, is a might knackersome, yegh?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
case in fucking point...
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Yeah it does, mellestad, hence why I put emphasis on saying my beliefs are not based on personal revelation, it is very much involved, yes, but it's not the basis of them. My beliefs are based in knowledge and philosophy I have developed through a fairly extensive study of the ideas that many cultures of humans have had about life, the universe and meaning etc.
As I mentioned before, the main reason is the awareness of having personal agency beyond my physical limitations. Essentially this communion (not necessarily communication) manifests simply as my personal experience being a quite specific reflection of what is 'in my head'. It's generally not anything spectacular, as some might imagine "higher" awareness should be, really I am just talking about taking an extra notice of small details in every day life and seeing that there is a more rounded connection between the way I imagine it and how it is than can be explained by the idea that a line is drawn between my agency and the rest of the universe.
So it's in the generally overlooked details of ordinary life experience. If you look, for example at the seemingly random things you encounter in life like words, pictures, otherwise uninteresting objects, it can be seen that they have a more significant place in the context of our personal experience than we've been habituated to noticing. We have sorts of unconscious agency in designing more of our experience than we generally even take note of.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I somewhat agree. You seem to think I don't see peoples freedoms harming others, I do, very clearly. Their are so many problems this way as you have demonstrated where do you even start. However I would consider these more indirects harms, just as dangerous ofcourse and should be addressed but many who cause these harms (I'm not excluded) aren't aware of what happens at the other end of the butterfly effect. I'm not saying and never have said we should leave everything in the hands of the people and allow them to do as they please and that is freedom. NO! People need laws, and we are changing our laws and morality as time goes on, I like to hope its for the "better" in the end. Perhaps one day your opigion (No meat) will be a law chosen by the mojority, who knows. I do eat meat. I am however becoming more aware of the consequences. I do besides that live a mostly green life, I recycle everything, turn the water off when I brush and shave, my sister owns a green soap/detergent company and so we use only her natural products. All energy saving lightbulbs etc, I try to do the best I can. I knew a family that hunted for their own meat, froze it and stored it for the hole year. They didn't like the way animals were treated at meat farms so they chose to eat meat they killed with one shot (or so was the goal they said). Do you think we will one day be faced with the absolute need to give up meet? I don't know enough on the subject of how much harm it is doing, numbers, facts etc...
No. I don't believe it actually works all the time, I believe it is the right of the man to have the choice to be personaly resposible (with such things).
Agreed. And so lets play with some numbers. I make "X" amount monthly. Out of "X" I pay "Y" amount for taxes (about %28). Out of the population a small amount "Z" will abuse these "things" (drinking, smoking, bad food, driving priveledges, healthcare, etc...) A small amount of "Y" will go to pay for these people to get good doctors, perhaps housing, or food stamps, whatever we'll call this "Q".
So out of "X" I pay "Y', out of "Y" I pay "Q" for "Z". Is paying "Q" for the small number of "Z"'s abusing some simple freedoms we all enjoy worth it (A beer after work, going to work with minimal sleep, sunday doobie, camping burger barbeque)???
FFFUCK YA IT IS!
I aupologize, I was assumin you weren't very strange.
Agreed. So should we take glue off the shelves because a certain amount of the population will sniff it while driving? What about mouthwash, or shooten some whipits? Where do you stop. What the heck do you want? To PROHIBIT EVERYTHING!!! Why don't we all just hide in our houses away from all the dangers and posible negative butterly effects we might spread by "doing stuff." Would that meet your fancy. But their are things people can abuse in the home, perhaps you should designate everyone a SAFE SPOT in their home where they stand 24/7 so they wont do anything you don't like. F*** that world.
Are you off??? That's the opposite of what I'm saing. Seriously I'm really disappointed actually at such a poor example, really way off, bad form. Using your example I will correct you, let's re-right your terrible example in a way that would more describe "what I'm saying:"
"I put radio active cobalt by the forest a few miles up the hill at the designated radioactive cobalt disposal plant and warned you it was there. I told about what would happen if you got to close and exposed yourself to it for too long. A drive by the plant is ok, but thats it dont stay for too long. You were very aware of your choice to get to close and expose yourself to it for too long. IT IS NOT the fault of those pesky isotopes for choosing to undergo radiactive decay, IT IS NOT the fault of the cancer cells for choosing to multiplying because they didn't make the choice to do so. You little dumbass are to blame for getting to damb close to the plant with full knowledge of the consequences, you are an Idiot."
That's better. And who the heck compares recreational use of Alcohol to exposure to radiactive cobalt, seriously?
Sure I am, that's why I am actually taking a few minuts to discuss your opigions with you. So far you have come off over bearing and annoying, but somewhat entertaining. I don't really get it, you want to PROHIBIT EVERYTHING!!! Well your side kinda sucks dude.
You can't prohibit everything that may be potentially abused by people. We would have nothing.
I agree this thread didn't go anywhere I wanted it too. So...Start a better thread wth a brillliant starter, I'll be there.
If you really want to boost your creepometer, change your avatar to one of these:
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/usa/images-3/creepy-guy.jpg
http://lockportslugline.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/xl3.jpeg
http://img123.imageshack.us/i/doniszp7.jpg/
http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl0/1/13839/14_2008/derek-mears.jpg
http://www.myextralife.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/a212_m11.jpg
http://i344.photobucket.com/albums/p355/nikkyredikkky/creepy_gun_dude.jpg
http://41miles.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/mileyandme1.jpg
the problem is rarely with the starters. the problem is that lately people feed trolls like crazy, and the people who urge them to stop (not only me, but also cj for example) are ignored. personally, i feel that when anyone highjacks a thread for the purpose of carrying on a personal vendetta it's trolling. maybe not trolling of the worst sort, but trolling nonetheless.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Alright, there's a problem here... the butterfly effect refers to chaos theory- chaotic functions that literally are impossible to predict and follow because the variables are too small to measure.
I don't expect anybody to anticipate the results of a butterfly effect- that is literally impossible. The effects I'm talking about have very direct and proportional results (they are not matters of chaos theory).
Purchasing meat (demand) -> Raising, finishing, and slaughtering animals, butchering, packing, shipping (supply) -> environmental effects (greenhouse gasses- largely methane from feeding cows grain), runoff (from finishing)
That's pretty direct.
Your friends have circumvented much of this by choosing a different source:
Hunting meat -> Wild animal, killed quickly
The problem with the theory of personal responsibility is just that you said, though- ignorance. People don't know or care, and they don't want to know or care-- with very rare exception. People are idiots.
I imagine everybody will be running cars on electricity, and we'll wipe clear all of the Earth's forests for grazing land, before they'd give up a culinary pleasure.
Just a guess, though. There's always something else that can be sacrificed, until there's nothing else left.
If it only hurts the person making the mistake, I have no problem with that. When it hurts others, though, I do have a problem with that.
We should have every right to drink antifreeze. We shouldn't have a right to do that and then turn up at a hospital, kicking another person who didn't drink antifreeze from a bed or taking the attention of doctors who are needed elsewhere.
Until we come to have a society where we have an over-glut of health-care, harming oneself is harming others by taking resources that could have saved somebody who didn't fuck themselves up.
Are you familiar with the term "opportunity cost"? It's an important concept in the true costs of our burdens.
You're missing the point here... we're not just talking about money.
Count that tally out in the lives of children and other pedestrians killed by drunk drivers. Count that out as the expense of ubiquitously poorer healthcare- lives lost by giving the wrong prescriiton or by doing the wrong surgery- by an overburdoned system. Count that in terms of suffering and environmental degradation.
This is not money we're talking about- you can't just throw money at the consequences of our actions to make them go away.
Do your calculation again, but instead use something real this time, instead of the sterility of numbers in dollars.
Professional drivers have some regulations like this- it isn't "very strange". Falling asleep at the wheel causes many casualties.
I have repeatedly said that prohibition has already demonstrated to us that prohibiting alcohol is not yet practical. I have repeatedly said that. I don't know why you have not read it, or have decided not to remember it.
Practicality should be just as much a metric for legislation as social or ethical concerns.
The fact is that we can't do these things, because it isn't practical-- that doesn't mean it's bad ethic to wish it was. FYI, I'm a libertarian.
The more practical solution would seem to be to focus on the vehicles, rather than all of the potential substances one could fuck oneself up on before getting into them.
I can see the analogy was misunderstood.
I'm not talking about people making stupid choices which only hurt themselves.
In my analogy, the radioactive cobalt and the cells represent market forces and people, as statical sources of harm (not just the self harm of drinking alcohol). The placement of the cobalt represent the permissive legislation that gave the people the alcohol.
You have a population of people without alcohol. You know that if you give them alcohol, some of them will drink, and then some of them will kill people who didn't drink- you KNOW this.
You choose to give them alcohol.
Whose fault was it that those people who were killed by the drinkers died? The drinkers, who you knew would do it as a statistical portion of the population, or you, who gave them alcohol, knowing this would be the result?
People *don't* have free will, and they do act very much like radioactive isotopes- some of them will do it, and some won't. It may be strictly possible for a pound of radioactive cobalt to go a year, or indefinitely, without decaying one bit- but it's not likely.
Saying it's the people's fault for drinking and killing each other after becoming intoxicated is like saying it's the cobalt's fault for decaying. Neither the people, as a population, not the cobalt have a choice in the matter. Just because you conceive it as being possible that it won't happen (it's possible that none of the cobalt will decay as well), doesn't let you off the hook given the overwhelming probability of it happening.
The decay of radioactive cobalt, and the killing of pedestrians by drunk drivers within a drinking population is not a "butterfly effect" occurrence. These are direct consequences that are overwhelmingly probable to a degree that you would have to be insane not to expect them.
Any legislation is a cost-benefit analysis.
How much will it cost, in resources, to enforce this/ What will you have to cut costs from (the resources) in order to enforce it (opportunity cost)?
How much will it cost, in personal pleasure, to lose the ability to do this?
v.s.
How many innocent People will be hurt or die if you don't?
In terms of prohibition of alcohol (or weed today), it turns out that costs of enforcement are prohibitively high, and the social programs that could be funded (the opportunity cost) with the resources it took to enforce those prohibitions could save more lives than the prohibitions themselves.
This is why I don't support prohibition (as I have said), and I think the war on drugs should be ended, with that money redirected to social programs.
When you get past the opportunity cost (such as cutting funding to social programs in order to enforce it), and move on to the "this gives me temporary physical pleasure", you have less sympathy from me.
I don't get behind the argument that: "It's O.K. that this hurts people or causes others substantial suffering because it gives me momentary physical pleasure or convenience."
This seems to be the argument you are making- Am I wrong?
I didn't, not as you suggest.
-The person, roughly, represented society at large, with the presence of the cobalt representing a market force presence of alcohol
-The event of radioactive cobalt decaying represents, roughly, the effect of free marketing creating alcoholism- hit or miss.
-The cells, roughly, represented the people, those having their DNA damaged representing alcoholics- some drink themselves into oblivion (self destruct), and some become cancerous (become drunk drivers, or abusers, who harm others)
It wasn't representing a person, but a statistical body of people- a society. My use of a radioactive element was to illustrate the sheer weight of the inevitability of the occurrence of these technically statistical events.
Good thing that was never my argument in the least.
Really? When a thread is about somebody's beliefs, criticizing those beliefs is hijacking the thread?
And personal vendetta? Seriously? Have a look around- I nitpick just the same if it's somebody I like.
Please don't be an idiot iwbiek; you can do better than that.
[randombullshit=Kapkao]
The a212_m11 pic seems to have it down pat, the rest are just random pictures of fucknuts and miscast actors for upcoming classic movie remakes. Derek Mears? He was slated for the next "Max Headroom", which was canceled due to budget constraints and lack of moviegoer interest
. Creepy Guy? Yeah. George Lucas was planning to do a CGI-enhanced Raiders of the Lost Ark, so he casted an eggheaded dude to fill the role of "Vengeful German Agent vwizh a Burn On Hand".
Lucas later realized how burnt out people were getting with his CGI-enhanced, Digitally Remastered classics (Episode 1: The Phantom Penace with annoying-as-hell JarJar, anyone?) so he went with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.[/randombullshit]
I was thinking of going with this:
It is a portrait of Borderline Personality Disorder, manifesting itself in a Human Female. Such a female is HIGHLY emotionally-disturbed, has endless problems in romance, work relationships, family, and has troublesome responses to socioenvironmental stimuli in general. She also fears being abandoned by others, particularly in family and exceptionally so with romantic companions. (S)he's often an easy target for predatory behavior, and will frequently find her/himself in an abusive, thankless relationship. (Because of being highly insecure and not knowing how and when to protect herself from others. This behavioral mechanic arises much more frequently in females, than in males. I don't have it, luckily.)
And oh yeah... such a female tends to have an insatiable sexual appetite...
...as well as at least one recollection of being sexually abused as a child - which would undoubtedly explain the fear of being abandoned, as most child-molesters abandon their victims when at the end of the 'victimization' cycle.
An Infamous Example of such a female. Found herself on Death Row by 1991, she did. Actually wanted to die, she did then.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I am a laughing turd monkey
(C'mon! Delete this post already! Geeessh)
So without this personal revelation, your beliefs would be unchanged?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
yeah, how 'bout you not talk to me and we'll both be happier.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Great, so we agree! Once set person begins to harm others they are accountable, and should be stopped. Will they be? Well ofcourse not, not everytime, we can only do our best and put laws in place where we draw the line and try our hardest to stop our friends from becoming alcoholics and doing other things to harm themsleves/others. In the end it is the responsibilty of the individual to not push the "lines" of whats "exceptable" and whats not (with such things ofourse).
I get that, my problem is that you offer no reasonable solution, using alcohol as an example you seem to agree with it's prohibitation. You use the example of a nation with or without alcohol, and that if you give a nation alcohol a certain amount will abuse it and harm others. I completely agree this will happen, but the exact same thing can be said about baseball bats. If you took a million people and put them on an island and gave everyone a baseball bat, some would use the baseball bats to smash other people. This will happen, but the large majority will use the baseball bats for their intented use, or will never use them at all. Removing all the baseball bats is not the awnser as the people who used the baseball bats to harm others would have just used sticks, or rocks, or their fists to do the job.
This is just in the example of light intoxicants and such things, when your talking about stuff that could literally ruin our planets climate I agree that these things (if not necessity) added in as "Y" in the equasion are not worth it. But before prohibition we have to work at adaption. We are still so messy as a species, our lives and the energy we burn is messy. If we could change and adapt in the next 200 years through massive breakthroughs in clean energy and other creative climate saving sciences we might perhaps be able to in the future farm meat (and other such things) without harming our environement significantly.
Again it is not the "thing" (meat, beer, etc...) that is to blame, it is the abusers in this case meat farms that over palute, keep and treat animals unethically and so on. I wish their was more ethically treated free range meet available in markets. I absolutely think their should be heavy laws and sentences for the unethical treatment of animals at meat farms. As well they should have to meet much lower pollution limits I'm sure as should all business and factories and private homes. I'm right with you their we should crack the whip on that shit. One drunk driving conviction takes your liscense for life, one 2ftx2ftx2ft cage filled with 16 chickens at your farm and you get your farm shut down for life, I'm fine with that. But the awnser isn't to prohibit meat or alcohol or such things.
Ofourse they have regulations on professional drivers, that reafirms my point not yours. They are PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS. They drive 8-16 hours a day, some sleep in hotels, motels, or even in the back of their truck. One would expect a professional driver to be tired alote behind the wheel. Like a pilot when you have others lives in your hands everyday is it mandated you sleep properly. Roofers are required to wear fall gear harnesses on any roofs higher than 1 floor. This is strickly regulated in my city, all roofers wear them, it's not worth the fine or falling. However their is no law against a private homeowner walking on his roof a few times a year to check his gutters. Why? because the roofer is up their everyday, drivers drive everyday. You could say the roofers are the abusers in a way, what do they abbuse? They abbuse their right to stand dangerously close to the edge of roofs. The law does not have the right to tell you you can't take these kinds of risks, but when you take to many to frequently which could lead to harming yourself or others we as a society grant the enforcers of law the right to slap a leash "fall harness" on your ass to make sure were doing our best to protect you and others without taking away your right to get close to edges of roofs. So should we slap the leash on people who over use light intoxicants and have or might endanger others, probably, how im not sure, but it makes sense. Saying you want to regulate the sleeping of professional drivers is in no way a proper comparison to saying you want to regulate the sleep of the average joe. One is completely reasonable, the other is strange and nutty, and creepy for that matter.
Just so you know Im just stoppin here cause you write such long responses and I don`t have much time on here and no offence but I don`t want to spend it all here with you.
FIGHT!
How would you know that this isn't simply the result of you paying a little more attention to details?
I'm sorry. I really don't understand you.
Seemingly random things have a more significant place in the context of our personal experiences? You're saying our observations of these things are not random? Or, er, how we view them is based on our personal experiences?
Unconscious agency in designing experience. You mean our decisions and behavior are more heavily influenced by our unconscious that we realize?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
That's the problem, though- individuals aren't responsible.
Things that *can* only hurt the person using them are one thing, but things that will significantly augment their chances of hurting others are another.
There's a difference between baseball bats, or even guns-- if a person has decided to hurt or kill another person, they could use a rock, a piece of string, or anything. Guns don't very significantly increase the chances of somebody committing homicide.
Alcohol does, by inhibiting judgment and turning things that wouldn't be weapons into them without deliberation.
Understanding the difference there is crucially important.
WHAT??! Dude, seriously- no. I have said again and again and again and AGAIN that I don't agree with prohibition because it isn't practical.
I DON'T AGREE WITH PROHIBITION, OR THE WAR ON DRUGS, BECAUSE IT ISN'T PRACTICAL (DEMONSTRATED BY HISTORY) AND THAT SAME MONEY COULD BE SPENT ON SOCIAL PROGRAMS THAT ACHIEVE A GREATER OVERALL POSITIVE EFFECT ON HUMAN LIFE.
How many times have I said this? I've lost count.
No.... the people harming others because of alcohol would otherwise *not* harm others. The people harming others with baseball bats would have found a crowbar, or a stick, or a rock to do it- their motivation was already determined.
You even said as much:
How does that have anything to do with alcohol?
Intoxicants motivate and lubricate violent behavior that wouldn't have otherwise happened, and increase the incidence of accidental harm drastically (which, again, wouldn't otherwise have happened).
Prohibition doesn't work because it creates organized crime, and would cost more resources to enforce than the creation of social programs that would produce a greater overall benefit to the society (in saving lives).
IF we had a better way to enforce it (and there are some potential mechanisms to be found in biotechnology- people could be given shots that would make them severely allergic to intoxicating drugs), the social ethic is not necessarily misplaced.
That was my only point- one of social ethic-- and most importantly, that they are a matter of opinion that is not shared by "all rational people". I don't know why it has gone on such a tangent.
This is a kind of distant 'maybe'; what matters is what we can affect in the here and now- our personal actions and advocacy in the present.
We have to act assuming that there won't be a miracle solution.
There *is* something you can do about that...
It's only more practical to regulate them.
With a professional, you are regulating one person and taking care of 14 or so hours of driving.
With non-professionals, you'd have ten times the regulatory work to do for the same amount of driving. Non professionals are probably just as likely to kill people when they haven't slept, if not more so, because they're less practiced at staying awake.
The only difference here is the practicality of regulating the behavior. Same with the roofers (although a falling roofer is less likely to hurt anybody else than a tired driver- who is less likely to hurt anybody else than a drunk driver).
How about you just abstain from acting like an idiot (which you should be capable of), and then you don't have to be so immature?
FYI, what you're doing now-- trolling.
Yay, flame war!
I have no idea what kind of video you posted, but I'm sure it's amusing. All I see is a white box... really a shame. Got a link?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAQ87V8E4ZA
It finally loaded after I posted my comment (first refresh didn't work), although I only just watched it.
I want to be the fat one- can I be the fat one?
I guess you haven't understood what I've inferred there because I don't see how, if you did, you could think it was a result of paying attention to the details. I'm strictly referring to the content of said small details of everyday experience. They are 'fuller' than the human instinct, which we have developed through the internship of our culture, is accustomed to reading.
It is our way to glance over and find what has been instilled in us as significant during our development, and the rest tends to be filled in with projections of what ought be there should our ego be foolproof, which, of course, it isn't. Given more open attention things that ought not be significant in the story playing out in our heads, regarding what's going on in our lives, prove very significant, very poignant.
You may be on to it, I'm saying we gloss over things that don't fit the imprint of our psyche as significant things. We may consider them random, yes, and we also, as you probably know, only take in to process only a slight percentage of the available sensory information around us, our mind, then cleverly reconstructs the parts that are missing from 'expected values' so that the experience seems whole. So for a good part of our human experience we are blanking out a lot of information with projections. However, our egos develop to do this in a way that is of practical benefit to in favour of the values it seeks to represent, so its not all bad, in general its easy to see how we can find common ground while we actually don't exactly mentally inhabit common ground.
This information we would normally tend to blank out, or see as random, is there, and yes, it's not really all that random when you look at it.
Yes of course, but also not only our behaviour and decisions, but our environments, the things we accumulate and/or are inclined to encounter in our habitats and personal spaces as well.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
The only fair thing to say then, Blake, is that you haven't grasped my belief system yet. Or you would see utilitarianism is a consistent authority with it. I believe things exist as relative to other things. Take away the relative things and homogeneity is the order. So values are good and worthy of pursuit, they make the wheels of life turn and ultimately that is the spur of my philosophy, that the wheels turn, that life is and existence is full and hearty.
That is what you've missed so completely about this Blake. All things are not the same - same means no things, that's what I believe, so consistent with that is the belief that all things are valuable.
And I absolutely do not harbour hostility or indifference to personal values, I consider them indispensable to the abundance of life. Without personal values I believe there would be no humanity to experience at all, I am not indifferent to that.
Seriously, what do you know about whether my existence has ever been ascetic ? See this is where it just becomes impossible with you, just assuming oh so much and regarding the presented argument oh so little. It would serve you best, I imagine, to stop calling out judgements you cannot possibly have made judiciously and attempt some real logic in constructing your replies.
Edit: Oh and by the way, your argument with NMCP has just been one long string of exaggerated slippery slopes, special pleads, ad hoc appeals to emotion and misleading vividness. Obviously that you consider that long list of things immoral (and on principle, prohibitable) is close to your heart, but can you argue your point of view strictly logically?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Hmm, this makes me think of the ability I feel I have trained myself in, or perhaps an inherent 'skill' I have tried to enhance, to have a part of my consciousness monitoring my perceptions to flag any indication that there is a gap, or something 'odd', in the stream of sensory data and its default interpretation of it by the 'normal' brain processes. I can recall many cases where this has allowed me to re-analyse the 'raw' data while it is still in my short-term memory, or at least try to commit to longer term memory something closer to the 'raw' data.
I can't really prove it, but I think this makes me less susceptible to the errors that occur when we observe or experience something unfamiliar and seriously mis-interpret it, resulting in us retaining a seriously inaccurate memory of the event. I can remember, in general terms, instances where my memory of some unusual event I and a companion have both just observed differs from theirs in just the way that would be expected if they had made the 'classic' error, and I had caught myself in time to avoid falling into it.
What so often seems to happen is that the brain is continually trying to find the best match between the elements of what we 'see' with what the 'library' of basic objects we have accumulated in our memory. Even when there is no good match, a 'best fit' is found and becomes what we remember as having witnessed, even if it really has only the most superficial resemblance to what was actually seen.
I base my 'training' of this sense on trying to seriously 'take on board' any accounts I come across from scientists studying the various ways our brains can seriously mis-interpret the sensory data, the sort of errors we are prone to, including tending to see what we 'expect' to see.
I see the lack of this ability in most people accounts for many reports of 'paranormal' events, from UFO sightings to reports of 'psychic' phenomena.
I am curious how Eloise would understand this - does it seem to match in any way to her modified perceptions of the details of life experience, or is it entirely different?
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I didn't say anything about utilitarianism being inconsistent with your belief system. I pointed out that you are wrong that modern safety procedures are utilitarian.
Modern safety procedures ARE NOT utilitarian.
Your view that they are is incorrect- there's a lengthy history of progressive reforms based on the "silly" idea that life is valuable for its own sake and should be preserved that created them. Prior to that, as I explained, the safety precautions were essentially medieval.
You said, paraphrasing imperfectly perhaps (but I don't want to go quote digging), that attempting to extend life is futile and silly (among something else). This demonstrates clear disrespect for that value- that's where the whole safety thing came in.
You expressed a fundamental value of your system of it being, essentially, stupid to try to hold out in one state of consciousness because others are of essentially equal value (or at least distinct but not lesser).
If you aren't expressing this as a fundamental value, then I don't have as much of a problem- it's what you said then (beyond the simple stupidity of your general claim) that put me off.
What you said was pretty clear, though- perhaps you misspoke, or did so in a way that caused confusion between your personal opinion (which you may not hold as fundamentally more correct than that of others) and the beliefs which you hold are directly derived from your belief system.
You didn't seem to understand what I was saying; I didn't think it would be so easily mistaken, so I didn't go into detail.
"all things are valuable"
You mean that objectively, based on the universal consciousness, right? If not, then I did misunderstand. If so, then I had it right.
Everything in your perspective has objective value, with nothing necessarily having less or more than anything else (as per my suggestion of death, and rocks).
By same, I mean the same in reference to this objective value-- which you have, by your earlier assertion of the "silliness" of trying to preserve one's life, placed far above and beyond- in a different league entirely from- subjective values.
If you've changed your mind (you seem to be singing a bit different a tune now), and if subjective values now trump these absolute ones, then what's the use of them at all if they can simply be ignored? If they rely on subjective acceptance to have any value at all, then they aren't really absolute values, now are they?
Oh, I do. But I do so concisely, and don't expect you to comprehend it or notice it, because it isn't *for* you. I can't very effectively play a game of logical discourse with a theist who is predisposed to cheating in that domain.
I make my arguments for any potential spectators, since I don't expect a theist to reform thinking which is dead-set on being irrational (particularly if that has demonstrably been the case for years).
Congratulations on missing the point of the tangent.
NMCP said that all rational people agree on certain moral values. I was explaining to him that morality is a matter of opinion, and equally rational people can have different opinions on the subject.
That is, rationality is more objective than all that, and doesn't force a certain subset of subjective ethics that correspond to it.
Do you really disagree with that? This was all that was to be demonstrated.
I found your opinions, as expressed, comparable to or worse than radical Islam-- if you misspoke, or have some backpedaling to do, then obviously that analogy may not necessarily apply any longer.