03-27-2017, 09:54 PM
|
#201
|
Wucka Wocka Wacka
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: East of the Rockies, West of the Rest
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp
The only thing anyone should worship is our star, the true provider of life on earth.
|
Let's not forget Jupiter, because without Jupiter pulling Kuiper belt objects into earth there wouldn't be enough water for life (at least that what I heard some Scientist say).
(Save the nerd rage if I have the details slightly off)
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Fozzie_DeBear For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-27-2017, 10:02 PM
|
#202
|
Wucka Wocka Wacka
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: East of the Rockies, West of the Rest
|
Also there may be a genetic reason why human beings are both altruistic (to those deemed to be within group) and savage (to those outside the group). This approach helped our species survive.
It's kinda hard-wired into our DNA to do this, and religion is a manifestation of this evolutionary quirk.
More here if you want
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fozzie_DeBear For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-27-2017, 11:07 PM
|
#203
|
Participant
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Of course not. We protect children because they're inherently vulnerable. Though it is worth asking if we're treating other groups like children when we use the same justification to treat them differently from everyone else.
|
I've made it clear multiple times my issues with your overall point, so I won't repeat them, but this stuck out to me.
It brings the question to mind: If you agree that children must be protected under exceptional circumstances because of their inherent vulnerability, why do you take issue with the exceptional treatment of groups that have been made more vulnerable by historical power structures? You're not wrong that we should all just be treated equally regardless of anything, but how can you be "for" the exceptional treatment of one objectively vulnerable group and against another? How do you measure where your moral cutoff for vulnerability falls? Is there a major difference between how you treat vulnerability caused by the stage of development vs vulnerability caused by societal structure? Both are as concrete and objective as the other.
Im also curious (a little less on topic) about your view on certain laws regarding children, and why those exceptional laws are valid. For instance, does it make sense to deem a person 17 years and 364 days old vulnerable, but not someone 18 years old? To what age of stage of development (12, 15, 18, 21, etc) do you think people lose their "inherent" vulnerability?
I think it's great to say people should be treated as individuals with exceptions granted for the vulnerable, but you have to define what that is, and explain why a 17 year old white male is more vulnerable than an 18 year old female (when, in reality, the opposite is likely true).
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-27-2017, 11:24 PM
|
#204
|
Participant
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear
Also there may be a genetic reason why human beings are both altruistic (to those deemed to be within group) and savage (to those outside the group). This approach helped our species survive.
It's kinda hard-wired into our DNA to do this, and religion is a manifestation of this evolutionary quirk.
More here if you want
|
I've suggested the biological argument for tribalism many times, I think it's an incredibly strong argument.
Human beings (and all animals really) in general are wired to do specific things with the core purpose of our continued survival. Tribalism is huge, and ingrained in almost every aspect of our lives. I don't know if some fantasizing about a life devoid of it would even recognise what they're actually seeking.
This is another short article detailing it a little bit, with a Mill quote a couple people here ought to appreciate (since Mill is practically the god of old liberalism):
Quote:
A party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life.
|
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...litics-tribal/
Lots of benefits to the strength of groups and the health of society that comes from multiple opposing ones.
|
|
|
03-28-2017, 07:09 AM
|
#205
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
It brings the question to mind: If you agree that children must be protected under exceptional circumstances because of their inherent vulnerability, why do you take issue with the exceptional treatment of groups that have been made more vulnerable by historical power structures?
|
The experiences of the individuals in a group vary dramatically. Some Europeans have benefited from the privileges of their parents and grandparents. Others have not. Some women and people of colour have been historically disadvantaged. Some have not.
The whole notion of historical power structures is flimsy. If you're a white Pole, what historical power structures advantaged you when your country was repeatedly overrun and you family massacred? If you're an upper caste Indian who moves to Canada, how can your background have been anything but an advantage in setting you up with money and social capital?
The tapestry of human history isn't a pattern of blocks. It's complex and intricate and subtle. The people who want it to be simple are ideologues. They crave the same kind of certainty and absolute moral battle-lines as the devoutly religious do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
How do you measure where your moral cutoff for vulnerability falls? Is there a major difference between how you treat vulnerability caused by the stage of development vs vulnerability caused by societal structure? Both are as concrete and objective as the other.
|
They're not. One is innate and largely biological. The other is a social construct that isn't anywhere near as powerful as the advocates of identity politics claim. And again, how do we measure the relative vulnerability of a man of Bosnia origin raised by a single mother who worked as a cleaning lady versus a woman who is from a long line of affluent surgeons and grew up surrounded by a loving and supportive family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I think it's great to say people should be treated as individuals with exceptions granted for the vulnerable, but you have to define what that is, and explain why a 17 year old white male is more vulnerable than an 18 year old female (when, in reality, the opposite is likely true).
|
But it's not. A 17 year old male is much likely to be the victim of violence, up to and including murder. He's also less likely to finish school or go on to post-secondary education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I've suggested the biological argument for tribalism many times, I think it's an incredibly strong argument.
Human beings (and all animals really) in general are wired to do specific things with the core purpose of our continued survival. Tribalism is huge, and ingrained in almost every aspect of our lives. I don't know if some fantasizing about a life devoid of it would even recognise what they're actually seeking.
|
A world devoid of tribalism isn't possible. Neither is a world devoid of violence. And yet we've made remarkable progress is reducing both over the last few hundred years. It's impossible to eradicate human failings. As Kant said, "with this crooked timber, nothing straight was ever made." The goal of humanist society is to mitigate the worst of our human heritage while encouraging the best to flourish. Our best tools for this project are reason and empathy. Both religion and dogmatic ideologies like cultural Marxism are resistant to those tools for the same reasons - they're rooted in irrational impulses, paint an overly simplistic portrait of society, and tend to limit their empathy to the in-group.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
|
|
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-28-2017, 08:37 AM
|
#206
|
Franchise Player
|
I enjoy tribalism, sue me.
Cheering for the Flames (my NHL tribe)
Cheering for Croatia at Euro and World Cups (my ethnic tribe)
Cheering for Canada at Olympics and other sporting events (my nationality tribe)
If someone invaded Canada, I would be down right pissed off and I would want to fight to protect what is "ours". And when the Canadian military was in Afghanistan, I was sure hoping our people wouldn't be killed.
|
|
|
03-28-2017, 08:59 AM
|
#207
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CroFlames
I enjoy tribalism, sue me.
Cheering for the Flames (my NHL tribe)
Cheering for Croatia at Euro and World Cups (my ethnic tribe)
Cheering for Canada at Olympics and other sporting events (my nationality tribe)
If someone invaded Canada, I would be down right pissed off and I would want to fight to protect what is "ours". And when the Canadian military was in Afghanistan, I was sure hoping our people wouldn't be killed.
|
One of the ways to protect us from the darker impulses of tribalism is to divert them into relatively benign outlets like sports.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-28-2017, 09:16 AM
|
#208
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 127.0.0.1
|
anyways, the world will be better off once religion completely dies out.
__________________
Pass the bacon.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DuffMan For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-28-2017, 10:33 AM
|
#209
|
And I Don't Care...
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The land of the eternally hopeful
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkknight
Just curious if you feel like the Nobel prize isn't a decent indicator of intelligence, or as you put it "using you brain to the full capacity"? Since the award was introduced 20% of the winners have been Jewish or of Jewish decent. That's a fraction of the population of the world (0.2% I believe), who's fundamental belief system is thousand of years old, and who have some the most strict religious practices in the world. Don't try to say that people who are religious are unintelligent, when you can't even be bothered to look at the statistics and instead choose to jump to your own conclusions.
|
That's fair. You know what? I think I really do need to stop being so critical of other people who have different beliefs than me. I'm not even sure why I allow it to bother me when I'm reading things online. I'm actually very much a live and let live person in real life. It would probably be best for me to just not post in threads that are about religion.
I apologize for my caustic posts in this thread and in other threads as well.
__________________
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Mightyfire89 For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-28-2017, 12:21 PM
|
#210
|
Participant
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
The experiences of the individuals in a group vary dramatically. Some Europeans have benefited from the privileges of their parents and grandparents. Others have not. Some women and people of colour have been historically disadvantaged. Some have not.
|
Who is debating that there is no exception? And, generally I'd think, most of these conversations are focused on North America. I can't really speak to society in Poland in the 1900s, and I have no idea how relevant it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
The whole notion of historical power structures is flimsy. If you're a white Pole, what historical power structures advantaged you when your country was repeatedly overrun and you family massacred? If you're an upper caste Indian who moves to Canada, how can your background have been anything but an advantage in setting you up with money and social capital?
|
I've talked to Indians working in low-level jobs that easily rank among the most highly qualified and intelligent people I know. I don't know many situations where immigrants come in at an advantageous position over most Canadians. Where are you sourcing that generalization from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
The tapestry of human history isn't a pattern of blocks. It's complex and intricate and subtle. The people who want it to be simple are ideologues. They crave the same kind of certainty and absolute moral battle-lines as the devoutly religious do.
|
I think that's more a convenient characterization than an honest one. A view that we should all just be individuals would be considered simple and naive from a biological or historical perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
They're not. One is innate and largely biological. The other is a social construct that isn't anywhere near as powerful as the advocates of identity politics claim.
|
The biological vulnerability of children is unclear and mostly a social construct as well, unless you believe the actual biological cutoff of vulnerability to be 18 years exactly. How do you measure that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
But it's not. A 17 year old male is much likely to be the victim of violence, up to and including murder. He's also less likely to finish school or go on to post-secondary education.
|
I apologise, I forgot that you're somewhat triggered by the disadvantages of young men. I disagree, since violence is not the sole indicator of vulnerability, but it's not important to my point so we can leave it. What my point was, primarily, is do you define "child" by the legal cutoff?
You agree that children should be protected because of vulnerability, but not vulnerable adults. Flip it around. A 17 year old girl and an 18 year old boy. You believe the boy is more vulnerable, but you believe in exceptional treatment of the girl who could be anywhere from just a few days to a year and some younger. Why? Under what justification?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
A world devoid of tribalism isn't possible. Neither is a world devoid of violence.
|
Tribalism/Violence is a false equivalence. They aren't similar on a biological processing level.
Tribalism is inherently positive, it's a huge part of why we even exist today. It can be used in a negative way considering other impulses embedded in our DNA, but tribalism is marvelous. Is hunger bad? arousal? love?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
One of the ways to protect us from the darker impulses of tribalism is to divert them into relatively benign outlets like sports.
|
As I've said many times, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of tribalism, because you confuse the way we respond to those impulses with the impulses themselves. The "Edmonton is no good" impulse in tribalism is the exact same impulse as "kill the people who aren't like me." What you're describing is how we respond to the impulses of tribalism, not tribalism itself.
Hunger often leads to eating. Some people eat amounts that make them dangerously obese. That doesn't make hunger bad.
Arousal often leads to sex or masturbation. Instead of consensual sex or masturbation, some people commit rape or sexual assault. That doesn't make arousal bad.
How we react to impulses is not the same as the impulses themselves.
|
|
|
03-28-2017, 12:29 PM
|
#211
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
Do LGBQT's still have mental illness?
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-28-2017, 12:57 PM
|
#212
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan
anyways, the world will be better off once religion completely dies out.
|
You know that will never happen, right?
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to MoneyGuy For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-28-2017, 01:02 PM
|
#213
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkknight
Just curious if you feel like the Nobel prize isn't a decent indicator of intelligence, or as you put it "using you brain to the full capacity"? Since the award was introduced 20% of the winners have been Jewish or of Jewish decent. That's a fraction of the population of the world (0.2% I believe), who's fundamental belief system is thousand of years old, and who have some the most strict religious practices in the world. Don't try to say that people who are religious are unintelligent, when you can't even be bothered to look at the statistics and instead choose to jump to your own conclusions.
|
I wonder what % of the 20% of winners were practicing Jews or simply Jewish in a cultural capacity?
Doesn't really matter I suppose, you are correct in that intelligence isnt measured by religious capacity, but I would think that the vast vast majority of scientists are not theistic in any way. Hard to rationalize our world as a scientist from the perspective of sheep herders 2000+ years ago.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-28-2017, 01:03 PM
|
#214
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyGuy
You know that will never happen, right?
|
You know its a losing bet either way right? If it does we wont be here to collect...and if it doesnt we will be dead anyways...likely from a religious war.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-28-2017, 01:11 PM
|
#215
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 127.0.0.1
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyGuy
You know that will never happen, right?
|
Eventually, religion will be recognized for what it is, a mental illness.
__________________
Pass the bacon.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DuffMan For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-28-2017, 02:58 PM
|
#216
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan
Eventually, religion will be recognized for what it is, a mental illness.
|
So I'm mentally ill. Ok.
|
|
|
03-28-2017, 03:19 PM
|
#217
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 127.0.0.1
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyGuy
So I'm mentally ill. Ok.
|
When one person suffers from delusion it is called mental illness, when multiple people suffer from delusion it is called religion.
-anonymous
interesting.
also, I was more or less using the same argument as the xtians were with the lgbtq
__________________
Pass the bacon.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to DuffMan For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-28-2017, 03:38 PM
|
#218
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Red Deer
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan
When one person suffers from delusion it is called mental illness, when multiple people suffer from delusion it is called religion.
-anonymous
interesting.
also, I was more or less using the same argument as the xtians were with the lgbtq
|
Neither of which should be made, either out of ignorance or spite.
These aggressive diametric attitudes aren't actually helping.
__________________
"It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm."
-Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
|
|
|
03-28-2017, 03:41 PM
|
#219
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 127.0.0.1
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Neither of which should be made, either out of ignorance or spite.
These aggressive diametric attitudes aren't actually helping.
|
but, I'm not doing it because of made up or misconstrued directives from fictional characters, from thousands of years ago.
__________________
Pass the bacon.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to DuffMan For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-28-2017, 03:55 PM
|
#220
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Red Deer
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan
but, I'm not doing it because of made up or misconstrued directives from fictional characters, from thousands of years ago.
|
Sure, but (and I don't mean to definitively judge someone I know only through posts on an Internet message board) it seems as though you are doing it out of anger, which doesn't tend to lead to the healthiest of discussions.
__________________
"It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm."
-Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:31 AM.
|
|