What the hell is a "right"?

[JadussD]

Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't me saying that government should be able to do whatever the hell it wants, but people insist that they have rights not granted by the constitution. What is the basis of these particular "rights" beyond them being something the person thinks they are entitled to?

(Let me preface this by saying I don't give a flying fuck about abortion, and probably never will unless I accidentally impregnate someone, and that this post is about RIGHTS not ABORTION.)

"I have a right to choice"
"Oh yeah? Well, the baby has a right to life."

"Babies have a right to life!"
"Oh yeah? Well, fuck you buddy, 'cuz I have have a right to kill! I should be able to kill anything I want to! It's my natural right! And forget fetuses, I have a right to kill dogs, cats, and Belgians if I so desire!"

I don't really get these arguments. Saying:

"I think I should be allowed to [x]" "What makes you think you should be allowed to do that?" "I have a right to [x]!"

Seems to me to be the same as:

"I think I should be allowed to [x]" "What makes you think you should be allowed to do that?" "I think I should be allowed to [x]"

So what the hell is up with that? It doesn't seem like an argument, it seems like someone getting indignant and pulling rights out of their asses to justify whatever it is they want to do. Is there some invisible entity that establishes what "rights" are? If so, there seems to be some confusion as to what "rights" are. There's the concept of the birthright, these are established by the family and the cultural circumstances of the person with the birthright. There are constitutional rights in America that were established by the founding fathers and Congress in order to prevent tyranny while also preventing chaos. But where do plain-jane "rights" that people assert they have in arguments come from? Anywhere?

<P ID="signature"><HR>
<CENTER>http://members.aol.com/jadussvii/Alcahest-Sociopathic_Engineering.oggThis music wants you dead.</a></center></P>

[SpaceTiger]

I agree with you to the point where I think that blindly invoking rights should be officially termed a logical fallacy. Maybe it can be called the "American fallacy."

<P ID="signature">----
"And dreams may come
That are everlasting
Though all just plastic too..." </P>

[Lobster Cowboy]

rights are based on property. however, don't think of property simply in the material sense. when you have property, you have total authority to do what you will with it. to make it easier, your own body is your property, so you have the right to do what you want to it, so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights. like a famous judge once said, "Your right to swing your fist ends where the other fellow's nose begins."

this is why i have qualms against abortion, because the mother is taking away a baby's right to property. while i don't like to tell women what to do, this is a difficult argument to get around. i stay away from abortion altogether, because as a man, i feel like i have no place dictating what a woman can/cannot do. abortion can never apply to me, so shutting up is usually the best policy.

the other things you were talkng about are privilage. when people yap about getting their rights back, what they're really saying is that they want permission to do things, because other people are controlling their property (whether it be the government, or any other entity), and they don't even know it. these people are ignorant of their own rights, which is why they're in the position they're in.

your rights are clearly stated in the constitution, and if you examine the document closely, you'll see how redundant the bill or rights actually is. if you have rights based on property, then why do you need ten additional rules that say "yeah, you really really have these rights"?

i suggest reading more about the constitution, and i suggest downloading michael badnarik's class on the subject. badnarik is a scholar, not a politician, so his class is geared towards enlightening you to the rights you never knew you had, and not to further his own agenda. read the federalist and anti-federalist papers, too. superb stuff all.

<P ID="signature"></P>

[IceWolf20]

> rights are based on property. however, don't think of
> property simply in the material sense. when you have
> property, you have total authority to do what you will with
> it. to make it easier, your own body is your property, so
> you have the right to do what you want to it, so long as it
> doesn't infringe on someone else's rights.

Oh really? I own my body do I? Sure I can jam a 12lb steel pipe through my cock and not get penalized for it, but as soon as I inhale some smoke thats "bad and evil" I'm in jail. If my body were truly my property, I could really do to it what I want....but I can't, and that's whay the government litereally owns your ass and has you by the balls all at the same time.

<P ID="signature"><div align="center">http://stuorgs.lvc.edu/acm/_private/ZMD.gif
...the way to be!</div></P>

[Drako_Dragon]

The only "right" you have is the chance to fight for survival. This is given by nature. All other "rights" are set by culture, laws, and events.


<P ID="signature"><hr> All views express above are not PC, so deal with it...</P>

[Lobster Cowboy]

no, you own the government. the people have the power, and the government is granted privileges based off of that. who created government? the people. who funds the government? the people. the power of the people granted the goverment the privilege to make laws to supposedly protect our general welfare and rights. the problem is that we've allowed ourselves to believe that this creation has taken on a power of its own, a power it DOES NOT INTRINSICALLY HAVE

yet people think the government is the owner, not vice versa. it's this kind of thinking that's flushed our rights down the toilet. you seem to have confused "i can't" with "i'm too ignorant" with regards to recovering these rights. better start fighting soon, before there's nothing left to fight for.

<P ID="signature"></P>

[puduhead]

it's my right to smoke dope goddamnit! i'm 1/52 part indian. they took our ancient lands! <img src=smilies/thumb.gif>

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://p.xanga.com/image_hosting2/profile.jpg></P>

[IceWolf20]

> yet people think the government is the owner, not vice
> versa. it's this kind of thinking that's flushed our rights
> down the toilet. you seem to have confused "i can't" with
> "i'm too ignorant" with regards to recovering these rights.
> better start fighting soon, before there's nothing left to
> fight for.

Which is better...fighting for a cause that you cannot win, or not fighting at all? Most "heroic" people will tell you that they would fight for something they believe in even though they know they can't win.....sorry, I'm not that gullible. I will not waste my time and energy fighting against the Democrats and the Republicans....there's no way to beat them at high levels of governemt. But in the end, its not the parties that are the problem...it is the government. And regardless of what fairy tale land you think you live in...the government owns you....and I defy you to create a realistic and plausible argument otherwise. Your previous statements are all fine and good on paper...and is, in theory, the way it should be. However, this is not the way it is. The only way in which we can regain control is to have a fucking coup de tat and install a TRUE democracy...not this representative republic bullshit.

If we truly owned ourselves, and the government, we wouldn't be electing people to make our laws....people would make them, then WE AS A PEOPLE would have a referendum on EVERYTHING. However, since this is not, nor ever will be the case....mostly b/c the majority of the people in the country are either a) too apathetic or b) too fucking dumb. What we have works because of the fear we have of the ownership of the government over us. If we dont fear the governing body, it doesn't work...we gave them the power initially, yes. But they have abused it and turned it against us in a draconian policy of fearmongering that makes us the weak peasants serving up our rights and dignaty to the almighty federal government to proctect us from the "evil" of the world, when in fact the wool has been pulled so far over our eyes, that we cannot see the truth that the evil is right in front of us in the form of our great republic.

<P ID="signature"><div align="center">http://stuorgs.lvc.edu/acm/_private/ZMD.gif
...the way to be!</div></P>

[Lobster Cowboy]

before you ever reply to me again, read this (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) until you understand it.

"I'm through with this guy!" -- Vincent "Vinny" Gambini

<P ID="signature"></P>

[puduhead]

Yes, and b4 you reply, study these (http://www.trekmania.net/art/constitution-schem.jpg) thoroughly!

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://p.xanga.com/image_hosting2/profile.jpg></P>

[IceWolf20]

> before you ever reply to me again, read this until you
> understand it.
>
> "I'm through with this guy!" -- Vincent "Vinny" Gambini

*ahem* I've read and understood that great document thoroughly....hell, I even have a hardback copy of it....and I hold those truths and principles very dearly...and for you to suggest otherwise is not only offensive, but dangerous. What the problem is that not what it says, but what the government has done to it. "Unconstitutional" no longer has any meaning....its only a word used to overturn laws that were pretty dumb to begin with. The majority of our system of government is unconstitutional....not to mention certain new acts that are in place "protecting" us. I believe in the Constitution and what it says...but at least I'm not dumb and gullible enough to think that anything in there actually pertains to what the people in DC are doing every damn day. To them, its only an idealology ridiculed with the holes of beuracracy and special interests. I'm sure the outward "nobility" of our elected officials "upholding" the Constitution does great for the sound byte or the photo-op...but in practice they, for the most part, could give two shits. I may be making a generalization here, but based on their policies and actions, I, as a citizen, are left to believe otherwise. So, say what you may, but you did not tell me how we have control over our governemt. Just because a 200 year old piece of paper says we do doesn't mean jack in today's world. We gave ourselves rights, and the those in power have taken them away from us. We were duped by the very people we trusted with guiding our lives, and the sad part is....no one even knows it.

<P ID="signature"><div align="center">http://stuorgs.lvc.edu/acm/_private/ZMD.gif
...the way to be!</div></P>

[Danoz]

We believe in the freedom of speech, free press, freedom of religion and worship, freedom of assembly and petition,-- the right of men to be secure in their homes, to be free from unreasonable search and to never be subjected to arbitrary arrest and punishment.

Human beings are born with a basic understanding of right and wrong, and overtime that innate knowledge has been translated into our writings, laws and belief systems. Unless you completely lack conscience, either by disorder or shaping, you know them too. Don't think yourself out of what you already know.

<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[Danoz]

This is an excellent echo of the philosophy used to indocrinate children of Hitler Youth. Human beings are not animals.

<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[Danoz]

We own the government because we elect people in this republic to make decisions for us. And good luck with Badnarik, I may not agree with the guy at all but I respect his fight.

<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[SpaceTiger]

> This is an excellent echo of the philosophy used to
> indocrinate children of Hitler Youth.

Simply because someone doesn't subscribe to your idea of inherent rights doesn't justify comparing them to the Nazis. I'm sorry, but this is one of the most appalling posts I've ever seen from you.

<P ID="signature">----
"And dreams may come
That are everlasting
Though all just plastic too..." </P>

[Danoz]

> Simply because someone doesn't subscribe to your idea of
> inherent rights doesn't justify comparing them to the Nazis.
> I'm sorry, but this is one of the most appalling posts I've
> ever seen from you.

I found his post appauling. He may not be a bad person, but he advocates a dangerous philosophy and I'll point it out 100 times in hope that he, and others, recognize it.

<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[Wren]

> This is an excellent echo of the philosophy used to
> indocrinate children of Hitler Youth. Human beings are not
> animals.

Science would beg to differ. Human beings as a lifeform aren't fundamentally different than any other animal. We only place ourselves above the other species on this planet because we need to justify why we torture and slaughter them (sometimes into extinction).

Actually, we're worse than the other animals. We manipulate and kill our own kind as well, usually for petty reasons such as money and other material items. We destroy our own home and are happyily ignorant about it. Humans are a parasitic lifeform that doesn't live in harmony with nature. No other being is like this. Even other parasites serve some type of reciprocal function.

I agree with Drako. Your previous post about people being born with inherent knowledge of right and wrong is completely fabricated BS. Belief systems and values are instilled through environment. The only thing a human is born with are the basic instincts of survival and reproduction, like all other species of life.

-Wren

<P ID="signature"></P>

[SpaceTiger]

> I found his post appauling. He may not be a bad person, but
> he advocates a dangerous philosophy and I'll point it out
> 100 times in hope that he, and others, recognize it.

It's a sad world to live in where the truth is dangerous. I will not believe, nor encourage others to believe, anything which is untrue, regardless of its potential to control. That, my friend, would be akin to Hitler.

<P ID="signature">----
"And dreams may come
That are everlasting
Though all just plastic too..." </P>

[JadussD]

> Human beings are born with a basic understanding of right
> and wrong, and overtime that innate knowledge has been
> translated into our writings, laws and belief systems.
> Unless you completely lack conscience, either by disorder or
> shaping, you know them too. Don't think yourself out of what
> you already know.

Really? You must teach a child not to hit another child. You must teach people what is acceptable. People only innately feel compassion for whatever group they see as their "own"...their family, most definitely, their friends, or perhaps their tribe or town, or their nation, followers of their own religious beliefs, or even the entire world. People are taught who to feel this compassion for. If you do not teach someone what you want them to believe is right and what is wrong, they will do as they please or what they think they can get away with. When the Nazis occupied Poland, there was a town of ordinary people who rounded up all the Jews in the town and tortured them to death, just because they were allowed to by the Nazis, and they saw the Jews as "them" and did not like them. We are not born with an understanding of right and wrong, even by your own religion:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? -Jeremiah 17:9

Did your parents ever scold you or punish you for doing something you weren't supposed to do? Did you not see anything wrong with what you were doing until you were punished? From THAT moment on, you knew what you were doing was wrong. You were not born with it. There were (are?) tribes who gathered all people around for observation of human sacrifice, and these people believed that what they were doing was right, and what the gods wanted. Why did these people believe this was right? Because they were taught that it was. They had absolutely no qualms with doing so. The Aztecs believed that it was good to die in battle, and to slaughter your enemies. Whoever questioned this was "wrong". Almost everyone looks back at the crusades as a horrible, terrible idea, even Christians, but didn't it seem like they were gloriously marching into battle for the glory of God to the many, many soldiers who volunteered for this task?

<P ID="signature"><HR>
<CENTER>http://members.aol.com/jadussvii/Alcahest-Sociopathic_Engineering.oggThis music wants you dead.</a></center></P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

It's a sad world to live in where the truth is dangerous. I will not believe, nor encourage others to believe, anything which is untrue, regardless of its potential to control. That, my friend, would be akin to Hitler.

<hr></blockquote>

Does not a "right to survival" lend itself to other rights? The concept he put forth lends no respect to humanity at all, and it seems totally based around selfishness and a "whatever it takes-- at all costs" attitude. Do you really endorse this kind of Machiavellian philosophy?

<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[SpaceTiger]

> The concept he put forth lends no respect to humanity at
> all, and it seems totally based around selfishness and a
> "whatever it takes-- at all costs" attitude. Do you really
> endorse this kind of Machiavellian philosophy?

You're confusing "ethics" and "rights". My ethics are probably not that different from yours, but they have an entirely different base. I do think we're animals and I don't think that our rights or ethics are derived from some absolute knowledge. My philosophy is mostly pragmatic.

<P ID="signature">----
"And dreams may come
That are everlasting
Though all just plastic too..." </P>

[JadussD]

> It's a sad world to live in where the truth is dangerous. I
> will not believe, nor encourage others to believe, anything
> which is untrue, regardless of its potential to control.
> That, my friend, would be akin to Hitler.

It is correct that the Nazis believed something akin to what Drako_Dragon stated and used it to justify their actions, yes. But come on, correlation does not equal causation. But really, I think concepts, categories, descriptions don't even exist. A tree is a just a bunch of matter existing and interacting in a certain way. A human being is a bunch of matter existing and interacting in a certain way. The ground is a bunch of matter existing and interacting in a certain way. When a man first looks at a tree and doesn't know what it is, he sees a bizarre object that is just there unless he is told what it is. Once he learns, it is impossible for him to see it as anything but a tree, and the tree becomes less interesting because he knows what it is. Another tree might be less interesting, because he does not look at all the unique facets of the tree that differentiate it from the last one he saw, when he has pigeonholed the concept of a "tree" into a label. If a man only saw two things in his life, a willow tree and another willow tree, each willow tree would seem like two very dissimilar things because of their differences. Words, labels, concepts, don't exist, only the matter that makes up physical objects. Once a man has the intelligence to label things, he can start categorizing interactions between matter into ones he likes and doesn't like. He is matter, and other people are matter, he learns that other matter affects him in certain ways. Thus he creates rules and laws to protect himself and the other matter that is important to him. Thus we have morality. It is far from absolute. I suppose this is probably the most nihilistic way of looking at morality ever, but it's how I see it. My ethical system is based on protecting things I like--that's it. Someone could say this is dangerous, but I can not see it any other way...I've tried to strip away all preconceptions and this is what I'm left with. It scares the shit out of me sometimes.

<P ID="signature"><HR>
<CENTER>http://members.aol.com/jadussvii/Alcahest-Sociopathic_Engineering.oggThis music wants you dead.</a></center></P>

[SpaceTiger]

> I've tried to strip away all preconceptions and this is what I'm
> left with. It scares the shit out of me sometimes.

I find that I'm left with pretty much the same thing. I don't think that it prevents me from having morals or believing in the ones I have, despite what some would have us believe, but it is a bit scary.

On the other hand, I could go off about how it's not so self-evident that devotion to truth is such a good or "right" thing either. It's just as arbitrary to prefer that which "is" over that which "isn't", despite the usual utilitarian appeal of the former. Sadly, I often find that the more I analyze a situation, the less room there is for a defensible position.

We must choose our bases and then accept that others will choose theirs differently. The difficulty in argument is acknowledging when our differences are due only to those bases and when one (or both) of our positions is inherently contradictory. Danoz's foundation is so different from most of us here that I sometimes wonder whether it's even worth arguing, but there's something to be said for fleshing out our differences. An open mind is a healthy mind.

<P ID="signature">----
"And dreams may come
That are everlasting
Though all just plastic too..." </P>

[icenine0]

Ugh. Again and again, you imperiously throw out some conclusion and just hope it sticks. There's plenty of evidence, as JadussD has mentioned, that completely precludes your theory. But, predictively, you won't reply to any of it, as you never have to mine. Your ideas consistently rely on rejecting the objective.

I can only assume that your public debate skills use some emotional or vocal factor that's absent here; as I see it, every time you're engaged, you get run over by a freight train to which you're completely oblivious.

For that, I give you the http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/flame_77.phpStone Deaf</A> award.

<P ID="signature">The more often you fail, the sweeter the taste of success!</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Ugh. Again and again, you imperiously throw out some conclusion and just hope it sticks. There's plenty of evidence, as JadussD has mentioned, that completely precludes your theory.

<hr></blockquote>
What evidence? He pointed out two very different situations and concluded that they were the same. I'm venturing to guess most people read, "Oh yeah? Well, fuck you buddy, 'cuz I have have a right to kill! I should be able to kill anything I want to! It's my natural right! And forget fetuses, I have a right to kill dogs, cats, and Belgians if I so desire!", and knew it to be wrong. You probably did, too. By perpetuating the question, however, you are denying what you already know.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

But, predictively, you won't reply to any of it, as you never have to mine. Your ideas consistently rely on rejecting the objective.

<hr></blockquote>
I replied with my own belief. Just above, I showed you how his belief is wrong. I've never dodged any of your arguments, and since I know you can't show me one case where I've done this, stop projecting it.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I can only assume that your public debate skills use some emotional or vocal factor that's absent here; as I see it, every time you're engaged, you get run over by a freight train to which you're completely oblivious.

<hr></blockquote>
Show me this "freight train" in this argument. Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm "oblivious". The base of this argument is moral relativism. If you're so open to other viewpoints, you should be more than willing to accept mine. In attacking me you've become oblivious to your own hypocrisy.


<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[JadussD]

> What evidence? He pointed out two very different situations
> and concluded that they were the same. I'm venturing to
> guess most people read, "Oh yeah? Well, fuck you buddy, 'cuz
> I have have a right to kill! I should be able to kill
> anything I want to! It's my natural right! And forget
> fetuses, I have a right to kill dogs, cats, and Belgians if
> I so desire!", and knew it to be wrong.

I'm sorry, but you missed the point entirely. I was illustrating by taking an idea to a logical extreme how someone could assert that they have a right to do anything, and that the assertation is usually completely baseless if not backed up by anything else. "Saying you have a right to do something" is not an argument. That was my point. Also, icenine0 was referring to my reply to your post, not my original post when he cited "plenty of evidence"

You probably did,
> too. By perpetuating the question, however, you are denying
> what you already know.

> I replied with my own belief. Just above, I showed you how
> his belief is wrong. I've never dodged any of your
> arguments, and since I know you can't show me one case where
> I've done this, stop projecting it.

You have demonstrated nothing but your own opinions on the subject by appealing to some absolute morality that you agree with but everyone else who has replied to this thread does not agree with. I don't think you understood my original point, which is that saying you have a "right" to something is not an argument by itself and justifies nothing, because one can assert that they have a right to anything.

> Show me this "freight train" in this argument. Just because
> I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm "oblivious". The base
> of this argument is moral relativism. If you're so open to
> other viewpoints, you should be more than willing to accept
> mine. In attacking me you've become oblivious to your own
> hypocrisy.

He's just saying that you get completely owned in your dogmatic arguments on a consistent basis. You just revealed in a subtle way that you consider yourself closed-minded, actually, by the disdainful tone of "if you're so open to other viewpoints".

<P ID="signature"><HR>
<CENTER>http://members.aol.com/jadussvii/Alcahest-Sociopathic_Engineering.oggThis music wants you dead.</a></center></P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

You're confusing "ethics" and "rights".

<hr></blockquote>
No, I'm not. Rights are an extension of ethics. People consistently break away from oppressive governments because they're well aware of their rights.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

My ethics are probably not that different from yours, but they have an entirely different base. I do think we're animals and I don't think that our rights or ethics are derived from some absolute knowledge. My philosophy is mostly pragmatic.

<hr></blockquote>
It is solely environment that shapes morality, then? I find this hard to believe. If the extent of our humanity is survival, then how would you explain altruism? How would you explain self-sacrifice and love? These things have been around as long as we can record.


<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[Drako_Dragon]

> This is an excellent echo of the philosophy used to
> indocrinate children of Hitler Youth. Human beings are not animals.

Yes we are. We just try to rise above animal behavoir by creating civilazation.

> > Simply because someone doesn't subscribe to your idea of
> > inherent rights doesn't justify comparing them to the Nazis.
> > I'm sorry, but this is one of the most appalling posts
> > I've ever seen from you.

> I found his post appauling. He may not be a bad person, but
> he advocates a dangerous philosophy and I'll point it out
> 100 times in hope that he, and others, recognize it.

I'm not talking about a philosophy here. I'm talking about the base and only "right" every living thing has. From the single cell amoeba to the complexe lifeforms we are. If you only follow this base rule you are only an animal not a human. As I posted "All other "rights" are set by culture, laws, and events. " In some cultures women are property, in others the king owned all the land (you just took care of it), some places you can say whatever you want elsewhere that will get you shot, etc.


<P ID="signature"><hr> All views express above are not PC, so deal with it...</P>

[CEpeep]

> I'm not talking about a philosophy here. I'm talking about
> the base and only "right" every living thing has.

<img src=smilies/werd.gif>

<P ID="signature">--------------------

http://www.glastheim.com/images/peepos.gif</P>

[Goku]

If the extent of our humanity is
> survival, then how would you explain altruism? How would you
> explain self-sacrifice and love? These things have been
> around as long as we can record.

Without those concepts, humans would not survive. We are weak animals. What gives us strength is our brain and thought processes. Altruism, self sacrifice and love allow us to come and bond together as a group and build a society thush maximizing the chances for survival by working together.

That is how one would explain from a strictly animal point of view.

<P ID="signature"><center>
<IMG SRC = "http://www.angelfire.com/droid/google/temp.txt">
</center></P>

[SpaceTiger]

>> You're confusing "ethics" and "rights".

> No, I'm not. Rights are an extension of ethics.

Dammit, dude, just admit it when you're confused. You very clearly stated that he was endorsing a "whatever it takes" attitude when he stated his disbelief in inherent rights. I don't believe in inherent rights, but I don't have that attitude. They don't naturally lead to one another and they're definitely not the same thing.


> It is solely environment that shapes morality, then?

And our biological make-up, of course. We're prone to group together into communities/societies, so it's not surprising that most of us would have a natural aversion to murder (for example).


> If the extent of our humanity is
> survival, then how would you explain altruism? How would you
> explain self-sacrifice and love? These things have been
> around as long as we can record.

I think the existence of altruism can be explained with genetic arguments. A gene is more likely to survive if it compels its host take care of its friends and family (because they are likely to share the gene). You should read Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene."

<P ID="signature">----
"And dreams may come
That are everlasting
Though all just plastic too..." </P>

[icenine0]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


What evidence? He pointed out two very different situations
and concluded that they were the same. I'm venturing to
guess most people read, "Oh yeah? Well, fuck you buddy, 'cuz
I have have a right to kill! I should be able to kill
anything I want to! It's my natural right! And forget
fetuses, I have a right to kill dogs, cats, and Belgians if
I so desire!", and knew it to be wrong. You probably did,
too. By perpetuating the question, however, you are denying
what you already know.


<hr></blockquote>

By questioning how I came about certain knowledge, I'm surely not "denying" it. Furthermore, you're now reducing your argument to something trivial: first, you stated that ethics are absolute and innate rather than learned. Now, you merely say that ethics exist. The above paragraph is bunkum.

And, as JadussD said, I was talking about his reply.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


I replied with my own belief. Just above, I showed you how
his belief is wrong. I've never dodged any of your
arguments, and since I know you can't show me one case where
I've done this, stop projecting it.


<hr></blockquote>

The two recent circumstances:

http://www.zophar.net/wwwthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=backroom&Number=236455&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0The world doesn't hate our country...</A>
Here, I gave a mountain of evidence in support of my viewpoint. Did you respond to any of it? No, because it was irrefutable, and you hadn't done enough research before spouting off.

http://www.zophar.net/wwwthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=backroom&Number=237902&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0Government should be completely secular.</A>
I backed up my view with relevant quotations and constitutional analysis. You, on the other hand, simply threw out another empty conclusion and didn't acknowledge my strongest supports.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


Show me this "freight train" in this argument. Just because
I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm "oblivious". The base
of this argument is moral relativism. If you're so open to
other viewpoints, you should be more than willing to accept
mine. In attacking me you've become oblivious to your own
hypocrisy.


<hr></blockquote>

A belief only deserves respect if rooted in the unknowable. When available data contradicts it, faith becomes ignorance.

For example, suppose a man believes the moon is made completely of green cheese. Eventually, he's presented with both detailed telescopic photos of the lunar object and large samples from a recent, well-documented, peer-reviewed foray. If the man retains his belief, he's in denial of objective reality.

In the same way, again, your belief stands in the way of historical and scientific evidence that you, apparently, haven't bothered to research and won't bother to acknowledge.

For example, are you aware of the http://www.prisonexp.org/Stanford Prison Experiment</A>? Normal people, put in an uncivilized setting, swiftly became barbaric. Or have you seen the studies done by http://www.violence.de/prescott/humanist/ethics.docJohn Bowlby and Rene Spitz</A> on the effects of maternal deprivation in infants? Or do you even know of Pavlovian conditioning? These can't be explained by "disorders" or "shaping"; the brain develops and reacts in diverse ways when exposed to differing stimuli. That's simply factual.

Overall, as in this case, your arguments typically consist of much tacit assumption and demagoguery with scant bits of concrete evidence and analysis. For that reason, they hold little water.

<P ID="signature">The more often you fail, the sweeter the taste of success!</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

The two recent circumstances:

The world doesn't hate our country...
Here, I gave a mountain of evidence in support of my viewpoint. Did you respond to any of it? No, because it was irrefutable, and you hadn't done enough research before spouting off.

Government should be completely secular.
I backed up my view with relevant quotations and constitutional analysis. You, on the other hand, simply threw out another empty conclusion and didn't acknowledge my strongest supports.

<hr></blockquote>
Ugh, this is the first time I have seen both of those posts. Your first post is hardly irrefutable. Of course I'm aware of anti-American sentiment over seas, the same wave swept the globe when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire". It hardly justifies saying the "whole world hates the United States". Your second post refers to a quote where he's clearly making a religious statement that he looks to a higher power for guidance. "God speaks through me" is a phrase I've used before, and it doesn't mean that God comes into his room at night and speaks to him directly. I'll reply to both posts when I get some time, I'm sorry I missed them. I'll start putting links in a text file so I make sure I get to them.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

By questioning how I came about certain knowledge, I'm surely not "denying" it. Furthermore, you're now reducing your argument to something trivial: first, you stated that ethics are absolute and innate rather than learned. Now, you merely say that ethics exist. The above paragraph is bunkum. A belief only deserves respect if rooted in the unknowable. When available data contradicts it, faith becomes ignorance.

<hr></blockquote>
I never contradicted, and I'll still hold that knowledge of good and evil are innate.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

In the same way, again, your belief stands in the way of historical and scientific evidence that you, apparently, haven't bothered to research and won't bother to acknowledge. For example, are you aware of the Stanford Prison Experiment? Normal people, put in an uncivilized setting, swiftly became barbaric.

<hr></blockquote>
You've just proven your ignorance of the Stanford Prison Experiment (a giant game in which people became overly obsessed with their roles). Let me quote the research directly, "There were three types of guards. First, there were tough but fair guards who followed prison rules. Second, there were "good guys" who did little favors for the prisoners and never punished them. And finally, about a third of the guards were hostile, arbitrary, and inventive in their forms of prisoner humiliation. These guards appeared to thoroughly enjoy the power they wielded, yet none of our preliminary personality tests were able to predict this behavior." The examination hardly proves that the people "swiftly became barbaric". What I found most interesting is the variation in reactions. It's no secret that some people abuse power. While interesting, of course, the study hardly acts as irrefutable evidence to moral relativism.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Or have you seen the studies done by John Bowlby and Rene Spitz on the effects of maternal deprivation in infants?

<hr></blockquote>
Not until now, I'll read them.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Or do you even know of Pavlovian conditioning?

<hr></blockquote>
Of course, but I don't see what classical conditioning has to do with ethics. The subject is response by association, and classical conditioning can be reversed with extinction (removing the conditioned stimulus).
Now, I wish you wouldn't accuse me of dodging. People don't always reply to all of my posts, and unless they purposely and obviously neglect important points-- I don't accuse them of it.

<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[icenine0]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


I'll reply to both posts when I get some time, I'm sorry I
missed them. I'll start putting links in a text file so I
make sure I get to them.


<hr></blockquote>

Fair enough.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


I never contradicted, and I'll still hold that knowledge of
good and evil are innate.


<hr></blockquote>

Right, but whether I consider something good or evil now (the premise of the paragraph in question) has nothing to do with when I acquired that knowledge.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


You've just proven your ignorance of the Stanford Prison
Experiment (a giant game in which people became overly
obsessed with their roles). Let me quote the research
directly, "There were three types of guards. First, there
were tough but fair guards who followed prison rules.
Second, there were "good guys" who did little favors for the
prisoners and never punished them. And finally, about a
third of the guards were hostile, arbitrary, and inventive
in their forms of prisoner humiliation. These guards
appeared to thoroughly enjoy the power they wielded, yet
none of our preliminary personality tests were able to
predict this behavior." The examination hardly proves that
the people "swiftly became barbaric".


<hr></blockquote>

Nice try. Notice I didn't say "all the people" swiftly became barbaric. Just a few is enough to prove my point. Regardless of how certain guards acted, their acceptance of cruel behaviors (observe slides http://www.prisonexp.org/slide-17.htm17</A>, http://www.prisonexp.org/slide-18.htm18</A>, and http://www.prisonexp.org/slide-21.htm21</A>, among others) demonstrated insufficient moral compunction. Notice, also, that in these circumstances "the guards" as a whole were the perpetrators; the study makes no mention of individuals denying their roles. In fact, not a single guard quit in disgust -- truly, most of them were disappointed at their premature termination.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


What I found most interesting is the variation in reactions. It's no secret that some people abuse power. While interesting, of course, the study hardly acts as irrefutable evidence to moral relativism.

Of course, but I don't see what classical conditioning has
to do with ethics. The subject is response by association,
and classical conditioning can be reversed with extinction
(removing the conditioned stimulus).


<hr></blockquote>

You've got all the components right, now I'll give you the big picture:

- Morality = Conditioned
- Societal Demands and Interactions = Conditioned Stimulus
- Removing the Stimulus = Extinction

Now, that picture is perfectly plausible, given what we know about psychology. The variation in guard behavior can be easily accounted for by both genetics and strength of conditioning. Further, using Occam's Razor, is it more reasonable to conclude that morality is a set of learned behaviors, as many studies tell us, or that it's part of some mysterious, inscrutable X factor that each human is secretly imbued with and must consciously ignore?

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


Now, I wish you wouldn't accuse me of dodging. People don't
always reply to all of my posts, and unless they purposely
and obviously neglect important points-- I don't accuse them
of it.


<hr></blockquote>

Well, as I see it, you purposely and obviously neglected important points. I can't think of any other explanation for you backing out of an argument every time I hit my stride; it's difficult to believe that you don't at least glance at each direct reply to your posts.

<P ID="signature">The more often you fail, the sweeter the taste of success!</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Right, but whether I consider something good or evil now (the premise of the paragraph in question) has nothing to do with when I acquired that knowledge.

<hr></blockquote>
Right, but what about the consistency of that knowledge? It still leaves the question open, “where did it come from”. And I’m not convinced by the behaviorist’s argument, I’ll tell you why.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Nice try. Notice I didn't say "all the people" swiftly became barbaric. Just a few is enough to prove my point. Regardless of how certain guards acted, their acceptance of cruel behaviors (observe slides 17, 18, and 21, among others) demonstrated insufficient moral compunction. Notice, also, that in these circumstances "the guards" as a whole were the perpetrators; the study makes no mention of individuals denying their roles. In fact, not a single guard quit in disgust -- truly, most of them were disappointed at their premature termination.

<hr></blockquote>
First off, you should note that I’ve never said environment isn’t a factor in our choices. Each of those guards had to make a choice, and the ones who became sadistic and angry very likely had tendencies towards these things before they ever entered the cell. (It’s nice that the study says all of them were normal before hand, but really, define normal. These students weren’t clean slates, they had histories). Consider the prison guards in North Korea, many of them are literally brainwashed from childhood to believe the people are worthless, “enemies of the state”, and that they deserve torture. Yet, some of them, have sudden realizations that what they’re doing is wrong. How could this possibly be described? I’ve spent the last several weeks reading many accounts of refugees, prisoners and guards alike. They’re acceptance of cruel behaviors does show the weakness of men to be manipulated, but it still doesn’t show me that men aren’t born with innate knowledge of an absolute morality.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

You've got all the components right, now I'll give you the big picture:
- Morality = Conditioned
- Societal Demands and Interactions = Conditioned Stimulus
- Removing the Stimulus = Extinction

<hr></blockquote>
All this shows is response to environment. It still doesn’t give an answer to the prison guards in North Korea. What I’m telling you is that the distinction between good and evil and an unconditioned stimulus, and the response is conscience (feeling of wrongness). The conditioned stimulus isn’t morality, it’s the environment.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Now, that picture is perfectly plausible, given what we know about psychology. The variation in guard behavior can be easily accounted for by both genetics and strength of conditioning. Further, using Occam's Razor, is it more reasonable to conclude that morality is a set of learned behaviors, as many studies tell us, or that it's part of some mysterious, inscrutable X factor that each human is secretly imbued with and must consciously ignore?

<hr></blockquote>
Strength of conditioning? As in, who had the best moral teaching? While the easiest explanation, there is so much it doesn’t account for. Two children can have equal love and guidance. One can become a pastor, and the other can rob banks. It is so hard to believe that the second child consciously decided against the teaching?
I was going to end the thread there, but I don’t think we’re hitting the root of our disagreement. This is important, do you believe in a creator? There’s a fundamental difference in the two thought processes because one assumes beings to be the product purely of evolution—because of this, morality has to be an invention of man rather than a creation of God. Don’t let this automatically close your mind to my argument. The prison guard in Kwan-Li-So was conditioned to hate, if you’re right, he should always believe this because, according to you, morality is purely conditioned. Even if you come to the conclusion that a knowledge of Good and Evil in the form of conscience is even partially genetic (innate)—then maybe we can find some common ground.

<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>

[Crazy_MYKL]

> This is an excellent echo of the philosophy used to
> indocrinate children of Hitler Youth. Human beings are not
> animals.
>

Danoz ivokes http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/g/GodwinsLaw.htmlGodwin's Law</a>. Danoz loses the thread.


<P ID="signature">---
I was at this restaurant. The sign said "Breakfast Anytime."
So I ordered French Toast in the Rennaissance.
---
This post rot26 encoded.</P>