|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 08/07/2006 : 17:08:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In contrast, you'll never hear a
religious person refer to their god as a 'theory'.
By that do you mean that you'll never hear a religious person express doubt and humbleness in their faithful claims? Because I could not count on two hands the number of times I've had a discussion with a religious friend who said something along the lines of, “This is just what I think of it. I don't know for sure, and I might be wrong.”
quote:
Contemporary democracy only values
age to determine voter eligibility, whereas we attempt to
add more meaningful caliber to the voting process, assigning
'weighted' votes in proportion to an individual's relevant
character. Please read tenet #24 to understand.
This is all too much idealistic philosophical theorizing. There is no standardized test that has ever been developed which accurately measures the whole of intelligence. Immigrants and the poor would clearly be screwed over. And how the fuck do you measure all those qualities? What test would be used that couldn't be manipulated and that would be accurate? How many times in history can be point to a place where “the ruling body of the time period in question” was NOT the majority? How about Iran? How about North Korea? And as for criminal history – there's something else to screw the poor over. Any idiot knows that if you can afford a lawyer, you can much more easily avoid prosecution for various crimes. Not to mention that the urban poor get caught for crimes much more frequently simply because the streets are more visible. And let's not forget education and intelligence – wasn't it the skeptic Michael Shermer, in his book “Why People Believe Weird Things” who talked about how compartmentalized thinking (double think) is easier among people who are more intellectual? What the hell makes a PhD in math more qualified to vote than my father-in-law who has an 8th grade education but who reads the paper every day and pays attention to what goes on in the world?
Your faith in the “ruling body” to decide what speech is worthy of privilege is repulsively ignorant of world history. Yes, all political systems do restrict speech to some degree, but in the modern Western world those restrictions have been to prevent immediate harm, such as yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre or publicly giving specific instructions of how to assassinate someone. The type of speech you seem to want to prevent would include street preachers and door-to-door Mormons. Yes, let's go prancing back into the dark ages, only with atheist masters instead of Catholic ones.
quote:
Excellent question, and I do have an answer, but first, I'd
like you to answer your own question from a different
perspective. What do you believe should happen to the parents
if they give their children heroin? Or teach them to strap
bombs to their bodies in the name of their gods?
I'm so glad that atheists like you are the minority.
If you are going to insist on the drug analogy, then actually take it all the way. There are a lot of different types of drugs. We in fact do give children drugs all the time without anyone having moral qualms about it. No, not just medical ones. Kids drink caffeinated beverages all the time. Also, my dad gave my brother and I sips of beer as a child. Few people would throw a fit about that, and even fewer would say my father should be prosecuted for child abuse over someth |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 19:14:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
And the definition of “Science”, horribly incomplete.
Good catch on those definitions, Marf, I missed them completely. Although I must say that calling the definition of science "horribly incomplete" is an understatement.
It seems to me that SeanSinjin is another one of those people who prefer to argue through redefinition of common words rather than the way most other people try to make their points, by using language as a fixed base upon which to build logically flowing, premise-to-conclusion ideas.
Of course, as my previous posts in this thread showed, even using SeanSinjin's own definitions, he is being inconsistent in his beliefs. Heck, I don't even see how he can logically aim to "prove" that God doesn't exist in his book at the same time that he argues, in the foreward to that book, that there are no such things as facts.
Really, I don't see how he can possibly argue that anything is "better" than anything else while also stating - in no uncertain terms - that his premises are likely to be wrong. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
SeanSinjin
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2006 : 09:09:51 [Permalink]
|
Hello again my friends. I can't thank you enough for your
continued feedback on the BetterHuman.org website. Your
comments have been most helpful.
Ricky:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
In a perfect world, where everyone used these tenents
as they are intended, it wouldn't be so bad. But this isn't
a perfect world.
Thank you for seeing the 'potential' of these tenets, but I
find it discouraging that you haven't any trust in our
ability to enact them successfully. So, are you suggesting we
shouldn't try? What is the alternative.to let virtually
everyone continue wasting their lives in a massive deception?
quote:
quote:
Freedom of speech needs to be understood as a
privilege instead of a right; to the degree that prevents
someone blind with ignorance from misleading an innocent or
susceptible audience.
Good in theory. But there are cases where people who
present ideas which are radically different from the normal line
of thinking, and thus, they are labeled insane or ignorant.
It doesn't happen often, but in such cases this tenent
would hold back progress.
No offense my friend, but it's so ironic you should say
that, because that's exactly what is happening to 'me' in this
forum. My tenet certainly wouldn't be 'introducing' this
type of oppression.
But again (and I can't stress this enough), don't think for
a second that we actually currently have anything that
could be considered 'freedom of speech'. We are 'already'
heavily censored. The fraction of a degree of censorship that
our tenet is attempting to impose would barely register
amongst the myriad of other verbal oppressions we as a society
endure (and support). Implemented as intended and
explained, the only fallout of our tenet should be the oppression
of religion, thereby saving 'billions' of people from
wasting their lives in the misguided pursuit of fantasy. I
believe it to be nearly impossible to misappropriate this tenet
into a vehicle for unjust oppression if the full body of
its fantasy-suppressing purpose is always associated with its
enactment.
quote:
It can also be abused. Who decides what is ignorant
and misleading? Might this person have other political
motivations for doing so?
Any person or establishment that purports as 'fact': the
notions of afterlife, immortality, or other supernatural
concepts that are completely devoid of scientifically-defined
evidence and instead rely entirely upon 'faith', should draw
the line of what is acceptable or not. If religions would
tout their wares for what they are: the 'theory' of God,
then at least it will give people the correct viewpoint,
better enabling them to be subjective about their chosen
reality perspective.
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
I must say that even with your clarifications I find
major flaws in your philosophy, besides the ones already
pointed out. For one 'happiness' is entirely subjective,
created by humans and not nessisarily universal. If I were to
truly pursue my personal happiness, others I know would become
unhappy.
A state of happiness is not subjective whatsoever, it is a
very real chemical/electrical state of the brain that every
single person on the planet can readily identify without
doubt. Your point is more toward 'how to induce' happiness
that is subjective, but even that I'll argue. 'Happiness'
at its most primitive level is a state of 'instinctual
satisfaction', either by a lack of demand by the instincts, or
significant placation of the instincts. Ultimately,
happiness is a lack of instinctual need (wanting), better known as
'contentment'. Unfortunately, there is a huge mess of gray
matter the separates our raw instincts from the real world.
We can't just have sex at any time, we can't just kill our
perceived aggressors, we can't just eat everything in
sight. So, it takes some intelligence to be able to placate the
instincts, and this is where the social definition of
happiness enters. If you can find a way to create a lifestyle
that allows you to placate all your inst!
inctual needs, without needing to hurt others, then you've
achieved perfect happiness.
My friend, if you tell me you believe that the only way for
you to be happy is to make others unhappy, then I'm afraid
you haven't given it enough thought. Get to the base
instinct that is causing you to want to make others suffer, and
find another way to feed that instinct. Instincts are kind
of stupid in that they can be completely satisfied with the
just-as-good alternatives to what those instincts 'believe'
they want. For example, I have always found indulging in
vigorous sports to be a fantastic outlet for my rage
instincts, and the best part is that this energy is expended to my
benefit, making me healthy and strong, instead of wasting
that energy on a socially-denounced, diluted, and primitive
tantrum that can only serve to destroy. You can trick your
base instincts into complete satisfaction without
necessarily giving them what their first demands would be, and this
is the secret to complete happiness: introspection to see
what you 'really' want deep down inside,!
and finding clever ways to feed those needs without
hurting others. It takes much intelligence, honesty, and wisdom
to pursue this path, but it's a life much more content and
fulfilled than what the raw direction of the instincts
would lead us into.
quote:
The primary problem is trying to mesh science with
philosophy, as soon as you introduce some subjective term like
'happiness', science goes out the window. Therefor if you were
to try and teach this bullshit to my children, I might have
to call you a child abuser. (I also see Santa/EB/Tooth
Fairy as a negative, but not abuse) What makes your fantasy
better than theirs?
The fact that I consider my perspective a 'theoretical
model' which makes its credibility subject to evidence to the
contrary, is the million-dollar difference between my
perspective, and anything that could reasonably be construed as a
fantasy perspective. I'd be content if religions would
teach their nonsense as 'theoretical', but they'll never do
that, because that will forever loosen the maniacal grip they
have on their terrified followers psyches.
quote:
EDIT: It has been pointed out to me by the members of this
forum that while t |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2006 : 10:32:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No my friend, I'm simply using the scientific method by
postulating a hypothesis (bether), and then perpetually
pursuing more and more means to substantiate it.
You really should try to pursue more and more means to falsify it.
Oh, and congratulations on what just may the longest post ever. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2006 : 12:15:50 [Permalink]
|
TLDR
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/26/2006 12:16:12 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2006 : 13:50:04 [Permalink]
|
In response to Sean:
quote:
It seems you will be disappointed unless these terms are
accompanied by a complete disclosure of all permutations and
history, however, I do not believe that within the context
of a 'definition', I shortchanged the essence of any of the
above terms.
You did shortchange the essence of all the above terms. That was my point. My point was not that all short definitions of terms must include a “complete disclosure of all permutations and history”, only that they not totally misrepresent things. And that is exactly what you did with all those terms – you picked out a single trait from each of those modes of thinking that are not even the primary crux behind them, and then used it to define them as if that trait alone were the “essence” of Humanism, Objectivism, or religion. That is intellectually either foolish or dishonest, depending on you.
quote:
but please allow me to
direct you to my source of these definitions:
Dictionary.com.
You are going to have to provide a specific link since I went to dictionary.com and cannot find the definitions which are used on betterhuman.
quote:
and then you immediately counter my
position with an argument whose strength relies upon the
extremely immature biological science of genetic engineering?
You are arguing, if I have it correct, for conscious manipulation of both social and biological Darwinism for the purpose of creating a better human society. And I argued that such a thing is a stupid and dangerous idea for two reasons: 1.) We don't yet know enough about humanity to do so responsibly. 2.) Such efforts would literally take many thousands of year just to see the beginning of a profound biological change. In that much time, genetic engineering will hardly be new anymore, and will be – obviously – a much quicker and more effective way to alter human beings in a way as to remove less-desired tendencies and defects that are programmed into our genes.
I don't want either slow manipulation of evolution or fast manipulation through genetic engineering to happen soon because of the bottom line: we don't know enough about ourselves as a species to start trying to make major alterations to the human genome.
As for social evlution – yes, that does happen much more quickly than biological evolution, but trying that won't do us any good at this stage. Again, the factors are far far too complicated with far far too many unknowns to be able to do something good without also causing something bad – perhaps even tragically bad. In addition, we do currently know that many of the resistors to critical thinking and rationalism are not only culturally programmed, but genetically programmed, into certain people. E. O. Wilson, a sociobiologist, argues that we will never have a society free of things like racism, sexism, and bad religious ideas, until we change what we are as a species on the genetic level. And I tend to agree with him. My comments are not self-defeating. They are realistic for here and now. You want to jump the gun, force change that humanity is obviously not primed for. Who would bring these changes? Why would the masses accept these changes?
You make statements which imply that if people here don't agree with your ideas, that we must want to do nothing about the flaws of human society which lead to suffering. But that's bs. Many people here are ac |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/26/2006 14:07:52 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2006 : 18:45:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
TLDR
I agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Marfknox
...
I agree.
Seriously though SeanSinjin, the dodgy physics aside, what do you actually propose people do? You tenets and mission are all well and good, and while they describe how things "ought to be", there seems to be very little information pertaining to how to Aachieve this utopia.
Even if your ideals are correct, as far as I can tell, you're just as guilty as the the religions you're denigrating of offering "false hope".
I actually agree with the idea that the world would probably be a better place without organised religion and it's trappings. However, I don't think it can (or should) be eradicated by any sort of force. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2006 : 20:44:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by SeanSinjin
Dave, you are trying very very hard to cast my
'theoretical' perspectives in the same light as 'faith', and we both
know that is completely inaccurate. The term 'faith' that I
am exercising in this dialogue, and which I believe is the
contemporary default understanding of the term, is an
'unwavering commitment to a perspective, regardless of
supportive or counter evidence'. Now you may argue the specifics,
but however you decide to mangle this definition, you cannot
deny that there is a fundamental difference between the
terms, 'faith', and 'theory'. The term 'theory' as I am
exercising in this dialogue, and for which I believe is the
contemporary default understanding of the term as well, is a
'model that encompasses and attempts to relate many
observations, and is subject to change should new information be
presented'. These definitions are exactly reflective of what
common dictionaries will define them as, so if you take
issue with the wording, please describe how the!
se terms are incorrect.
The terms aren't incorrect. What's incorrect is your assertion that the "bether" is scientific and not religious, when in fact you seem to have pointedly ignored my scientific questions about the bether. You have asserted (not "hypothesized," not "theorized") that the bether exists. Tell me what scientific experiments I can perform to verify that the bether does indeed exist. If you cannot offer anything, then I will be forced to conclude that your belief in the bether is as religious (an adjective meaning "like a religion) as some other person's belief in God. To repeat myself, I see no reason to think that "bether" is not "magical, spiritual, or other-worldly (intangible)." You present no evidence that "bether" is any more real than leprechauns.quote:
Moving forward, the distinct and important difference
between the essence of the two words is of course, 'commitment'.
People with 'faith' in their creator, are 100% committed to
that perception, and no degree of logic, debating,
disproving, or other will sway their commitment to that
perspective. I don't think anybody (that isn't themselves an ethereal
addict) would disagree that this is a very precarious
'commitment' level to hold, to anything. Alternatively, for a
'theory', the commitment level is entirely based upon the
theory's ability to consistently and reliably predict and
explain the phenomena it encapsulates. When a theory looks
good, the commitment level is high, but if something new
comes along that seriously alters the accuracy of the theory,
then commitment drops radically.
This is the difference between a religious blind 'faith',
and my 'theoretical' perspective, I am willing to consider
information that may break my perspective. Please tell me,
is there anything wrong with 'theorizing'?
There is everything wrong with presenting a religious belief as if it were a scientific theory. That is my theory right now: that your "bether" is a faith of yours. As you note, my theory is subject to falsification, but what you've said so far only supports my theory. If you can present evidence which falsifies my theory about you and the bether, please go right ahead.quote:
No my friend, I'm simply using the scientific method by
postulating a hypothesis (bether), and then perpetually
pursuing more and more means to substantiate it.
Then why did you fail to answer my questions about experimental verification of the bether?quote:
The evidence I
have is no less concrete than the gravity holding your
computer screen to your desk.
Then why did you fail to present it when asked?quote:
Bether is my 'interpretation' of
the forces responsible for that action.
Then why did you say that the bether exists if it's nothing more than an interpretive tool?quote:
I do not have
'faith' in my theory, it is simply a theory, and I will forever
be utterly perplexed at your assertion otherwise.
There's nothing I can do about your being perplexed other than to continue to point out, as I have been, that you are presenting your "theory" in exactly the same manner as other people present their gods.quote:
You can believe what you wish my friend, but you'll remain
incorrect. I have always and will always consider my
perspective nothing more than a theory, in the truest sense of
the word. In fact, it's quite nonsensical that one could
even hold a 'faith'-like position toward Bether theory. How
would that be done exactly? Am I supposed to worship it?
Am I supposed to tell everyone else their theories are
wrong and mine is right without any evidence to support it?
Would I have to preclude contradictory information that might
wreck my model? This type of behavior seems rather
insolent to me, and I don't believe I've ever remotely performed
as such.
Then you are blind to your own faith, since you're busy engaging in such behaviours right now.quote:
Can you qualify why these plans wouldn't work? Or is your
assertion faith-based?
I thought I did. You even addressed the paragraphs I used, as below.quote:
Again, when the tenet is enacted for the reasons stated, it
will only be to oppress religion directly.
What checks exist to mandate such conformity?quote:
The continued
fear of tyranny that keeps repeating itself here on this
forum is solely based upon your initial impressions of the
original unexpanded BetterHuman.org tenets, and is not
logically reflective of how they stand fully qualified today. Any
ruling body of merit (borne of an empathy-centric voting
pool) would be quite effective in providing the greatest
freedoms possible, without allowing obvious mythology to take
hold.
I know of no segment of the world population that is "empathy-centric" in all m |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2006 : 21:29:55 [Permalink]
|
Faith is not certainty in the face of, or in opposition to, counter-evidence. Faith is belief without evidence. If there is no evidence "bether" exists, then any belief that it does is indeed a faith in exactly the same way as a belief in god. Calling bether merely a "theory" or claiming that you don't hold the belief in it with certainty is not sufficient to distinguish it from any other run-of-the-mill religious or woo-woo claim.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2006 : 23:49:27 [Permalink]
|
Is anyone besides me kind of morbidly fascinated by this thread?
Also, I love how his "tenets" get more and more inane as the # gets higher, up to the point where he wants to "banish" some poor people for an arbitrary reason, then he declares that tyranny must be prevented... that is some seriously funny shit!
And "bether"? Seriously, you are under psychiatric care, aren't you?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2006 : 09:07:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
TLDR
Wall of text hits and Crits for 1530 points! |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2006 : 14:48:12 [Permalink]
|
From the psych patient's website:
quote:
Everyone has the right to pursue happiness as they personally define it, as long as it does not negatively affect anyone, including themselves.
Well, who gets to determine what is and isn't a negative effect?
Basically what you are setting up is a way to impose your personal values upon other people.
Your basic premises are flawed, and dispicable. I mean, limiting the rights of people to participate in the electoral process based on some arbitrary criteria that is impossible to accurately measure?
You are as bad, perhaps worse, than fundamentalist christianity and their desire to impose theocratic rule.
You give rational, thinking atheists a bad name by calling yourself one (even though you are clearly not one).
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2006 : 15:25:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Basically what you are setting up is a way to impose your personal values upon other people.
Nah, he'd never get into a leadership position under his own system because he doesn't have enough of the qualities he says people need to be good leaders. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
SeanSinjin
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2006 : 06:51:26 [Permalink]
|
Hi friends, and thanks again for your recent replies
It's become quite apparent to me that I'm getting dragged
down into a quagmire of repetition and some irrelevance so
please forgive me if I focus my response on the portions
that need attention, and be reticent or overlook the portions
that I believe have been exhausted or boil down to
fruitless diminutives.
quote:
quote:
No my friend, I'm simply using the
scientific method by
postulating a hypothesis (bether), and then perpetually
pursuing more and more means to substantiate it.
You really should try to pursue more and more means to
falsify it.
Duly noted, though the theory is still quite
immature and I'm still trying to extricate the workable nuances
from non-workable conjecture. It will take some time to
plateau the theory.quote:
Oh, and congratulations on what just may the longest post
ever.
An unbelievably taxing accomplishment that I hope never to
repeat
quote:
quote:
but please allow me to
direct you to my source of these definitions:
Dictionary.com.
You are going to have to provide a specific link since I
went to dictionary.com and cannot find the definitions which
are used on betterhuman.
If you were looking for the verbatim definition, of course
I did not plagiarize that source, however, if you cannot
see how they are synonymous with at least one of the
definitions in Dictionary.com, then I'll be content to agree to
disagree.
quote:
quote:
and then you immediately counter my
position with an argument whose strength relies upon the
extremely immature biological science of genetic
engineering?
You are arguing, if I have it correct, for conscious
manipulation of both social and biological Darwinism for the
purpose of creating a better human society. And I argued that
such a thing is a stupid and dangerous idea for two reasons:
1.) We don't yet know enough about humanity to do so
responsibly. 2.) Such efforts would literally take many thousands
of year just to see the beginning of a profound biological
change.
I don't believe it will take thousands of years. I believe
that each generation makes significant incremental steps
toward matching whatever social environment is fostered.
quote:
As for social evlution - yes, that does happen much more
quickly than biological evolution, but trying that won't do
us any good at this stage. Again, the factors are far far
too complicated with far far too many unknowns to be able to
do something good without also causing something bad -
perhaps even tragically bad.
My friend, you're not acknowledging that we are 'already'
dictating our social evolution, in fact, the most
significant influence our social evolution has, 'is' the ideals of
society itself. Right now our social evolution is primarily
greed and tyranny based, driven by the reward/punishment
system we have in place. Left the way things are, greed and
tyranny will continue to pressure our social evolution in
those directions. You'd rather leave it like this?
quote:
people. E. O. Wilson, a sociobiologist, argues that we will
never have a society free of things like racism, sexism,
and bad religious ideas, until we change what we are as a
species on the genetic level. And I tend to agree with him.
I agree as well, and my proposal to create a Darwinian
social environment that erodes the effectiveness of these
behaviors, will over time reformulate the balance of the
underlying instincts that generate these negative behaviors. It
may take some time, but it will constantly improve under
this setting.
quote:
My comments are not self-defeating. They are realistic for
here and now. You want to jump the gun, force change that
humanity is obviously not primed for. Who would bring these
changes? Why would the masses accept these changes?
I merely present these tenets as a direction to pursue, not
as a colossal step that must be consumed in one shot.
Also, I absolutely agree that the masses have to change first,
before the government can possibly take its new form,
instead of what you mistakenly assumed in that I was suggesting
we 'force' humanity to comply. The BetterHuman.org weblog
contains many articles that describe the changes we need to
evolve through. Again, the tenets are meant to be a
target, not a single step.
quote:
You make statements which imply that if people here don't
agree with your ideas, that we must want to do nothing about
the flaws of human society which lead to suffering.
Apologies if I implied that, I certainly don't believe it
to be true. My motivation was simply to coax ideas from
you. Criticism is cheap, and I believe the people here are
capable of offering much more, especially 'you'. I wish I
could encourage more 'constructive' criticism from you
because there's a gold mine of ideas hiding behind your contempt
for me.
quote:
nonprofit, teaching art to both truant teens and at a
Quaker school, and regularly write letters to my
representatives. That is how change happens - gradually, and naturally
within the current cultural frameworks of societies. You can't
just remake everything. You have to make the changes
logically starting from where you are already.
Did I ever indicate that my philosophies need to be
implemented overnight?
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2006 : 08:48:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by SeanSinjin...
Now, I'm not as concerned with the stretched accuracy of your statement (because we all tend to over-generalize) as I am with the original intent of your statement, and that was to diminish the perceived fallout of underage alcohol (or any drug) abuse. I think the fact that a third of the states legally oppress underage drinking, even in people's homes, demonstrates a well-tolerated 'oppression' of some family-value liberties, as well as a healthy recognition of the potential destruction wrought by alcohol itself. This tolerated and altruistic 'oppression' of underage drinking is precisely the same foundation that I am attempting to leverage against the narcotic of 'faith', especially since I believe 'faith' to be a far more destructive and debilitating narcotic. At least one can 'sober up' from alcohol, but victims of mythology are always 'high as a kite'.
You seem to be criticizing marfknox for making what you consider to be a gross generalization, then in the next breath you make a gross generalization. And a blatantly false one for that matter. A more glaring example of arrogance and hypocrisy we rarely see in these forums.
quote:
Normally I would agree with you about stereotyping because I too so loathe blind prejudice, but, those that acquire the position of priest very typically 'must' be egomaniacal glory-mongers by unwritten definition and requirement. This isn't to say that being an egomaniacal glory-monger is entirely a 'bad' thing, it just 'becomes' a bad thing when their motivations are fulfilled by deceiving people into believing that priests are the opposite (e.g., pious), and then perpetuate the chronic mental illness of mythology for their own ego pursuits. Their motivations are simply to become a focal point of worship and power because that's 'all' that separates the role of priest from anybody else.
Once again you criticize stereotyping then proceed to grossly stereotype. And again your comment is drawn from your clearly jaded opinion rather than developed using any sort of objective analysis of data. You are certainly one of the most hypocritical people who has come through these forums in my short time here. Even some of the most devout religious believers who drop in from time to time are vastly more clearly focused and consistent in their positions than you are, SeanSinjin.
Oh, and in the way of general criticism of your presentation style, since you seem to want to get your message across in a sincere and credible fashion, you might knock off all that sappy "my dear friend" stuff. It makes you appear to be a condescending prick. And the very people you seem to want in charge of your brave new world, those with the intelligence you deem to be sufficient to merit them positions of leadership, given your current style of presenting your concerns, they will be the first ones to recognize you as a hypocritical smart mouth. Then if you ever do get a little grip on reality and start to offer any actual practical suggestions about how to improve the world, you will have already lost some portion of your most potentially valuable audience.
quote:
I do find the continuous comparisons of BetterHuman.org philosophies to religion or faith, to be most perplexing.
Then you certainly don't understand what you're saying, or at least the general impression you make with what you're saying. Communication is a two way street. It seems most people here equate your philosophy with a type of religion or faith. If that isn't the message you're trying to deliver, then the responsibility falls upon you to modify that message in such a way as to more clearly express what you intend. So far not so good. You do sound like a preacher with some kind of deluded totalitarian control bent.
quote:
Again, I don't have all the answers myself. This is something that takes many minds to develop and I believe with a concerted effort, it could be realistically achieved. Of course, we won't know until we exercise this theory (not faith).
Wow, how did Mozina get in here?  Hey SeanSinjin, you might like to get to know Michael Mozina. You guys are two peas in a pod! 
quote:
My friend, who said anything about the leaders having the ability to adjust the voting weights? That would be kind of nonsensical wouldn't it?
[. . .]
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert...
Well, who gets to determine what is and isn't a negative effect?
The ruling body, no different than today
Nearly the entirety of your lengthy post reeks with the kind of flagrant hypocrisy seen in the example above. I'm sure all the readers here are able to pick out many other examples, so I'll spare everyone the redundancy of quoting the particulars.
There's a whole world of reality out there, SeanSinjin, with all its glory and potential as well as with all its ugly little tatters and scars. And although you appear to hold tightly to a pessimism which reduces your ability to see it, there are improvements to the human condition being made all the time. The improvements that you seem to favor, if they are actually improvements at all, will come about through a sort of practical and rational social evolution, much as they have throughout man's entire existence here on Earth. (Of course there is always much backsliding involved, three steps forward and two steps back, you know....) Your vision may be noble, but you don't seem to have much patience. Your methods are neither practical nor rational, so are therefore unlikely to ever be considered as any part of a solution to the problems you perceive.
You may understand all this when you grow up, that is if you don't continue to wallow in that unreasonable blinding faith, that same kind of faith which you seem to consider so destructive to humanity, yet to which you also cling so unwaveringly.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
