On Theory

mmmcannibalism · July 1, 2009

"I think, therefore I am"... Who is to say you're the one doing the thinking? Both arguments are acceptable, as most people are free to be their own person, within lawful constraints, at a mere whim. At the same time, man-made laws curb your very existence as well, conforming you to an ideal individual.

your misinterpreting the argument

1. I am thinking

2. something must exist if it is thinking

3. therefore I must exist

This doesnt prove or speak to anything beyond that, the only thing I can be 100% certain of is that a. my conciousness exists b. some reality beyond me exists. Its technically possible that this entire universe is an allusion and you are all computers, where I am being used as a turing test to challenge your A.I. programming. Just because you act based on the restraints of a society, doesnt mean they are doing the thinking for you.

Yeah... by killing it slowly instead... Nuclear power is not sensible.

How can you say the Nuclear bomb was extremely limited in its use... The USA was setting off one every three days! That is not limited use. The only thing stopping it from wide scale use is the fallout... People have not realised how destructive it is, they have just noticed that they could be affected by it too.

It is quite sensible, the main obstacle is figuring out how to store the spent fuel rods in a safe and secure manner. The use was quite limited, a world wide ban on underground testing was put into effect as soon as we realized the serious harm; and only 2 nuclear bombs have actually been used as weapons.

Science is like trying to fix a broken eggshell with a mallet and a pack of C4, each time you do something you make it worse, and eventually you get annoyed and destroy the eggshell and move on to something else.

Religion is like trying to clean a floor with a toothbrush. It will take a very long time but when you are done every last inch has been covered.

No, science is like finding a broken eggshell and trying to figure out if the c4 or a mallet destroyed it. While science will never be perfect, the longer time goes on the more accurately it will explain the universe. On the otherhand, religion will always be spreading dirty water over reality; old dogmas can be refined to conform to society, but they will always be blind ideologies(personal faith is different of course).

archimage_a · July 1, 2009

Archimage, you're living in a fantasy world where nothing is real.

Just because I have an open mind you fear me, because I am not limited by your understanding of the world you seek to discredit me.

I live in a world where everything can be questioned and nothing is certain, as such I see the truth while you see facts.

Evidence is not subjective. Evidence is objective, it is the interpretation of evidence that becomes subjective.

Please tell me how you can treat the holocaust objectively when the evidence is clearly biased in one way, that it was evil. Then tell me how evil is not a subjective term.

When we rely on PERSONAL EXPERIANCE as our main source of evidence we cannot be objective.

In Physics most experiments are conducted double blind because humans cannot be trusted to be objective.

I will agree that pure evidence is objective, but the moment it is perceived it becomes subjective.

During the day it is clear that the sun moves across the sky, the interpretation of what that means has been different in the past. We now have MUCH MORE evidence that the correct/most likely interpretation is that the Earth's rotation relative to the sun is what creates the effect of the sun moving across the sky.

And in the future we may have a new correct/more likely interpretation.

You fall into the same trap as the Theorcrats(Fundermentalists) do, you believe that you are right because the current evidence says you are.

You clearly do not understand what the Higg's Boson is all about, go and do some group theory, the some electro-weak unification, and then you can comment. It has got nothing to do with gravity. And just because we haven't discovered it yet, it does not mean that it does not exist, and if we do not find it, it doesn't mean that our theories are wrong, it just means we've supplemented them incorrectly.

Sigh...Some people:

The Higgs Boson is a Boson( :o ) which is a fundermental particle. Fundermental particles have related forces. If the Higgs Boson exists then the Higgs Field exists. The Higgs Field is what gives objects mass.

At no point did I say it does not exist. I said they are looking for it, meaning THEY DO NOT KNOW THAT IT EXISTS AND THEREFORE HAVE FAITH THAT IT DOES EXIST.

Oh, I am sorry, the people at CERN must have been lying when they were talking to me...clearly when they said 'We will have to reconsider the entire way we look at physics' what they meant was 'Actually Physics is pretty much perfected, we are just looking for the Higgs Boson because we have nothing better to do.'

Quantum field theory (QFT) is accurate to about 15 decimal places and has so far been successful with every experimental test performed on it. But we know that it is not yet complete, as there are things it does not explain. In QFT all particles are massless, but we measure them to have mass, so we know that these two have to be reconciled. The Higg's Boson *may* be the solution, or it may not be. I personally don't think that the Higgs mechanism is the correct one, but if they do find it, I'll be happy to say that it is. Scientists favour the Higgs option because it is the easiest.

Quantum field theory...that thing that physists(spelt wrong?) call ugly because it is way to complex. Yeah it is 'A' solution but scientists what a simpler, more beautiful solution.

To be honest what we want to happen doesn't come into it, what is is and what is not is not.

Scientists would not "dive into a depression" if someone conclusively proved that the Higgs did not exist, some would be disappointed, but most would be excited by it, because it would mean a rethink, a hotbed of new ideas. An experimental result that comes out of the blue is the BEST thing for science, it creates progress.

Once again I must have misunderstood when they said 'I think I would crawl into a hole and cry' clearly they meant 'Physics is pretty much perfect already, we are only doing this because we had nothing better to do.

An experimental result might be a black hole...which I am pretty sure would not create new ideas, but rather destroy all of them.

Parralel(Spelt totally wrong) dimentions were another possiblity if I remember correctly.

If you have survived accidents, all you have done is been lucky. Its blind chance if you die or live on a lot of accidents. I myself have had a car accident and survived, that doesn't make me more malleable to belief in some god.

Your belief is not the same as other peoples...I have only ever been injured once and I was unluckly in that because I had an American Football injury caused by my Dog... it has not increased or decreased my belief in anything, but for other people it might do...I do not dismiss the possiblity of that.

Science is objective, but scientists are not. We often cling to theories that we like, or feel comfortable with. I hate quantum theory, but I am forced to accept it because it provides testable predictions that give correct answers.

Quick story. My science teacher did an experiment every year for 8 years, and when it came round to the year above ours it suddenly wasn't working. So she consulted the text book and discovered that she had been doing it wrong for the past 8 years, but getting the correct result by accident.

Therefore Science is not objective, it is merely predictable...we can predict what will probably happen, but flukes still occur, that is why we need to have fair testing, but as the above example shows(as well as a number of my personal science experiments) flukes can occur more than once...

Green does exist, its a particular wavelength of light!! It doesn't matter how we see it, it will always have that wavelength.

Did I say it didn't exist? Please do show me where I said that?

I said that maybe we see the wrong colour and while we might still get the correct answer the experiment is wrong, therefore the answer is wrong, even if it is the correct answer.

What rubbish! Constant interaction is what creates the vibrancy, exchange of ideas, culture, technology, food, history, knowledge.... etc. Isolation would result in the grey paste, no new input, people stagnating in their own filth.

What tripe. Political correctness has killed numerous cultural traditions, English interaction with numerous races have destroyed numerous cultures.

America is proof of why you are wrong:

'We have every use for the German or Irishman who becomes American, but none for the German or Irishman who remains as such.'

~T. Roosevelt.

Interaction caused the gettos, it caused slavery, it caused riots, cheap labour, hate crime, segregation...

And I fail to see how isolation stagnates while interaction causes vibrance:

We either have numerous cultures or we have one culture:

We either have 50 races doing things 30 odd different ways, or we have one race doing things 1 way.

Your theory is self defeating, you seek to put everyone together and expect them to all maintain their own way of doing things, while, at the same time, taking attributes from everyone else and becoming something totally different.

The truth is that either you have hatred and 'Black only' areas or you have a short period of vibrance in which one culture is subducted by another until only one or two of one culture are left.

Isolation preserves cultures, and occational interaction causes periods of exceptional vibrance, because during those 50 years that they cultures are kept apart they have had to deal with the same issues, but have done so in different ways...So while one group might have decided to build a tunnel though a mountain, another might have decided to build an angled bridge on a slope, and yet another might have gone a different way entirely and built two large poles with a zip line between them.

So rather than 3 mountains with tunnels you have 3 mountains with 3 seperate methods of transport.

If we had machines to do everything people wouldn't have to work and could pursue whatever they wanted to pursue, money wouldn't be an issue.

Now who is living in a fantasy land. You cannot simply expect people to be like you, people will act differently to you...For the most part TV is what people want to do, they want to fill their lives with other people's lives because their own are not that interesting. Hence why something like Jerry Springer is favoured by many people.

This is why I disagree so heavily with you about the benefits of science...you have too narrow an outlook 'Oh everyone will do it this way and everything will be wonderful'. NO! No matter how wonderful your system is, if it has the capacity to do great good then it can also do great evil.

Nuclear power is perfectly sensible, when we develop fusion power stations, they would power us for an indefinite amount of time with no environmental side-effects.

Fusion and Fission are like Chalk and Cheese. They begin with the same letter and are vaguely linked by one element(Calcium in the CC example and Atomic theory in the FF example).

Fusion is the FUSING of FOUR LIGHT atoms into a HEAVY atom plus energy.

Fission is the SPLITTING of ONE HEAVY atom into NUMEROUS LIGHT atoms plus energy.

Most people link them because they sound similar and are both used in nuclear bombs, as well as appearing to cause similar amounts of damage...This is because Hydrogen (Fusion) bombs use Atom (Fission) Bombs to kick start the reaction...So obvouisly the H bomb will be similar to the A bomb, but more powerful!

Archimage, you have this 'interpretation' of science that is way off the mark. You have probably not experienced science properly. I have grown up in a religious environment and family, and I can't stand it, I see the ineptitude of religion and how inadequate it is for the job that it professes to do.

Well I suppose it is possible. I am pretty much self taught because I went to a school where getting a D was considered an achievement(for anyone who wants to know I got As and Bs). My teachers, though helpful, did have a class of underachievers to help, so for the most part I read what I could and tried to understand what was happening, as a result I see Science very much from a objective view point...how you say? Well because I didn't understand it to begin with, so I didn't start off the with the assumtion that it was right or wrong, just the desire to understand it.

As for religion. I see it constantly failing and consider it to be outdated. I see people wasting their lives by believing it. I see people who are racist and dangerous because of its teachings.

But I see it on a background of Science, specifically evolution. Things take a long time to change, and rapid changes are rarely a good thing...for instance if a type of Fox suddenly became amazingly good at hunting Rabbits then pretty soon all the rabbits would be eaten and then all the foxes would die.

Religion allows for stuble changes to occur over a long period of time, where as science, specifically the type of science we have at the moment, wants to improve itself constantly. For example Moore's Law shows that we are exponentially progressing, doubling every two years. Progress like that is far too fast.

Similarly the age of the universe has increased in its predicted value, from 2000 or 4000 years in the early 9th century. Then in 1900 Lord Kelvin estimated it at a few million years based on the cooling rate of Earth. Then we increased it based on Radiation, then we increased it more based on the rate the universe was expanding, then we increased it based on the red and blue shift of galaxies.

We are constantly revising our estimates upwards and the fact is that the average person has lost interest, we just accept what the scientists tell us, which means that we are no longer watching what scientists are doing, which means that they are no longer accountable to anyone, they are are just consummed with improving things whether they need to be improved or not...which means that we are overburdened with things we don't need, like 500 different flavours of coffee.

'I haven't had coffee in 16 years because I can't decide which flavour I want!'

~Reggie Perrin.

It is quite sensible, the main obstacle is figuring out how to store the spent fuel rods in a safe and secure manner. The use was quite limited, a world wide ban on underground testing was put into effect as soon as we realized the serious harm; and only 2 nuclear bombs have actually been used as weapons.

The main obstacle is the threat of Nuclear Meltdown...If a Oil plant explodes it does damage to the people around it and maybe releases a couple of tonnes of toxins into the water table...which realistically is a drop in the ocean. If a Nuclear plant explodes it does damage for generations and releases toxins into the evironment which are not a drop in the ocean at all.

Furthermore over 1000 nuclear bombs were detonated by the USA, over 700 by the USSR(Both only the confirmed numbers)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_tests

The use of nuclear weapons is not merely confined to those used offensively.

No, science is like finding a broken eggshell and trying to figure out if the c4 or a mallet destroyed it. While science will never be perfect, the longer time goes on the more accurately it will explain the universe. On the otherhand, religion will always be spreading dirty water over reality; old dogmas can be refined to conform to society, but they will always be blind ideologies(personal faith is different of course).

Well...Ok, but religion evolves over time. For example the reformation, there are new religions being founded which are more in touch with the modern world. Ironically the reformation was caused by the Black Death, which also caused the upsurge in science. I did state all of this above.

I would also like to point out the muslims developed and collected and spread information when they were at their height. The Hindu's developed the decimal system, the Roman religion developed mathematics also. Celtic paganism developed straight roads and the calander, as well as working on the understand of the of astronomy.

In a more complicated argument:

Issac Newton was a strong Christian, and because of that he spent a third of his time working against science...he also believed in Alchemy, so science moved in a vague direction. But what should be understood is that this combination meant that science advanced in one giant leap, not numerous small steps towards a preset goal, which meant a revolution in the way people thought...

That is the kind of 'evolution' that should exist within the scientific world, a way that mirrors the natural world. Small unrelated changes over a long period, or one major change that redefines the system in which we live in.

mmmcannibalism · July 1, 2009

Furthermore over 1000 nuclear bombs were detonated by the USA, over 700 by the USSR(Both only the confirmed numbers)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_tests

The use of nuclear weapons is not merely confined to those used offensively.

It is quite sensible, the main obstacle is figuring out how to store the spent fuel rods in a safe and secure manner. The use was quite limited, a world wide ban on underground testing was put into effect as soon as we realized the serious harm; and only 2 nuclear bombs have actually been used as weapons.

Secondly, nuclear power isnt unsafe because nuclear weapons are

The main obstacle is the threat of Nuclear Meltdown...If a Oil plant explodes it does damage to the people around it and maybe releases a couple of tonnes of toxins into the water table...which realistically is a drop in the ocean. If a Nuclear plant explodes it does damage for generations and releases toxins into the evironment which are not a drop in the ocean at all.

True, but the actual risks of a meltdown are so painfully small after we learned from chernobyll and 3 mile Island.

Well...Ok, but religion evolves over time. For example the reformation, there are new religions being founded which are more in touch with the modern world. Ironically the reformation was caused by the Black Death, which also caused the upsurge in science. I did state all of this above.

I would also like to point out the muslims developed and collected and spread information when they were at their height. The Hindu's developed the decimal system, the Roman religion developed mathematics also. Celtic paganism developed straight roads and the calander, as well as working on the understand of the of astronomy.

In a more complicated argument:

Issac Newton was a strong Christian, and because of that he spent a third of his time working against science...he also believed in Alchemy, so science moved in a vague direction. But what should be understood is that this combination meant that science advanced in one giant leap, not numerous small steps towards a preset goal, which meant a revolution in the way people thought...

That is the kind of 'evolution' that should exist within the scientific world, a way that mirrors the natural world. Small unrelated changes over a long period, or one major change that redefines the system in which we live in.

Your mistaking a religious people for their religion; paganism for instance didnt invent the straight road, it was the work of pagans. In many cases the churches contributed to science, but thats because the societies were highly based on religious structure and public funding was bound to come through the church. We dont say Al Gore invented the internet just because he funded it.

Well...Ok, but religion evolves over time

While science always has the same perfect goal, to understand the nature of reality. The specific aims of scientific research are varied, but it will always move unbiasedly toward the truth(albeit on a winding course). Religion, however, will always try to adapt in a way that covers itself; the bible was the literal word of god until we realized there was a problem with 2 people creating the human race while condeming incest.

This sounds too ranty

What I mean to say is; science wants the truth, religion wants itself to be correct.

Zierro · July 1, 2009

I don't believe that, as that kind of implies that he was justified in the first place.

You misunderstand me. Hitler used it as justification, that doesn't mean that it really was justified. He used Judaism because it was easy for him to use, he could have quite easily chosen something else to segregate people, and then justified that. But because religious people stick to their ideals and principles - no matter what - it makes them easy to single out, attack and undermine.

Yes, they are easy targets but so were homosexuals, the disabled, and people from other countries. Plus you're blaming the wrong group of people here - it makes more sense to blame the criminal than the victim. Hitler was the one who has done wrong by discriminating against Jews. The Jews haven't done something wrong just by being a Jew. And also, if you were to blame the Jews then that would mean you're blaming the homosexuals, handicapped, and people from other ethnicities just for being who they are as well. Like I said, if anyone is to blame for the holocaust, it is the people with twisted ideals.

archimage_a · July 1, 2009

The use was quite limited, a world wide ban on underground testing was put into effect as soon as we realized the serious harm

Which proved we should not have had the atom bomb in the first place... we didn't understand it, we just used it. We were not morally capable of using the weapon even if we were physically capable of doing so. Which is the underlying problem with humanity; under religion it is not a major issue, but under science it is.

True, but the actual risks of a meltdown are so painfully small after we learned from chernobyll and 3 mile Island.

I have to disagree, Chernobyl was caused because someone was sleeping, I don't think humans have come that far, people still get complacent.

Ok it is a small chance, I grant that, but the chance is higher than is reasonable, particularly where something like Solar or even Wind power is infinitely safer, cheaper and more environmentally friendly. On the flip-side the amount of energy we consume is staggering, do we really need to use anywhere near the amount we do? I am not talking turning lights off, I am talking about the disposable culture we live in and the shoddiness of buildings, most of them are only meant to last 50 or so years.

Sigh...

Your mistaking a religious people for their religion; paganism for instance didnt invent the straight road, it was the work of pagans.

Two points:

Firstly I am not saying that being pagan helped them develop the straight road, I am saying that science advanced under paganism, so religion is not 100% against development.

Secondly something like the Calendar was directly influenced by sun worship, people developed something to help with their worship, which also helped with the crops.

In many cases the churches contributed to science, but thats because the societies were highly based on religious structure and public funding was bound to come through the church.

Actually, in terms of the muslims, it was a passion for spreading knowledge and making it accessible for all, as dictated by their book(which I can't spell). The religious leaders were the most learned men because they understood how the world worked and were able to explain the facets of it. While they developed moral codes of their own they used the ones laid down in their book to help.

While science always has the same perfect goal, to understand the nature of reality. The specific aims of scientific research are varied, but it will always move unbiasedly toward the truth(albeit on a winding course). Religion, however, will always try to adapt in a way that covers itself; the bible was the literal word of god until we realized there was a problem with 2 people creating the human race while condeming incest.

We have a tendency to view all religions like Christianity(I do as well), but a lot of religions actually place the common good above their own interest.

It is only natural to try to relate what is know to what is discovered. If we dropped our current theories every time something new was developed and tried to build a new system to cope with it then it wouldn't work.

The whole thing about the Higgs Boson is getting the current system to work, not seeing that it doesn't work and then searching for an all new system.

It is like I said, religion evolves, and naturally this means that older ideas are left in the system as well. It is only though natural processes that older ideas are subsumed, and the speed at which science has progressed us away from religion means that there is a throughly mixed bag.

This sounds too ranty

One cannot help sounding like a lunatic when they feel passionately about it.

Just on the subject of religion:

If I had to trade rights of homosexuals for a world were the water wasn't polluted and morality was outdated, then I would. I would much rather be put to death for being socially unacceptable than have a society that lived with a rapidly decaying sense of morality.

If you had a choice between your life and your children's sense of right and wrong, which would you choose? I suppose that is how I am feeling. Would I choose children who aspired to be air-head sex addicts or my life as it is....

Sigh, I don't want to get into this but still

Like I said, if anyone is to blame for the holocaust, it is the people with twisted ideals.

This is not my argument but I feel that it needs to be said:

Everyone likes to say Hitler did this and Hitler did that. But the truth is Hitler did very little. He was a world class ***hole, but the evil actually done, from the death camps to World War Two, was all done by citizens who were afraid to question if what they were told by their government was the truth or not, and who because they did not want to admit to themselves that they were afraid to question the government, refused to see the truth behind the Reichstag Fire, refused to see the invasion by Poland was a staged fake, and followed Hitler into national disaster.

~ Michael Rivero

If you are looking for something to blame then you can blame loyalty, patriotism and obedience, not Hitler, not him alone...If you are going to do that then you need to lock up anyone who has ever expressed an opinion, because there is always a chance that people will listen to them.

And for the most part 'Twisted ideals' are what we all have. We, particularly us Brit, have an irrational fear of foreigners, we have an irrational fear of sex offenders and homosexuals. Of cannibals and people who pick their nose.

Many of us want to see at least one of the above locked up, or at least kept away from us and our families.

We don't see a need to accept them and perhaps in fifty years our children will look back with disgust at us, as well.

Zierro · July 2, 2009

If you are looking for something to blame then you can blame loyalty, patriotism and obedience, not Hitler, not him alone...If you are going to do that then you need to lock up anyone who has ever expressed an opinion, because there is always a chance that people will listen to them.

Emphasis on the "if anyone is to blame". Of course you can argue that he isn't to blame either, but my point was that it's ridiculous to blame the victim. The group of people that are discriminating against the victims are more at fault.

And for the most part 'Twisted ideals' are what we all have. We, particularly us Brit, have an irrational fear of foreigners, we have an irrational fear of sex offenders and homosexuals. Of cannibals and people who pick their nose.

Many of us want to see at least one of the above locked up, or at least kept away from us and our families.

We don't see a need to accept them and perhaps in fifty years our children will look back with disgust at us, as well.

That's understandable. I would want to keep sex offenders and cannibals away from my family too. But this isn't just a case of hiding from the Jews - it's a case of breaking into their homes and murdering them. I mean, unless you want to argue that it's justifiable to have a holocaust in order to kill all nose pickers, this is purely apples and oranges we're speaking of.

archimage_a · July 2, 2009

Its not ridiculous to blame the victim. It is (this is where I usually get lynched) like saying that a woman wearing next to nothing was not, in some way, 'asking' to get raped.

While I am sure the majority of you would say that it was not her fault I am fully of the opinion that she is at least as much to blame as anyone else.

The same is true of the Jews(and other minorities). When you chose to be different, you open yourself up to their hatred (as I did above). What happens is down to you, in some respects.

Let me give you an example of the opposite being true. When Martin Luther King did his thing at Birmingham, attracting the wrath of 'Bull' Connor.

We do not say that Connor was the one who changed the way people see segregation, we say that King did.

Unless there is no provocation, unless it is entirely upon the shoulders of the aggressor, then blame should be apportioned fairly and without bias as to the consequences.

That's understandable. I would want to keep sex offenders and cannibals away from my family too. But this isn't just a case of hiding from the Jews - it's a case of breaking into their homes and murdering them

Well no it isn't. It is 'We want you to move.' then 'We have passed laws to make you move' then 'Look, if you don't move you will be rounded up and put in ghettos.' then finally 'Ok, we can't look after you and fight a war. Its time for you to die.'

Furthermore would you have any idea how hard it would be to have that kind of stigma attached to you?

From my reading, these people(sex offenders) really do suffer an awful lot, maybe they are not killed, but they are tortured and the law provides almost no protection...For example:

One man was forced to move five times, was attacked on eighteen separate occasions, was fired from their job, once without pay, was rounded up every time a child went missing, had their cat stapled to the front door, had their house wrecked and had certain words burned into their front lawn.

On the first occasion he reported it, the officers turned up three hours later and despite a fairly large stack of SIGNED hate mail and other assorted evidence nothing was done. The second time he was told not to call again.

The only moderating factor in this case was that his family did not disown him, but he could not live with them because their neighbors had expressed, strongly, that they did not want him near their children.

Now, I am sorry if this offends anyone, but that is wrong.

There is no, single, crime imaginable that should provoke that kind of a response. Especially when the crime is so vague, it could very simply be that they woke up one day in the nude, after getting completely drunk. A passing mother and child saw them, the mother freaked out and suddenly they are a sex offender.

One night and your life is completely gone.

Now, with the possible exception of a serial killer; no, not just a serial killer, someone who was truly evil, someone who tortured their victims for months before actually killing them, there is no one who should suffer like that...

Next to something like that death would be preferable.

Why am I so passionate about it? Because this is humanity. We are arguing about how far we have come and yet our outlook is still medieval. Science is being used to brainwash these individuals into being normal. Their rights as individuals are being violated and no one bats an eyelid.

I see the shocking parallels with the treatment of Homosexuals, I see the parallels with freed slaves. Both treated with such mistrust and hatred that they were subject to constant fear because of their genes or their past.

I see the simple fact that we have not come far enough to have the power that we have. As someone recently said 'It will soon be a sin for a parent to have a child, carrying the heavy burden of genetic disease', but what classes as disease? A preference for the same sex? For younger people? A skin colour? Who chooses?

[hide=]

The whole thing is pretty good for this argument, but after 1:30 is probably the most poignant. There is also another bit from 3:08 to the end (3:30) which is pretty important for the argument as a whole.[/hide]

I hear people saying 'If I could stop being gay then I would, just be be normal' I flipping(getting angry so going to stop in a minute) remember adverts for wire wool with pictures of little black children scrubbing their skin off so that it will be white!

That at least was only one generation!

We live in a time where soon there will no longer be any sort of freedom within our own minds and that sickens me. That, more than anything else, tells me that science is more dangerous than religion because religion could always fall:

Religion could supress people for hundreds or thousands of years but at the end of it the people still existed, their way of life would continue though their genes, though their children. With science the changes we make will last forever... after all, who would choose to be gay when all interest in it was wiped from our genes?

...We are talking about a time when it is possible to volunteer for genocide without your body dying.

And given people's prevalence to reach for the surgeon's knife I can't imagine that our world will survive if we could alter our genes. Eventually we will reach a point(I predict it being within 100 years of it becoming commercially viable) where every male has lost the gene that controls muscle growth, every female has lost the gene that stores fat, and everyone has lost the ability to be worried about things.

Would any of us think to spend that little bit extra in something that tells us to slow down... given that we already ignore that when drinking, or at least as teenagers we do (Which is what I mean by science being now and forever) I don't think it will be on the top of our list's.

Zierro · July 2, 2009

Its not ridiculous to blame the victim. It is (this is where I usually get lynched) like saying that a woman wearing next to nothing was not, in some way, 'asking' to get raped.

While I am sure the majority of you would say that it was not her fault I am fully of the opinion that she is at least as much to blame as anyone else.

I don't agree with that saying at all. Do rapists really think to themselves, "She's wearing a lot of clothes. If she wasn't though, I'd totally rape her," or is it just an excuse to somehow put the blame on the victims. What she wears is pretty irrelevant when it comes to rape. The thing that rapists do pay attention to is if they are alone, it is dark, she doesn't have a means of self-defense, etc.

That being said, I think it's worth bringing up how this dispute started. Somebody said that if it wasn't for religion, then the holocaust probably wouldn't have happened (religion is responsible for the holocaust). It is not the reason for it happening - it's just a scapegoat used primarily to augment the criminal's justification, in order to fling the blame on the other party. Hypothetically speaking, let's take religion and revealing outfits out of the equation. Would this really stop the holocaust and rape from happening? Not at all. These things are nothing more than scapegoats in order to make the criminals look better than they actually. It's the same as slapping someone, getting in trouble for it, and then saying, "I wouldn't have done it if he wasn't wearing a green shirt! It's his fault!" In reality the true problem lies in the criminal's intentions and morality - not people living their normal lives. Oh and please don't say that the criminals are just "living their normal lives too" by committing acts of immorality.

We live in a time where soon there will no longer be any sort of freedom within our own minds and that sickens me.

You mean like the freedom to be Jewish without having to worry about being killed? ;)

mmmcannibalism · July 2, 2009

Which proved we should not have had the atom bomb in the first place... we didn't understand it, we just used it. We were not morally capable of using the weapon even if we were physically capable of doing so. Which is the underlying problem with humanity; under religion it is not a major issue, but under science it is.

First I would like to say that I dont feel like arguing a lot of the points between you and zierro; but the only person to blame for a crime are those who commited said crime. There are times when someones behavior made them the target of a crime(I think this is where you are mistaken), but the criminal is still to blame for the crime.

Without science we would be dying left and right from disease, without religion we would probably never have developed such vast interconnected societies; with science we create the power to destroy ourselves, with religion we find reasons to kill each other. You have to take the good with the bad sometimes, its never science that threatens humanity, its people using science to threaten humanity.

Darkblade20 · July 2, 2009

Whoo! This thread is going everywhere, seeping into every nook n' cranny you could imagine.

Just to clarify, as most seem not to be able to find a definitive point in my article. How should I say.. the major point that there are multiple conclusions that anyone could arrive at, not simply my owns opinions. I find it much more interesting to be able to interpret works in more ways than one, rather than the dreary, monotonous, linear works I read almost every day. So, I simply left it up to the reader to determine their own thoughts. Obviously I was semi-successful, with forum browsers busting out monstrous posts pertaining to the very world itself. The underlying point that I, personally, am trying to make, is that perception is our only link to the world around us. Which can't help but make you ask the questions: "Is perception a reliable medium?", "Does what the eye see's, or what the finger's touch exist as we perceive it to be?". When you're able to shed all skepticism, and truly throw away your scientific values, it's quite simple to become engrossed, although, not many people share that ability, stubbornness is a major factor to consider among scientific debate.

Also to clarify,

This: "We're also granted the ability to perceive our own sensory input, molding it, changing it. Most would call this logic, reason"... defines thought, no, my flaw does not come from a belief in intelligence. My "flaw," if that's what you would call it, comes from a flexibility to multiple idea's, some which probably clash.

"But on that topic 'Where does a rain storm begin?' it is a question I have had for ages. If you are walking is there a line that you cross into a rainstorm? Is there a specified area for the rain? The simple answer is yes, where-ever it is raining, but the more complicated argument wants to know exact where, is there and exact, measurable line between rain and no rain.

Is there an exact measurable time between life and death?"...

This just proves my point. There is no line, no measurement, it simply happens where it exists.

I've had a lot of fun with this thread, Archimage, I also enjoy your responses! I wonder how long this will keep rolling?

warri0r45 · July 2, 2009

Which when you think about it is no difference than a belief in God because you have had many accidents in your life, but have always been unscathed by them. You take experience and you interpret it subjectively.

I don't get what you mean by this.

In science we have to trust other people to be right. Take Cyanid for example, only a certain gene pool can smell it. We don't run them out of laboratories telling them that they do not understand the world and are clearly lying about their experience. We take it on board and we try to learn from it, and as such we discover a previously untapped source of diversity.

Religious experience on the other hand is treated with ridicule because some people can't experience it...I think there is a lot of fear there 'AHHHH science can't explain something, clearly they must be lying or wrong.'

Yup, we have come that far...

Discrediting religious experience involves more than just being unexplainable by science. Religious people are likely to interpret any odd event in the context of their beliefs, hence why you hear of experiences which seem to validate the religion of the particular geographical area in which they occurred (for example, people have experiences which seem to validate Hinduism in India). Science isn't merely based on the experience of a bunch of scientists observing the world - it's based on controlled experiments designed to remove variables to account for any possible biases in the interpretation of data. This is why I will always trust science as a more reliable source than religion and religious experience. Not to mention that many religious experiences involve a contradiction of what we know to be true through more reliable means, which makes them all the more questionable.

I agree that evidence and facts are important, but we should always treat them with skepticism since accepting all of them is out of the question. In the words of Albert Einstein 'Treat everything as a miracle or nothing as a miracle.'

And evidence is a subjective word, it implies proof, but evidence can be fabricated or be misleading. It may also be entirely delusional... for example the colour green, there is no proof that it is actually that colour, only the photoreceptors in our eyes tell us that it is, it could simply be that Humans have a genetic flaw that makes us see the inverse of everything...So everything sides with us because we started out with faulty equipment.

Of course, skepticism is good, but there are facts and reliable information out there to be found. That's all I'm saying.

archimage_a · July 2, 2009

I've had a lot of fun with this thread, Archimage, I also enjoy your responses! I wonder how long this will keep rolling?

I fear that we may be coming to the end. I have to say I am slightly disheartened every-time I am told 'Science is good but the way people use it is bad'... It is such a cop out...like saying 'On its own a nuclear weapon is not a bad thing.'

I don't agree with that saying at all. Do rapists really think to themselves, "She's wearing a lot of clothes. If she wasn't though, I'd totally rape her," or is it just an excuse to somehow put the blame on the victims. What she wears is pretty irrelevant when it comes to rape. The thing that rapists do pay attention to is if they are alone, it is dark, she doesn't have a means of self-defense, etc.

No.... Rapists probably think 'Hey I want some of that'... which is the response that not wearing that much is generally designed to bring out.

This is the whole freedom-to verses freedom-from:

If I am free to attract attention then I must also accept that I am not free from that attention when it no longer suites me.

Celebrities get massive amounts of attention and as such they have virtually no private lives.

I am not saying that we arrest rape victims, and certainly not in every case...I know and have had my eyes opened to my blaze(Accented e) argument by men and women who have been raped talking to me. So please do not assume that I am merely someone who is seeking to justify a point at the expense of others, I am trying to point out that we have a responsibility to be sensible. Yet our culture takes the opposite approach:

'Its your body, flaunt it, but remember you are in total control, you are doing nothing wrong by making a bunch of hormone ridden (generally men) sexually attracted to you'

In a society that also preaches

'If you want something you should have it.'

You said 'The thing that rapists do pay attention to is if they are alone, it is dark, she doesn't have a means of self-defense, etc.' so basically 'Are they walking home though a dark alley way because they are drunk after a party at which the objective of the evening was to arouse as many people as possible without actually having sex?'

Hypothetically speaking, let's take religion and revealing outfits out of the equation. Would this really stop the holocaust and rape from happening?

I think that it would lessen the occurrence.

You cannot claim that without such easy scapegoats the entire holocaust became possible. Jews have gone though life with a massive target painted on their back because we live in a Christian world and 'they killed Christ' added to that they have a sense of community and an ability to do hard work. All things which the average person hates(or hated pre 1940).

Wearing virtually no clothes increases the likelihood, you are painting a bigger and bigger target 'Hey look at me, I am way up for it.'

You look at the animal kingdom, animals show all of their beauty when they are ready to procreate, the ones which constantly show their colours tend to be impregnated more often...

We have only had the ability to communicate with words for a few thousand years, our ability to communicate with body language has been much further ingrained into our genome... and in the past 90 years we have begun to exploit that, sending out signals while being able to, generally, stop any advances with a word...

It's the same as slapping someone, getting in trouble for it, and then saying, "I wouldn't have done it if he wasn't wearing a green shirt! It's his fault!"

No its like slapping someone, getting in trouble for it and then saying 'I wouldn't have done it if he wasn't wearing a shirt saying 'Go back home you Pole!''

There is a massive difference between unprovoked (Ie being fully clothed and getting attacked because of someone's blind lust.) and provoked (Ie being semi clothed and have spent half the evening taunting them with your body, or when someone comes over to you while you are waiting for a bus you say 'You want it' (As has happened to me a few times) but don't actually mean do you want it, you are just setting them up for disappointment(For anyone who cares I am Asexual with a very moderate leaning to Homosexuality so...)) crime.

Oh and please don't say that the criminals are just "living their normal lives too" by committing acts of immorality.

O...k. The basic fact is that they are producing a normal response to stimuli. Morality (though I live my life by it) is relatively new. Before it you had sex with whatever didn't resist too much.

You mean like the freedom to be Jewish without having to worry about being killed?

... That bares no resemblance to what I wrote.

I can be Jewish and just not tell anyone. I can pass that on to my children and they can pass it on to their children. I can keep my faith alive by keeping it hidden. Sure there is always the chance that I will get caught and be killed but it is only a chance.

If you invent a drug that destroys religion and it is gone, there is never a chance of it coming back. You get a 'concerned' friend slip you a pill and its gone. You wake up in the morning and the drive to stay religious is gone, you are not that bothered because there is no drive now.

There are times when someones behavior made them the target of a crime(I think this is where you are mistaken), but the criminal is still to blame for the crime.

Well then we agree. I simply say that responsibility is required.

Without science we would be dying left and right from disease, without religion we would probably never have developed such vast interconnected societies

Odd that you say it like that, when something like swine flu or Spanish Flu or SARS became a pandemic because of our interconnected society, if science couldn't find the answer then we would all be dead. As compared with older times where a village might be wiped out but the virus would be wiped out along with it.

The black death might have wiped out millions, but the Americas were untouched by it... so even if Europe and Asia and Africa was exterminated, the human race would carry on existing. If we had something like a Aids-Black death hybrid, something that couldn't be cured and caused death within a few days, then humanity would probably be reduced to...10,000 people, scattered in quarantine zones.

with science we create the power to destroy ourselves, with religion we find reasons to kill each other. You have to take the good with the bad sometimes, its never science that threatens humanity, its people using science to threaten humanity.

If only it was taking the Good with the Bad... We just made it though a period where 'Mutually Assured Destruction' or MAD was the watchword...

I agree that Science on its own is not 'dangerous' what I am saying is that we need to stop developing science and start developing our morality. We have, if science carries on like it is, 50 years before we are in a position to do irreparable damage to humanities soul...

"Is perception a reliable medium?",

Not really. As shown above in the whole rape thing, our intentions and our perceived intentions are often very different.

The best we can do is muddle our way though, trying not to commit to anything until we are sure there is no evidence against it.

my flaw does not come from a belief in intelligence. My "flaw," if that's what you would call it, comes from a flexibility to multiple idea's, some which probably clash.

AHHH had to search the thread working out what was said -.-

I don't see that as a flaw. The ability to recognize many things is a benefit. The flaw simply is in the method. Our bodies are our only source of perception, and as such our results are biased by this oily mass of bone and tissue... our general understanding of the world is based on inaccuracy and best guess. Our brain is not a well crafted jigsaw, it is just thrown together when it is needed.

Which when you think about it is no difference than a belief in God because you have had many accidents in your life, but have always been unscathed by them. You take experience and you interpret it subjectively.

I don't get what you mean by this.

If you survived multiple accidents then you may believe in some form of divine intervention because the odds of surviving them without injury are micro.

Similarly the chances of science being wrong are micro.

So both sides have a stack of evidence and the evidence only makes sense if we understand it. For example showing calculus to someone who doesn't understand it and saying 'Look it proves gravity'(I am not an expert on calculus) will not prove gravity to them... Similarly telling someone 'If you believe in God then you will never get hurt again' does not prove God.

Discrediting religious experience involves more than just being unexplainable by science. Religious people are likely to interpret any odd event in the context of their beliefs, hence why you hear of experiences which seem to validate the religion of the particular geographical area in which they occurred (for example, people have experiences which seem to validate Hinduism in India). Science isn't merely based on the experience of a bunch of scientists observing the world - it's based on controlled experiments designed to remove variables to account for any possible biases in the interpretation of data.

Conflicting results exist in science. For instance twenty pounds of Gold will displace more water than twenty pounds of a Gold-Silver mix.

Because we can conduct the experiment numerous times and there is no emotional factors involved we can gradually deduce what the truth is.

It is true that religious people are likely to subjectively view their experiences, but common themes do exist... such as a white light, being surrounded by family... all that jazz. Religion is A LOT more convoluted than science.

This is why I will always trust science as a more reliable source than religion and religious experience.

As would I, but keeping an open mind is essential...My arguments are not for signing up, they are for not signing up to anything.

Not to mention that many religious experiences involve a contradiction of what we know to be true through more reliable means, which makes them all the more questionable.

Thank you for using questionable not wrong.

Of course, skepticism is good, but there are facts and reliable information out there to be found. That's all I'm saying.

But unless you already have an idea of what is true distinguishing between them is impossible. So every judgement is made subjectively.

Either that or we judge by the majority... if there is more evidence for one thing than the other, and if we do that then we shut down new ideas before they have a chance to develop.

Zierro · July 2, 2009

No.... Rapists probably think 'Hey I want some of that'... which is the response that not wearing that much is generally designed to bring out.

To be honest, I don't think either one of us can make that call. Only a rapist would know. But I can tell you what I have heard: the intentions of having traditional "feel-good" sex are different than the intentions behind rape. I've heard that is more of a power and dominance type thing, and it makes a lot of sense. There is a strong link between brutal mutilations and rape. Why? Perhaps because they want to have power over someone and in a violent/disgusting way. Ever heard of prison sex? I don't think many inmates are really that sexually attracted to the other men - they just want to prove their dominance. Also, there is a huge correlation between being raped and becoming a rapist. The dominated wants to become the dominator. There is more to rape than just the traditional sexual pleasure and the "Ooh that's a hot dress - I want some of that," that us normal people are accustomed to. There is symbolism behind it.

Celebrities get massive amounts of attention and as such they have virtually no private lives.

There are celebrities who don't really have a right to complain because they were responsible for making sure their names are well-known, but where does that leave the ones who are just doing something to make money or because they enjoy doing it regardless of the publicity? If someone enjoys acting or making music and making a career out of it, this means they deserve no private life? If they wanted to be a celebrity then they should have been more careful about what they wished for, but if society made them into a celebrity then I can see where they're coming from.

You said 'The thing that rapists do pay attention to is if they are alone, it is dark, she doesn't have a means of self-defense, etc.' so basically 'Are they walking home though a dark alley way because they are drunk after a party at which the objective of the evening was to arouse as many people as possible without actually having sex?'

Maybe she did have sex at the party or maybe she just liked her outfit, but I doubt the reason she picked it out that night was because she actually wanted to be raped.

O...k. The basic fact is that they are producing a normal response to stimuli. Morality (though I live my life by it) is relatively new. Before it you had sex with whatever didn't resist too much.

That argument can be used to justify any crime. And this behavior is anything but normal. You argued that we should be striving for improving morality instead of technology. Why shouldn't it apply here when it comes to criminals and their urges? Everyone has immoral urges, but the important thing is if you act on them or not. The first step in a more righteous and moral society is to have self-control and not let your urges become a devastating reality. If a woman wears next to nothing and someone really does get an urge to rape her, fine, not a problem - as long as they don't actually do it. That's when it becomes a problem. Not when the woman wears a skimpy outfit, not even when rapists think about it, but it does become a problem once they act on their thoughts because it actually causes harm to others.

... That bares no resemblance to what I wrote.

I can be Jewish and just not tell anyone. I can pass that on to my children and they can pass it on to their children. I can keep my faith alive by keeping it hidden.

Where does that leave homosexuals, handicapped, and people from other countries then? It's not that hard to spot them out - it's not something you can hide that easily (well maybe homosexuality, but definitely not being handicapped and being a resident in a different country). And even if it was a piece of cake to hide it, don't forget that these are just people living their normal lives. They're not strutting around saying, "Jews are better than Nazis!" No, no. They were trying to hide from them. What more could these people do to "prevent" the holocaust? Change their residence? Change their sexual orientation? Get up from out of their wheelchair despite being crippled and walk? You're asking way too much of a group of people who have done nothing wrong.

warri0r45 · July 2, 2009

Which when you think about it is no difference than a belief in God because you have had many accidents in your life, but have always been unscathed by them. You take experience and you interpret it subjectively.

I don't get what you mean by this.

If you survived multiple accidents then you may believe in some form of divine intervention because the odds of surviving them without injury are micro.

Similarly the chances of science being wrong are micro.

So both sides have a stack of evidence and the evidence only makes sense if we understand it. For example showing calculus to someone who doesn't understand it and saying 'Look it proves gravity'(I am not an expert on calculus) will not prove gravity to them... Similarly telling someone 'If you believe in God then you will never get hurt again' does not prove God.

"If you survived multiple accidents without injury" - that's a big if, and something which obviously doesn't happen all that often. Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if you could find some notable examples of very lucky people, but with a knowledge of statistics, a few very lucky people out of a very large sample size isn't outside the realms of reasonable probability. When you're talking the probability of science being wrong, I wouldn't look at it as a whole. Break it down into individual theories and hypotheses and you can judge the evidence for each separately.

Discrediting religious experience involves more than just being unexplainable by science. Religious people are likely to interpret any odd event in the context of their beliefs, hence why you hear of experiences which seem to validate the religion of the particular geographical area in which they occurred (for example, people have experiences which seem to validate Hinduism in India). Science isn't merely based on the experience of a bunch of scientists observing the world - it's based on controlled experiments designed to remove variables to account for any possible biases in the interpretation of data.

Conflicting results exist in science. For instance twenty pounds of Gold will displace more water than twenty pounds of a Gold-Silver mix.

Because we can conduct the experiment numerous times and there is no emotional factors involved we can gradually deduce what the truth is.

Exactly, and as you'd know that's the good thing about science. It can change, and new ideas can be formulated and tested if old ones should fail. I'm not sure about the water displacement thing, though. I'll have to look it up.

It is true that religious people are likely to subjectively view their experiences, but common themes do exist... such as a white light, being surrounded by family... all that jazz. Religion is A LOT more convoluted than science.

Common themes in religious experiences don't necessarily mean that there's some truth to them. Some of the visual aspects of them could suggest a common delusion or "psychosis", for lack of a better term. I wouldn't conclude a supernatural explanation if I could test a natural one first. That obviously means that I'm very unlikely to accept supernatural explanations, but at least the natural explanations they come up against can be tested for their validity. The supernatural is a cop-out as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, skepticism is good, but there are facts and reliable information out there to be found. That's all I'm saying.

But unless you already have an idea of what is true distinguishing between them is impossible. So every judgement is made subjectively.

Either that or we judge by the majority... if there is more evidence for one thing than the other, and if we do that then we shut down new ideas before they have a chance to develop.

Exactly, the idea with the majority of the evidence supporting it is more likely to be true (though in some cases it's hard to prove definitively). This doesn't necessarily shut down new ideas, it just sidelines them until they prove their worth by being tested. What good is an idea if there's no evidence for it? I just look at it in more pragmatic terms. Science is supposed to progress humanity as well as search for truth, after all.

archimage_a · July 2, 2009

Rats. Just had a power cut. -.-

To be honest, I don't think either one of us can make that call. Only a rapist would know.

Hence why talking to them helps my argument to be circumspect.

the intentions of having traditional "feel-good" sex are different than the intentions behind rape

No...I have to say that, in 9 out of 10 case it is because they desired someone's body. It is only 1 in 10 that other reasons are in majority, peer pressure, revenge, ect.

There is a strong link between brutal mutilations and rape.

No that definitely isn't true. Not one of the people I know was brutally mutilated. I think you are basing your arguments on tabloids, which run with the motto 'If it Bleeds, it Leads'. So unless the three counties of Britain where I gathered information from are unique for not having brutal rapes carried out in them I think your evidence is flawed.

Why? Perhaps because they want to have power over someone and in a violent/disgusting way

Subjective judgement.

Ever heard of prison sex? I don't think many inmates are really that sexually attracted to the other men - they just want to prove their dominance.

Your argument really falls down here. In the majority of cases (Though I can't say that I have talked to that many... five or six maybe) it is about fulfilling needs. Which makes a lot of sense when you consider the 17th and 18th century Royal Navy. There are numerous accounts of relationships being forged though mutual need to release desires while on long voyages, even more accounts which show that whenever they went into port the relationships tapered to about 1 in a 1000.

So the evidence is not on your side.

Also, there is a huge correlation between being raped and becoming a rapist.

Again experience disagrees with you. Not one of the people that I spoke to was raped and then went on to rape. In numerous instances their views on sex were polarized by the experience, becoming unable to enjoy it or becoming permanently submissive/dominate... One person actually went off males(it was a girl) entirely and after five months of not having sex finally caved in to having sex with another girl, didn't particularly enjoy the experience but carried on because she couldn't not have sex.

So believe me I know that rape is an extremely damaging experience, but your arguments prove unfounded.

There is more to rape than just the traditional sexual pleasure and the "Ooh that's a hot dress - I want some of that," that us normal people are accustomed to. There is symbolism behind it.

I am actually quiet surprised at your continued stereotyping. You indicate that only Women get raped, despite me saying men and women... the actual 'unofficial' (mum's a youth worker so...) figures show a 40-60 split, females being in the minority, but men being unwilling to admit they were raped by a woman (or a man in many cases, though this is mildly more reported) simply because if you admit to something like that you are branded as weak or whatever.

So many just bite the bullet and get on with their lives.

Furthermore you claim that you are normal, and understand what normal is. The simple fact is that normal does not exist. Your 'categories' do not work. I have had numerous... well not numerous, I think I have talked to two people, one of them being a close friend, who have said they thought about raping someone. (As you have probably gathered I do not judge, so I get told things that others would not be told)

Now you would probably say that they were abnormal, but I would say that they are only abnormal in admitting it. I can say that I have thought about it from time to time, I can say I have thought about being raped, I can say that I have carefully looked at my life and created different scenarios and let them play out so that if something does happen I am at least a little prepared.

Now you may never have thought about it, you maybe a holier than thou person, in all honesty it doesn't really matter. It just makes you someone who is close minded.

Being able to look at something and not be consumed by it is a sign of true morality. Being able to look at something without fear is a sign of a strong character and deep convictions.

Which is why, in general, I can respect someone religious, because they are confronted by vice on a daily basis but do not succumb to it.

Scientists on the other hand I respect because they explore without fear of being proved wrong.

If they wanted to be a celebrity then they should have been more careful about what they wished for, but if society made them into a celebrity then I can see where they're coming from

.

Indeed. Someone who is genetically predisposed to rape people(if there is such a gene) should be feared. Someone who has been consistently been exposed to lewd behavior and a society that tells them that all men are virile sex machines and all women are gagging for a strong man, should be treated with understanding until such time as the society, and it influences have been moderated.

Maybe she did have sex at the party or maybe she just liked her outfit, but I doubt the reason she picked it out that night was because she actually wanted to be raped.

I doubt Hitler started world war 2 so that he could commit suicide six years later in his bunker...

Robert Oppenheimer (The lead research in the Manhattan Project, the guy who said 'I have become death, the shatterer of Worlds') definitely didn't intent to have his bomb go on to build even more powerful bombs(the H Bomb).

The fact is that we are not in control of our destiny, we only live for the moment, and if, down the line, our discoveries and behavior lead to something we do not like then maybe we should never have done it in the first place.

Just a note on the Atomic Bomb; Germany was not developing it during the second world war. The Soviets did not initially fear the atomic bomb(According to numerous sources).

It was built as a deterrent to make sure that it wasn't used, and then it was used. American and British battle plans called for 'at least' 18 nuclear strikes in southern Asia, as well as a continual bombing campaign in Japan...

It failed in every peaceful application and succeeded in every destructive one...

You can say we got nuclear power out of it, but there is a world of difference between an atomic explosion and an atomic reactor.

That argument can be used to justify any crime. And this behavior is anything but normal. You argued that we should be striving for improving morality instead of technology

I have already covered most of this.

I argue that we should improve morality on all fronts. We should not be helping with one hand a beating and kicking with the other limbs. A rapist should be dealt with in a constructive way and people should learn from the action that they are not safe to parade in see-though clothes.

Then maybe progress of a moral nature may be made.

It is similar to the Smoking ban in Britain. 'Can you buy cigarettes? Yes. Can you smoke them? No.' (Just in the interests of clarity you can't smoke in public or enclosed spaces, limiting it to your own home)

While we are vaguely moving towards a total ban I don't think we will ever reach it. Why? Because the Government makes too much money out of it.

The same with Zero-Tolerance in Hospitals:

We will charge though though the nose in import tax, but we won't use that money to look after you when you are ill because of it. In simpler terms 'We are going to charge you for the privilege of using a product that might kill you, but we won't provide care for you when it does.'

We have to accept that freedoms must be earned and not given freely.

I believe that we should be entitled to do whatever the hell we want, but that doesn't work and so, no matter what my personal beliefs are, I advocate a stricter set of laws. In addition to a massive program of education... Basically the end to society as we know it.

The first step in a more righteous and moral society is to have self-control and not let your urges become a devastating reality.

The first step is to give people the chance to build self control.

You would not say that the first step in building a dam was to build a dam. You would say that you needed to have a dry basin, typically by diverting the river flow, to start building on.

No, no. They were trying to hide from them. What more could these people do to "prevent" the holocaust? Change their residence? Change their sexual orientation? Get up from out of their wheelchair despite being crippled and walk? You're asking way too much of a group of people who have done nothing wrong.

I am not saying either system is right. I am saying that it is better BUT NOT GOOD when suffering has to be sustained for a long period of time, rather than done once and lasts forever.

Or are you perhaps advocating that we simply remove these problem groups by some kind of genetic modification (I am almost certain you do not, but I have to ask because you don't seem to have a solution beyond a vague goal of 'A more moral society').

"If you survived multiple accidents without injury" - that's a big if, and something which obviously doesn't happen all that often. Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if you could find some notable examples of very lucky people, but with a knowledge of statistics, a few very lucky people out of a very large sample size isn't outside the realms of reasonable probability. When you're talking the probability of science being wrong, I wouldn't look at it as a whole. Break it down into individual theories and hypotheses and you can judge the evidence for each separately.

:D

Ok, I agree that surviving multiple accidents is not particularly likely, but if the foundations of faith are there anything good that happens builds on them, and you only need a few people who are lucky and claiming faith to attract other people 'Look, his god protects him, maybe we should join that religion too.'

Both arguments are complicated because we are not dealing with a whole... For example even if the Christian God does not exist it does not make their moral teachings incorrect.

Exactly, and as you'd know that's the good thing about science. It can change, and new ideas can be formulated and tested if old ones should fail. I'm not sure about the water displacement thing, though. I'll have to look it up.

I agree that is a good thing about science. But it does so at the expense of stability, instead of a guaranteed law we have a rapidly change(I am not saying that change is bad, but the speed at which things are currently changing, the predicted age of the universe, the speed of computers...) which causes instability.

Common themes in religious experiences don't necessarily mean that there's some truth to them.

No, but it does add weight to their argument. Like conducting a double blind test over and over, you can't fake the results. The commonality in human experience suggests that there is something, even if it is natural in origin.

The supernatural is a cop-out as far as I'm concerned.

For the most part I agree. But it always pays to be open minded, just on the off chance.

I just look at it in more pragmatic terms. Science is supposed to progress humanity as well as search for truth, after all.

Just don't be so pragmatic that you forget to believe in things. As it was once said 'You will never know how thick the ice is until you take a walk.' Be willing to try things even if your initial reaction is 'It will never work'

gonpost · July 2, 2009

I read the first post and a bit of the second. Pardon that I'm butting in, but I think I have something possibly interesting for the original point.

Have you heard of emergent properties? archimage said, mostly correctly, that your argument could be summed up as "I think, therefore I am". However, the idea of an emergent property entails that the property is indeed real, but it is the product of a collective group. So there could be something which does not exist if there is no large group of humans, but which does exist if there is such a group.

A few weeks ago I found this very interesting discussion on another forum about the concept of an emergent god. First is the original post, and then I've got here a post which essentially says what the author wanted to say, but much better.

[hide=OB 50 - first post]I've been thinking a lot lately about the phenomenon of emergence. Basically, where a system exhibits properties that no individual elements of that system possess.

For instance, water possesses myriad properties that could not be directly inferred from examining a single water molecule in isolation. One could never infer the properties of ice or steam or surface tension from a single molecule, but when a large number of these molecules are placed together to form a system, these properties all emerge from the whole.

The same is true is human social constructs. If you were some hypothetical observer who met only one human, you would never infer the global economy from that meeting. However, put enough people together, and these systems start to form. Economies, religions, states, nations, etc.

The interesting thing about emergent systems is that the individual elements of the system all contribute to affect the system as a whole, but the system affects the individual elements as well, seemingly without direct influence from any one element.

Our consciousness is a prime example. We can identify and catalog every individual part of our body, but no single part is indivisibly "us". We have almost no control of our individual autonomous body functions, yet we have direct control over the actions of our body as a whole. We can take direct action (as the emergent system) that can positively or negatively affect the well-being of our individual parts, like smoking or crashing a car. Alternately, our parts can take actions that can inevitably affect the system as a whole, like a rogue cancerous growth.

This idea that the influence can go both ways, both up and down the hierarchical structure of the system, is what interests me when thinking about the social construct of religion.

Now, before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I'm not espousing an opinion on the validity of anyone's beliefs. I'm just interested in examining the properties of religion as a social construct, and the possible implications and effects of that system on the elements that make it up - people.

Religion as a system seems uniquely suited for self-preservation.

Perhaps the one common trait of most, if not all, humans is a fear of death and the unknown. Every major religion I'm aware of addresses this issue in some form or another, which presents an almost irresistible incentive. With this uncertainty taken care of, the burden and tragedy of everyday life can seem manageable. Once this is accepted, there is very little incentive to reject this notion, because the alternative is unthinkable.

In addition, religion possesses mechanisms for reproduction and mutation. Missionaries, evangelists, crusaders, family traditions - all mechanisms for continued reproduction. Splinter groups and sects form constantly - mutations. Some form and disband in a relatively short time, but others are more successful and flourish, like Islam and Christianity.

These now distinct religions then compete with one another for supremacy or survival, just like competing life forms. We've seen this happen for thousands of years. In Egypt and Greece, we can find the fossilized remains of two religious systems that must have seemed all-powerful at the time.

This brings me to my main point.

Say we have some hypothetical population of a few million people. For the sake of argument, there is no actual divine influence being exerted upon this population from an actual deity. However, these people have a very clear idea and understanding of the deity that they worship, regardless of its actual existence. They have rules covering virtually every aspect of their daily lives which are derived in part or in whole from the teachings of this deity, and each tries to live their life accordingly.

With enough people and a complex and stable religious social construct, is the influence of this imagined deity in any way distinguishable from the influence of an actual deity? If everyone is acting in the way that they perceive this deity would desire them to act, then has the emergent system exerted its influence on the population in the same manner a real deity would desire to do so?

In short: If God didn't already exist, did we create Him in a way that can still affect the course of human events in a very real way?[/hide]

[hide=apeiron - clarification]I'm not sure if this was OB50's intent but he is simply making a standard systems science or hierarchy theory point.

A hierarchy that develops "naturally" has both bottom-up and top-down causality. There is a set of small stuff that constructs, and then at the global spatiotemporal scale, there emerges a generality, a prevailing ambience, that constrains.

Where things get really interesting is where the two things are mutual. Where not only is the small adding up to make the large, but the large is in turn responsible for shaping up the identity of the small.

Then you have a true self-organising system.

So taking the god example. A collection of individual humans are the small local constructive "stuff", the located substance of the system. Then together they create some kind of prevailing belief system. This set of global beliefs turns out to have social utility - it gives the collection of individuals a survival advantage. And the beliefs operate as an ambient set of constraints. Each person's behaviour is not determined by the beliefs, but it is guided, steered, limited, shaped.

To put is simply, the local scale becomes defined by its degrees of freedom. Any property that is not being globally suppressed, constrained by the emergent ambience that prevails broadly over space and time, will naturally be free to happen. What is not forbidden is what can and must be happening.

So from local actions comes some global form, some general set of constraints. And these constraints then in turn are more sharply focusing the identity of a set of local individuals. Kids grow up to act a certain way. Groups over time become more narrowly bound as the memes evolve and develop.

The psychology creates the sociology and the sociology in turn creates the psychology. Local and global scales are in interaction so that a whole system self-organises (what Hoftsteddler, reinventing the wheel, once popularised as a strange loop).

So from systems science, we can see that collections of anything will produce their own prevailing states of global constraint. Constraints that in turn sharpen up the identity of the localised collection. A very simple example of such a phenomenon would be a spin glass or Ising model - self-organising phase transitions.

Human social systems are then what we would call complex adaptive systems (CAS) in that they have this systems causality in an evolutionary context. There is selection pressure and competition. There is a need for knowing and adaptation. The phase transition, so to speak, is open ended.

Anyway, there is plenty of science to ground the discussion. And from the understanding that the global level is about constraint - large scale constraints that are in dynamic equilibrium with local constructive action - we can see why human societies would want to endow their "gods" with some particular mythic qualities.

A god must be everywhere and see right inside your head if you are to feel socially constrained even in your thinking. God forbid that your thoughts should go off topic.

But also god acts only as a set of global constraints - long run patterns which we must have a choice about fleetingly breaking. So as with QM, on the fine grain, there is room for fluctuations. We can sin, then atone. As long as things average out, the system as a whole stays on track.

There is a pretty precise fit between our concept of god (which has evolved through human history to become something ever more abstract and globalised) and the global scale that systems science would predict. And we can see it in other generalised notions like the UN bill of human rights or other rational/humanist attempts at global ethical constraints.

We make these things real. And they in turn really make us. It is a two-way causality. But different in that the local acts in an additive and constructive fashion. The global acts in a constraining and shaping fashion.

Emergence is a bad word because of its connotations of accidental, not quite real. In systems science, it is actually the whole system that must emerge - self-organise. Or better yet, develop, evolve, equilibrate. And the local and the global scales are different yet both *real* in that they are causally essential to what is found.[/hide]

archimage_a · July 2, 2009

I would agree with the first post(the second post just seemed to go too into detail which, without prior groundings in the debate, seem intelligible.)

Even if God does not actually need to exist, the notion of God does, which is enough for some people to get though each day in a way that is considered moral.

Partly from fear of punishment and partly though aspirations of becoming better than you started... and an emergent form is always more than the sum of its parts. :thumbsup:

Zierro · July 3, 2009

Hence why talking to them helps my argument to be circumspect.

Actually, I'm very close to three people who have been sexually abused. I hate bringing it up, but even if you know someone it doesn't give you all the details you need for passing accurate judgment. Really, it's just your word against mine. I'm just telling you what I've heard.

No...I have to say that, in 9 out of 10 case it is because they desired someone's body. It is only 1 in 10 that other reasons are in majority, peer pressure, revenge, ect.

I maintain that rape is more about control and power than just the sexual pleasure alone: Many people think that rape and sexual abuse is about the rapist trying to get sex. However, studies conducted with convicted rapists show that this isn't the case. Research shows that men who sexually offend do so to gain a sense of power and authority, while women sexually offend to either maintain or establish an emotional relationship. Sexual activity is the means by which this is achieved, not the reason for the rape. http://www.rapecrisis.org.nz/content.aspx?id=53

And also, the clothing is pretty irrelevant: Rapists tend to believe that the people they are raping deserve to be raped, and most rapists are very opportunistic -- in other words, who they rape isn't usually about what someone is wearing, what someone says or where they are at: it is merely about them being available and it seeming to the rapist that he can succeed in raping that person and get away with it.

http://www.scarleteen.com/who_are_rapists_and_where_did_rape_even_come_from

No that definitely isn't true. Not one of the people I know was brutally mutilated. I think you are basing your arguments on tabloids, which run with the motto 'If it Bleeds, it Leads'. So unless the three counties of Britain where I gathered information from are unique for not having brutal rapes carried out in them I think your evidence is flawed.

First of all, of course they weren't brutally mutilated because you have spoken to them. Secondly, you're thinking backwards. It's not that people who get raped are usually mutilated - it's that young girls who are mutilated had a strong tendency to be raped as well. After all, the rapist probably wouldn't feel comfortable with them living to tell about it.

Subjective judgement.

This whole debate is subjective. I don't know why you'd even bring that up.

Your argument really falls down here. In the majority of cases (Though I can't say that I have talked to that many... five or six maybe) it is about fulfilling needs. Which makes a lot of sense when you consider the 17th and 18th century Royal Navy. There are numerous accounts of relationships being forged though mutual need to release desires while on long voyages, even more accounts which show that whenever they went into port the relationships tapered to about 1 in a 1000.

So the evidence is not on your side.

Looks like evidence is on my side: Prison sexuality, often viewed as facultative or situational, shows quite similar dominance traits to those of apes, revealing similar relationship structures. Such animal-like behaviors are widely regarded as an inherent part of human nature. Hence sexual relationships tend to follow universal archetypes, which appear in all aspects of human culture and behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_sexuality

And who is to say those "needs" aren't dominance-oriented?

Again experience disagrees with you. Not one of the people that I spoke to was raped and then went on to rape. In numerous instances their views on sex were polarized by the experience, becoming unable to enjoy it or becoming permanently submissive/dominate... One person actually went off males(it was a girl) entirely and after five months of not having sex finally caved in to having sex with another girl, didn't particularly enjoy the experience but carried on because she couldn't not have sex.

So believe me I know that rape is an extremely damaging experience, but your arguments prove unfounded.

Of course it is a damaging experience, which is why it messes with their psyche and potentially causes them to become like that. This doesn't only apply to rape but immoral behavior in general. It's fairly obvious that a kid who grows up in the ghetto with a broken home and no friends is more likely to grow up to be a criminal moreso than a kid who was raised in a decent loving family. In a way, it's their means of redemption against a world that has done them wrong.

I am actually quiet surprised at your continued stereotyping. You indicate that only Women get raped, despite me saying men and women... the actual 'unofficial' (mum's a youth worker so...) figures show a 40-60 split, females being in the minority, but men being unwilling to admit they were raped by a woman (or a man in many cases, though this is mildly more reported) simply because if you admit to something like that you are branded as weak or whatever.

When did I ever say women were the only ones to get raped? And anyways, I really don't believe more males get raped than females. Your figures are unofficial and only represent a small sample. Doesn't that speak for their accuracy?

Furthermore you claim that you are normal, and understand what normal is. The simple fact is that normal does not exist. Your 'categories' do not work. I have had numerous... well not numerous, I think I have talked to two people, one of them being a close friend, who have said they thought about raping someone. (As you have probably gathered I do not judge, so I get told things that others would not be told)

Everyone is definitely not "normal" in one way or another, but by that I meant people who haven't had the same experiences as them, which are the majority of people. Sorry for the bad word choice. :lol:

Here is the definition of normal I was using:

-conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

-approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment.

Now you may never have thought about it, you maybe a holier than thou person, in all honesty it doesn't really matter. It just makes you someone who is close minded.

Being able to look at something and not be consumed by it is a sign of true morality. Being able to look at something without fear is a sign of a strong character and deep convictions.

Wait a second, what exactly makes me closed-minded again?

Which is why, in general, I can respect someone religious, because they are confronted by vice on a daily basis but do not succumb to it.

That doesn't make sense. You have more respect for people who don't sin because they fear divine punishment than the people who don't believe in divine punishment but still don't sin anyways? Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you meant by vice...

I doubt Hitler started world war 2 so that he could commit suicide six years later in his bunker...

Robert Oppenheimer (The lead research in the Manhattan Project, the guy who said 'I have become death, the shatterer of Worlds') definitely didn't intent to have his bomb go on to build even more powerful bombs(the H Bomb).

The fact is that we are not in control of our destiny, we only live for the moment, and if, down the line, our discoveries and behavior lead to something we do not like then maybe we should never have done it in the first place.

But blame should only apply to those who have done something immoral. You can argue that, "You shouldn't have wore a green shirt today, that way you wouldn't get slapped," but nobody can predict the future that easily. You can also argue that, "You shouldn't have had that child! They grew up to become a serial killer! This is your fault!" See where I'm going here? Unless they actually did something wrong, I think it's just an excuse to justify the actual wrong-doer.

We have to accept that freedoms must be earned and not given freely.

And who is to say what constitutes as earning freedom? Who is the person who even defines freedom? Technically, the ability to rape someone is a "freedom" but then again it infringes upon the freedom of others - the freedom to live a happy rape-free life. That's why it comes down to the people who are doing the immoral actions - not the victims. You can try to argue that someone who doesn't have the "freedom to rape" is getting their rights infringed upon by the people who they want to victimize, but it makes no sense to cater to the immoral group of people and leave the ones who are doing nothing wrong in the dust. Freedoms should be totally dependent on the morality surrounding them. You should have the freedom to dress how you want, be whatever religion you want, etc. without having to worry about being victimized. That is what true freedom is.

The first step is to give people the chance to build self control.

You would not say that the first step in building a dam was to build a dam. You would say that you needed to have a dry basin, typically by diverting the river flow, to start building on.

That chance is already there. They just choose not to take it, which should subsequently result in legal action. It's not like every rape derives from a woman wearing skimpy clothing. People get raped in their beds at home. Who is to blame for that? The criminal of course.

I am not saying either system is right. I am saying that it is better BUT NOT GOOD when suffering has to be sustained for a long period of time, rather than done once and lasts forever.

Or are you perhaps advocating that we simply remove these problem groups by some kind of genetic modification (I am almost certain you do not, but I have to ask because you don't seem to have a solution beyond a vague goal of 'A more moral society').

I am saying criminals should be accountable - not victims. Yes, sometimes the victims do cause provocation, but then again there are tons of crimes that go unprovoked, which means that the problem will always boil down to the criminals more than it comes down to the victims.

I still think it is ridiculous to blame the Jews for the holocaust.

PS: This question doesn't concern my current debate, but it has a lot to do with the topic. Does absolute truth exist? If you answer no then you are contradicting yourself.

Darkblade20 · July 3, 2009

That theory on emergent properties is definitely tied into this discussion. Similar to what I've stated about a collection of consciousness, rather individual consciousness, that accounts for the existence of determinable, concrete properties. Bravo :)

Also. I'm horrified by where this thread has gone, as I've gone through many of the posts in depth at this point. I can't say whether or not I'm surprised at how off-topic we've gotten (to an extent, at least). In my opinion, this is one for the RS history books. A massive discussion for a RS board!

(I'm also surprised we haven't been closed yet o.O)

To answer the above question though, perhaps the only absolute truth, is that there is no absolute truth. As we've seen here so far, truth is simply what emerges as a group strives to make sense of their world, whether that "truth" be the right one, or not.

mmmcannibalism · July 3, 2009

PS: This question doesn't concern my current debate, but it has a lot to do with the topic. Does absolute truth exist? If you answer no then you are contradicting yourself.

Yes, but that doesnt mean it is possible to find or understand.

archimage_a · July 4, 2009

Hey, little off topic for a moment but there we go:

I have spent the day at...or rather setting(in terms of leg work) up, an awards ceremony. So I apologise for not getting back sooner and for not getting the facts and figures sorted, I shall try to get them tommrow, but it will be a saturday and just GAH!

Anyways.

Absolute truth, meaning truth that always applies, is flawed. I do not agree that there is such a thing as Good or Evil in the Objective senses of the words, because they are not objective...An evil person will consider something evil to be good, while a good person will consider something good to be good, neither of them are wrong though.

Hence an absolute truth could not be based on Good and Evil.

The closest you can come is the 'Best' course of action, but then that is subjective because it would matter who it was best for.

I suppose that if you defined Good and something which helped people...no, that doesn't work because torture could help the torturer feel better at the expense of the victim, while, as we all know, good intentions have a tendance to do evil as well as good.

So unless you had a universal principle(absolute truth) guiding what was considered good and bad, and hence you are making a subjective judgement before you even being, then applying further universal principles (I have had numerous discussions on this so I have taken to calling it that, sorry for confusion) becomes possible.

It would be wrong (in my opinion) to try to apply a universal principle because it is not universally accepted...while the majority of people alive now would consider that(well actually according to research they wouldn't) capital punishment was wrong, that does not mean that the majority of people alive, EVER, would.

If though, you define Absolute Truth, as a truth which you, yourself, hold to be Absolute, then that is not wrong. I hold numerous things as Absolute truth, not killing, any creature, is high on the list, as is helping when asked and generally making everyone's lives easier through any way I can (I say this because I am still feeling a little 'high'/light headed from the ceremony. The sort of way you get when you know, and have been told that you have made

life a little easier for people...anyway)

Actually, I'm very close to three people who have been sexually abused. I hate bringing it up, but even if you know someone it doesn't give you all the details you need for passing accurate judgment. Really, it's just your word against mine. I'm just telling you what I've heard.

Which is fair enough.

I have to say though that you MAY be acting in a subjective way because these people are close to you.

I, on the other hand, have specifically...well not specifically....Let me find the words, I may need to revise this in future posts... I have had people, who I have know for maybe three days(in some cases a few hours, in others a few years, but usually...well is it usually, I don't know how many are yet to say anything...sigh... Lets say three days/weeks) open up to me and tell me things that they have either, never told anyone, or have only told those closest to them.

Frankly I can only guess that I have the vibes or aura of trust or whatever you want to call it, all I know is that people feel comfortable talking to me(face to face, doesn't seem to work via msn or internet :roll: ) about things they would not talk to other people about.

All of that is to say that I have a wide, but also narrow (only people suspetible to my 'charm') array of people...and there are a lot of backgrounds there. I will admit that about 3/4 of them are girls, but that is only on the subject of rape, males seem to have a much more imaginative libedo, on average...but then the girls that really go for it beat the males easily.

Then there are the much more(for me) interesting rants against something in their life, their view on the world, their views on the world...It really is a mixed bag.

I maintain that rape is more about control and power than just the sexual pleasure alone:

I would say that rape(in most cases, though this is a personal opinion, not backed by... well there is some evidence but not a lot of evidence) is about 40% about sex, 30% about nature(combines lust and dominance at 10-20 split), 20% peer pressure(Which can be anything from 'I bet you could never get her/him' to 'Everyone is having sex but me') and 10% exploration (Which covers mutilations, rape as a concept (including experimenting with dominance and such) as well as gay/back sex (You can explore it in one session and never have to go back there, which is semi-uncommon, from my research), as well as having sex for the first time and having sex in positions which you could not do with your partner for whatever reason (Bondage perhaps, or even because of a bad experiance from their past).

Obvouisly there is a lot of overlap. The reason sex is at the top, in my opinion, is that the reasons are often rooted in sexual fantesties, be them self-originating or from an external source...the internet, friends, relatives even.

Dominance obvouisly plays a big part in it, some people only doing it because A) they lack confidence, B) Their partner is too dominate for them C) because rape is a savage act which does bring a sense of dominance(So I can see where you are coming from, but I disagree with your conclusions)

However, studies conducted with convicted rapists show that this isn't the case.

&

Research shows that men who sexually offend do so to gain a sense of power and authority, while women sexually offend to either maintain or establish an emotional relationship.

This is the reason that I do not trust science as much as some people. Well these kinds of results and personal experiance in the way that these kinds of results are collected.

They are typically found by sitting a criminal in a room, after maybe 6 months of conditioning(brainwashing/rehabilitation...torture, they are all the same from different perspectives), and asking them questions like 'Do you now understand that you do this because you were seeking dominance?', 'Was your action the result of a lasting connection you felt with this person?', 'Have you ever thought about having rough sex with other people?'

Let me give you an example gather recently in a survey(outside of rape) 'Do you fear knives?'

Now that kind of question will get...pretty much certainly, one result.

Hence the study 'shows' that young people fear that knife crime is on the up!!! Shock horror... 'Young people are more afraid of getting stabbed than in previous years!

Look at our evidence, when asked 'If I told you that someone gets Stabbed every 5 hours would you be afraid of it happening to you?' 48% of people said they were, 42% said they carry protection against that.

(This a real study, but I have no idea how to get the results on the web and I don't have a scanner :oops: ) The study concluded that almost half of young people carry knives with over half carrying some sort of weapon. This was done because of a rising perception of knife crime. Additionally 10% of 9-12 year olds were actively engaged in knife crime already.

(There were other questions as well, but the interpretation was subjective at best)

Further more(and I would have searched the internet for the proof but....) in the past Homosexuality has been put down to numerous things, all of which could be 'cured' or the 'convict' would admit to being incorrect.

In any case, a short peice on psyco-analysis, specifically in Homosexuals:

Biases in psychoanalysis

Although psychoanalytic theories of homosexuality once had considerable influence in psychiatry and in the larger culture, they were not subjected to rigorous empirical testing. Instead, they were based on analysts' clinical observations of patients already known by them to be homosexual.

This procedure compromises the validity of the psychoanalytic conclusions in at least two important ways.

First, the analyst's theoretical orientations, expectations, and personal attitudes are likely to bias her or his observations. To avoid such bias, scientists take great pains in their studies to ensure that the researchers who actually collect the data do not have expectations about how a particular research participant will respond. An example is the "double blind" procedure used in many experiments. Such procedures have not been used in clinical psychoanalytic studies of homosexuality(Or rape :!: ).

A second problem with psychoanalytic studies is that they have only examined homosexuals who were already under psychiatric care in other words, homosexuals who were seeking treatment or therapy. Patients, however, cannot be assumed to be representative of the general population. Just as it would be inappropriate to draw conclusions about all heterosexuals based only on data from heterosexual psychiatric patients, we cannot generalize from observations of homosexual patients to the entire population of gay men and lesbians.

While I admit that my 'theories' on rape are subject to my own biases I would like to point out that I started out without a theory as to it...then I, like you, condemned the rapists whole heartedly, then I moved out (after one particualarly graphic account(and a theory similar to my own), which I am deeply indebted to a certain guy(victim if you care to know) for) into a more open field.

Further more I do accept that in some cases you are completely right, they are seeking it for dominance related reasons. However I am talking, specifically, about teenage/adult on teenage/adults, usually a one time (Per victim) thing.

If you want to talk about anything to do with children then my arguements change somewhat(it is differcult to blame a child for something like that, but equally one has to respect history as well as social bias, but this is any entirely different kettle of fish so I will leave that discussion in your court.)

The summery of that is: Are the theories made by evidence or the evidence 'made' by theory? Did they start with questions to find answers, or answers to be proved?

First of all, of course they weren't brutally mutilated because you have spoken to them.

:roll: Ok, I have not come across very many people who have known someone who was brutally mutilated, giving my study a significantly larger population base as we are now talking about the neighbours, familes, friends and all that of thousands (if not tens of thousands) of individuals(since we are not limited to rape victims/rapists now).

Obvouisly I did not bring that point up with everyone of those people, but the study does at least go into the high hundreds for people who I have discussed rape with, and of them only(Trying to think) I think it is only 8 of those people knew someone who had been brutually/mutilated at all(outside of the actual act itself.)...although some had temporary bondage marks and a number of the 'back sex' cases claimed that it was painful/extremely painful.

(I have to admit though that I think there was someone who had a mutilation mark, they had a fractured skull (which I doubt because there was no hospital involved :-k) and cracked wisdom teeth because someone had forced some kind of hollowed-expanded gumshield in and then did something against a wall while they were passed out drunk.

I don't think that was intentional injury but at the same time it shows quiet an indepth planning system had gone into it, although the case was rather revengist/peer pressure(By the way this is a story told to me second hand and semi-confirmed by the person themselves) because of a whole string of 'he said, she said' as well as the (person who told me's) opinion that the victim was someone who often talked, offensively loudly, about their sexual conquests, as well as showing pictures of it, particularly to the siblings of his conquests... Although I do not condon rape, this case did have some positive benefits, the person actually became rather timid(not positive in my opinion) but after a while became merely humble, and was ashamed of their past actions. The last I heard he had settled down into a relationship.)

Anyway...far off topic.

This whole debate is subjective. I don't know why you'd even bring that up.

Because I was annoyed with your use of 'Have power in a 'violent/disgusting way.'

It is purely emotive with no shread of evidence to back it up. While I will agree that we are mainly talking about our opinions on things, we are doing so with our personal experiances as backing for it.

While I can understand why you would stay 'They wanted power' I do not think you are entitled to say 'It is violent and disgusting' AND imply that that is what they want it for...to be violent and disgusting.

Prison sexuality, often viewed as facultative or situational, shows quite similar dominance traits to those of apes, revealing similar relationship structures. Such animal-like behaviors are widely regarded as an inherent part of human nature. Hence sexual relationships tend to follow universal archetypes, which appear in all aspects of human culture and behavior.

So something that is perfectly natural...divorcing it entirely from your 'rape in general' argument.

You also fall in to the trap though of seeing males as inherantly dominant(I can safely say that I am not, and I can say that other males (While no where near as submissive as me) are not all 100% dominate) while seeing females as inherantly submissive(I now numerous women who would lynch you for suggesting that : (hmmm, maybe the wrong smilely, I meant it in terms that I would be lynched for my arguments so we could both get lynched together...it made sense to me) :shock:)

If you follow this line then you fall into the basic argument that everything is natural, and everything natural is inherantly right and therefore society and morality are wrong...not the other way around.

Which again defeats your argument that Rape is wrong(It also defeats my argument that rape is wrong, but I do not agree with inherant dominace and submissiveness in gender)

And who is to say those "needs" aren't dominance-oriented?

'Needs' are semi-inherant (I have about 60 million people, 1% of the global population...the predicted number of asexuals on Earth, who would disagree with the inherancy of sexual needs) in humans, so saying that 'needs' are dominace orientated means that sex is inherantly dominace orientated...which fits with my argument that sex is the primary point of rape(Since it means any dominace feelings are sex, not dominace for the sake of dominace).

Of course it is a damaging experience, which is why it messes with their psyche and potentially causes them to become like that. This doesn't only apply to rape but immoral behavior in general. It's fairly obvious that a kid who grows up in the ghetto with a broken home and no friends is more likely to grow up to be a criminal moreso than a kid who was raised in a decent loving family. In a way, it's their means of redemption against a world that has done them wrong.

Sigh...While I don't outwardly disagree with your arguement here I have to point out that we cannot judge to harshly...While we may not approve of such a lifestyle (criminal moreso) it does not mean that it is wrong.

I suppose the argument linked in my head on the subject of Pederastry, which I am in two minds about. On the one hand it offends my moral sensiblity of choice, but on the other it has numerous benefits which, together, challange the advantage of choice(similarly to mandetory education, I disagree because it offends my moral sensiblity of choice, but it also has, potentially, when correctly utilised, has numerous benefits....So I ask that you do some research into Pederasty and tell me what your opinion on it are. (Since I have never talked to someone who was in a relationship of this type I find it difficult to make an objective judgement)

When did I ever say women were the only ones to get raped?

Sorry, you implied it on a few occations and my personal biases told me that you were actively purporting the idea.

I really don't believe more males get raped than females.

I thought so as well (I will come to the figures in a moment) but after I saw the figures it sort of made sense...Women tend to be more sensible when it comes to walking home...they also tend not to walk alone at night...and when they do they are alert for dangers(in most(Without direct evidence I have to admit :oops: ) case).

Where as men tend to go though dark alleyways, alone, at night, loudly singing in a drunken slur. Added to that they tend to make a lot noise by colliding with various objects. Additionally(According to quiet a number of young girls and women) the woman's sex drive is at least as well(or poorly, depending on your perspective) developed as mens, if not more so.

Furthermore women tend to move in packs, while men tend to go it alone(This is kind of supported by evidence, the guys who were raped, who talked to me about it, said there were two or more(typically, some times there was just one...but also you have to understand that men are also involved with the raping...While I have no direct experiance of Women-Woman rape, and the figures are apparently rather small for it.). As well as men not wanting to report the crime/not remembering the crime(Which doesn't really come into it because this group(not remembering) is not included...oddly enough...well I mean the ones who didn't come to with some sort of proof of what happened...getting a little complicated) which obvouisly biases the figures.

Your figures are unofficial and only represent a small sample. Doesn't that speak for their accuracy?

They are the national youth work-medical figures for Britain, for teenagers. The sample is not entirely complete and does have a margin for error because not everyone gets tested/talks to youth workers/councillers/who ever else is involved in it.

The reason they are not offical is because I am not sure if I can actually use the figures in it...I can say I have seen the document and have gone over it in great detail, but I am not sure as to how widespread the access is...furthermore I am not sure if I can, on request, post it on the internet. I am planning to talk to mum tommrow/today(Its 2 Am) so I should know at a later time as to if I can post it.

It is also about at least a year out of date(I only became aware of it because someone else asked a question, one of the youth workers said they had been at a meeting that morning and had seen a report about it as part of the area stratagy agenda, the next club they brought a few copies(Since we were doing a course on safe sex, which is why I think other access needs to be cleared(The beaucracy of it all :lol: )) and we had a discussion about why these figures might exist the way they do...hence the 'indepth' analysis above.

Here is the definition of normal I was using:

-conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

-approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment.

The issue then becomes: are you judging normal relative to you, relative to what you know or relative to what is real?

Its sort of absolute truth...Before I was told by my friend that he had considered raping someone I would have assumed that he would not dream of something like that...We just don't know people as well as we would like to.

Wait a second, what exactly makes me closed-minded again?

I think it was a pre-emptive strike against you claiming 'Well normal people don't think about that, clearly you are not normal and neither are your friends.'

It was not, only, targetted at you, since we are in an open environment, and so even if you did not respond to it my view on the matter would be present.

Anyway, the long and short is 'Have you ever thought about Rape as something you could do? If not could you imagine a situation where you would? If not could you imagine anyone doing it? If not then clearly you are close minded -.-. If yes then why can you imagine others doing what you cannot...you are as much a human being as anyone else, that sort of is the culture we live in, where you are just as capable to do things as anyone else.

That doesn't make sense. You have more respect for people who don't sin because they fear divine punishment than the people who don't believe in divine punishment but still don't sin anyways? Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you meant by vice...

I do like the semi-friendly way we are doing this, not instantly attacking any weakness...at least not vindictively, and occationally we have mercy. ;)

As I have said before, it is a matter of degrees. I would respect someone more for not sinning because they chose not to for moral reasons than someone not sinning because of consquential reasons but I would repect that person more than someone who sinned despite consquential reasons, and definately more than someone who sinned despite moral reasons. But at the bottom of the barrel of people I respect(for their stance on morality) are people who sin/don't sin but do not know what sin is.

So league table:

Someone who resists the urge to sin by moral decision

Someone who resists the urge to sin by consequential reasons

Someone who does not resist the urge to sin by consequential reasons

Someone who does not resist the urge to sin by moral decision

Someone without the urge to sin. (While I like these people it is for a different reason, please do not get me wrong about them, but we are talking specifically about stances on morality)

If you sin despite divine punishment (obvouisly it all depends on the situatitions, but on average) then it shows you are doing so because of extreme desire and are willing to burn in the 'pits of hell' to fufill them...which is reasonable.

If you sin despite making a moral decision, then you are showing that you have a weak will, and you do not value morality. Since there is no (perceived or real) negative side to breaking the rule, except maybe guilt, it is entirely on your shoulders...

Sort of like the difference between a slave and a servant running away. A slave is forced into it, while the servant has chosen their lot. While a slave may run away and recieve my support for doing so, a servant would, well they would recieve my support still but not by as much...I would not be willing to risk my life to save them from being taken back.

Obvouisly it would depend on how they chose to do so...if it was some sort of cult then I would be more sympathetic, but realistically...

Anyway my original point was that most of us sucumb to at least one vice every so often, truely religious people are supposed not to(if they do they earn my respect, if not then it depends on the serouisness of it...most can be forgiven but some cannot...you are talking about something far too complicated to be conveyed in words.

But blame should only apply to those who have done something immoral. You can argue that, "You shouldn't have wore a green shirt today, that way you wouldn't get slapped," but nobody can predict the future that easily. You can also argue that, "You shouldn't have had that child! They grew up to become a serial killer! This is your fault!" See where I'm going here? Unless they actually did something wrong, I think it's just an excuse to justify the actual wrong-doer.

...We are supposed to learn from our mistakes. Wearing a green shirt, is understandable...if however you know that you will be going to be going into a room full of colourshifted bulls...or someone who has some mental condition set off by the colour green, then it is not understandable it is foolish.

The serial killer thing...you are talking about too many variables with only one set of results being in question.

Lets say for instance that we bizzarely had a child(well not that bizzarely, you might be a girl, I have no idea) and one of us(not falling into that trap) advocates a strict regime of beatings, while the other advocates a strict education in morality. As a result that child grows up to think it is only to hurt people when they do something wrong, and so when they see someone commiting adultary(Which is high on the list of things which are morally wrong) they murder them.

We are talking about at least 15 years of two people making a consistant decision to do something, as well as 15 years of one person recieving that in a certain way as to later combine into a strict sense of right and wrong and punishment. All culminating in them choosing to have that view.

There is also the influance of our parents(the child's grand parents), our friends, the child's friends, teachers, youth workers...anyone that they meet. All of those varriables which culminate in one thing. It could just as easily not, instead culminating in an adult who has a defined sense of right and wrong and, although they beat it into their children, they do not commit any other acts of evil.

Where as someone going out have a ton of variables, but they are doing it multiple times. Like having (shall we say every saturday for...5 years? 52*5= 260ish) 260 children and having one turn out as a serial killer. With those sorts of numbers it is much more likely, especially when circumstances are right...such as their parents constantly arguing :oops: .(Which was really the only reason why I chose that senario :D )

So your analogies, while good, are not exactly accurate.

The point I was trying to make is that there are POSSIBLE consquences to actions. Hitler could have won or drawn the second world war by negotiating a seperate peace with Russia(America was dead set against anything short of unconditional surrender), any number of things could have happened, but in the end he lost.

Which IS analgous to a night out with friends:

It starts out good, you strike a few poses and you get a couple of drinks, you move on up the ladder and eventually attract the attention of the bouncer, but you show them by running away and laughing a lot with your mates as he huffs and puffs after you. Then you look around you and see some guys, you flirt with them for a bit, but had no intention of offering up the goods. Having humilated them you move on again but this time it is not so easy to get away...it starts off good, you lose them, but you also lose your friends. You hear one call out in fright as they are grabbed, you swear under your breath and hide for a moment, then you make a dash for it. You feel the hand on your shoulder and that is it... your friends have disappeared and you are left fighting alone as a massive force bares down upon you to completely wreck you. He forces you up against the wall and is prepared to destroy you, mentally and physically. You take the only action you have avalible to you...You smash your head hard against the door and...

Obvouisly a pretty sterotypical view of rape but it gets the message across.

To anyone wondering about that:

[hide=]Germany posturing with the smaller countries around it, as well as the bigger countries over Versallies. Then getting war declared by Britain and France, then defeating France and leaving Britain struggling. (slightly out of order) The mutual-non-aggression pact with the Soviets, followed by the invasion of their homeland. But the Soviets were able to fight back, though the Germans almost made it to Moscow. Italy is invaded by the Allies and Germany curses its bad luck. Japan is not really important accept for bring the USA into the war, and tying up a number of British troops. Then Germany is on the ropes, it is surrounded on all sides and Hitler's only course of action, as not to be defilled as Mussolini had been, was to commit sucide.[/hide]

The Atom Bomb one, was not correct, I will agree. I was seeking to tie the other argument, the one about technology being dangerous, even when it is intended for good...and just ended up confusing the issue.

I am only advocating that the victims take responsibility for their actions...if they are going to go posturing or they are going to go out in a group which cannot defend itself then they need to be prepared for the possible consquences...and if...and indeed when, I look at a plan for a night out I am always conscience of how safe I am going to be, and if it is not reasonably(AKA the chances are slim to none) then I will change the plan or I will not go out...

Although I do have to admit that I have not always followed that rule, even recently...:

I was worried about someone and we were supposed to be having a sleep over at the youth center(or a sponsered stay awake, but tomato tomato.) but he wanted to go for a walk. Now I am a very trusting person and I am certain that nothing would happen, however when they(This person) has been in that situation before they have been known to cause damage to property, as well as to become violent...As well as the belief that given half the chance...Anyway.

So I have been in compromising positions, and I made the conscience decision to do so. I was prepared for the possible consquences of my actions, and, although I would want them proscuted for whatever crime they committed, I would understand that I had put myself in that position and so it was, in a small way, my fault. As such I would be able to learn from that experiance and move forwards(obvouisly it is a high price if I am convicted or mentally and physically scarred but it is better to make a mistake than to make nothing...added to that if I am the one to suffer then at least one less other person will have to suffer. (Oh my self-sacrificing nature.(Isn't really a smiley that is half serious))

And who is to say what constitutes as earning freedom? Who is the person who even defines freedom?

One would assume the same organ that currently defines freedom, the Government... :roll:

I am not saying that I have thought it through in its entirity, but I am moving in that direction.

Technically, the ability to rape someone is a "freedom" but then again it infringes upon the freedom of others - the freedom to live a happy rape-free life.

Exactly, we deny one freedom to protect another freedom. Why? Because the amount of freedoms potentially protected is greater than the number of freedoms denied...IE the freedom of the family not to suffer.

That's why it comes down to the people who are doing the immoral actions - not the victims.

In a very direct system, but we are already proving, simply by society being as it is, that punishing wrong-doers is not enough...so either we sit around as the immorality builds up, or we take steps to stop it...and all the time that immorality is accruing is increasing the size of the steps we have to take.

You can try to argue that someone who doesn't have the "freedom to rape" is getting their rights infringed upon by the people who they want to victimize, but it makes no sense to cater to the immoral group of people and leave the ones who are doing nothing wrong in the dust.

Actually it makes quite a lot of sense. For example, if the rapists were emperors and their victims were slaves. We might disapprove of the system, but within it the argument you propose is defeated.

But then I have no reason to argue freedom to rape...I believe that it should not be condoned.

Freedoms should be totally dependent on the morality surrounding them.

You should have the freedom to dress how you want, be whatever religion you want, etc. without having to worry about being victimized. That is what true freedom is.

In a perfect world maybe. In the real world we have to accept that freedoms have limits...For example if a gay guy(Or a straight guy/woman or gay girl) came up to you and began to come on to you would have to make a choice...do you respect their freedom to express their feelings or do you use your freedom to express your feelings.

Do you have the freedom to say no on the basis of your sexual preferance...after all you respect their right to be able to chose and they have chosen you.* They also have the freedom(in the perfect world) not to extend freedoms to you. Which would probably mean you would not extend the freedom to them...which means that neither of you had freedom and the whole system falls apart.

*

[hide=](This is half based on personal experiance, because there is a bi guy that I rather like, but he turns me down because he is not that into me, but I, although accepting that is probably true, am put out that if I was a girl then he would probably hang not being that into me and just get on with it... This was a while back, when I was going though my 'Well if I don't like girls then I must like guys' phase, although I am still attracted to him it is not a sexual attraction).[/hide]

Hence freedom exists within limits.

Further more the freedom to be nude infringes on other people's freedom not to be offended by the sight of naked flesh.

In the end your system comes down to what we have now...where the majority rules and minority groups...such as nudists and homosexuals and all of these other groups are forced to be extra careful, because, even if people support something in general they still don't want it to happen to them...added to that it is not always the same people who support it as are affect by it. Take teenagers for example, they have very little say, but are affected just the same as everyone else by anti-discrimination laws.

That chance is already there. They just choose not to take it, which should subsequently result in legal action.

Is in conflict with

It's fairly obvious that a kid who grows up in the ghetto with a broken home and no friends is more likely to grow up to be a criminal moreso than a kid who was raised in a decent loving family.

People get raped in their beds at home. Who is to blame for that? The criminal of course.

For the majority yes. In some though it is still the victims's (Leaving the windows open, undressing in front of windows...ect) and the person who designed the house (for making entry so easy)

Just to clarify, if we are talking about rape at home there are two main types(well that I would class anyway):

Opportunistic and Characteristic.

Oppotunists will just be passing a house, late at night, see a window is open and a ladder and bish bash bosh they are up in the house. Most of the time locking the window can solve this problem...or having small windows away from big windows or doors.

Character rapists will follow a style of escalation...Ie they will find somewhere, probably somewhere where people get underdressed which catches their eye, followed by a session outside. The next night they may come back or go somewhere else...and constantly do that until they have the ability to bring their fantasy to life...and once they have they may stop or they may(more likely) continue in different locations. These sorts are more the responsiblity of housing and street engineers...if the evironment is full of areas where it is impossible to be seen then I would say they should learn from that.

However the second catagory is largely composed of people who cannot, reasonably, be stopped by anything short of society changing to provide help for people who have those kinds of fantasties...how you could do that I don't know. Legalise and regulate prostitution as a stopgap measure...Its not something I like but it is a possiblity and would be safer....you see that is the problem with being moral and objective, you do not have the luxtury of saying 'No that is wrong, you shouldn't do it and you cannot do it.' you have to provide a system to help people who do not share your opinion...otherwise you become tyranical.

I still think it is ridiculous to blame the Jews for the holocaust.

I don't think I ever said it wasn't. I think I said that we all have twisted ideas, and so blaming the people around at the time for their twisted ideas would be like, in 50 years, blaming us for condeming sex offenders.

And for the record, I still think it is ridiculous to treat the symptoms but not the causes.

Alg · July 4, 2009

People get raped in their beds at home. Who is to blame for that? The criminal of course.

For the majority yes. In some though it is still the victims's (Leaving the windows open, undressing in front of windows...ect) and the person who designed the house (for making entry so easy)

Just to clarify, if we are talking about rape at home there are two main types(well that I would class anyway):

Opportunistic and Characteristic.

What about rape by the person's spouse?

archimage_a · July 4, 2009

As a personal opinion?

I would say that it is impossible to rape someone you are married to. Marriage implies the willingness to procreate, and if you do not wish to procreate(or have sex...you know modern times and old customs really mess up simple arguements like this :x ) then you should bare the experiance and then seek an annulment.

In any case the real crime lies in the domestic violence or false imprisonment, which are both pretty much requirements if you are going to rape a 'spouse'(I say that because I don't use the word very often so am unsure of its exact meaning though am reasonably certain)...unless of course they are just going to lie there and take it for fear of getting injured, in which case my heart goes out to them but realistically they need to get an annulment or a divorce before the law should be able to intervene.

I know that seems pretty harsh but the modern world has eroded my once strong belief in justice:

A woman can get an abortion, a man can't. Things are already unfair in the bedchamber because of that. Why should sex be any different?

If you make a mistake (you trust a harpy with your seed, or you are fertalised by a pig) you have to deal with it. (Either by having your child put though a blender (both cases), or by having to go though the rigores of child birth(for a woman only) and then(for either) having to cope with being a single parent(or fighting over who sees the children when))

If you make a mistake (You married someone who was going to have sex with you) you have to deal with it. (You have to lie there and take it and/or fight back and/or seek respite from your sacrosanct duties.)

Civil parnerships are more complicated because I would have to read up on the law...but, to my knowladge, they are not purely sexual documents so I would imagine that it would still be rape...obvouisly if a more knowledgable person wants to contest that, fair enough.

mmmcannibalism · July 4, 2009

People get raped in their beds at home. Who is to blame for that? The criminal of course.

For the majority yes. In some though it is still the victims's (Leaving the windows open, undressing in front of windows...ect) and the person who designed the house (for making entry so easy)

Just to clarify, if we are talking about rape at home there are two main types(well that I would class anyway):

Opportunistic and Characteristic.

What about rape by the person's spouse?

Well clearly they married the rapist so its their fault :roll:

However the second catagory is largely composed of people who cannot, reasonably, be stopped by anything short of society changing to provide help for people who have those kinds of fantasties...how you could do that I don't know. Legalise and regulate prostitution as a stopgap measure...Its not something I like but it is a possiblity and would be safer....you see that is the problem with being moral and objective, you do not have the luxtury of saying 'No that is wrong, you shouldn't do it and you cannot do it.' you have to provide a system to help people who do not share your opinion...otherwise you become tyranical.

Cite legalized prostitution lowering the rate of sexual assault.

Being moral and objective doesn't imply being inflexible or even authoritarian. It is in fact quite necessary to understand that just because you think something is "wrong" doesn't mean it needs to be outlawed. The main beauty here is that can create our laws on the basis that you have the right to do whatever doesn't infringe on someone elses rights. While there are still some problems with this system, it at the very least creates encourages personal freedom.

edit--wow, you actually are justifying marital rape

you will never have justice if you refuse to allow it.

sphinxor86 · July 4, 2009

Unfortunately, unlike many religious people seem to think, moral are not fixed, nor are they black and white. Abortion being a very good example.

A lot of people are vehemently against abortion because they see it as murder and nothing else.

For the record, I am pro-choice, and I shall explain why:

If a woman were to be raped for example, and then became pregnant as a result, she may wish to abort the child. Quite a lot of right-wing Christians would demand that she keep it and give birth to that child. Now, I know that in no way does that unborn child bear any guilt for what happened to its mother, BUT the mother will always look at her child knowing how it came about. This is a burden that I feel it is up to the mother to choose to take. Also, eventually this child will ask about its heritage, does the mother tell the child? How will the child react?

This sort of case is the morally grey situations that right-wing religious people refuse to acknowledge actually exist, or at the very least refuse to entertain any other possibility for a solution that is not their own.

There are numerous other situations: accidental death in the case of self-defence, the right to commit suicide in the face of terminal illness, abortion of a severely disabled unborn child, sex before marriage, anything gay (religious groups seem to have a lot of problems relating to consensual sex) etc.

On Theory

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information