Page 58 of 62 FirstFirst ... 8485657585960 ... LastLast
Results 571 to 580 of 612

Thread: Political & socio-economic nerd-rage thread. page 58

  1. #571
    Grok's Avatar
    Grok is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    LakeRidge Golf Course
    Posts
    3,682

  2. #572
    kenn's Avatar
    kenn is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,667
    You should pOst more videos
    Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
    Starting Weight: 294 pounds
    Current Weight: 235 pounds
    Goal Weight: 195 pounds

  3. #573
    Grok's Avatar
    Grok is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    LakeRidge Golf Course
    Posts
    3,682
    Quote Originally Posted by kenn View Post
    You should pOst more videos
    Ya, Rojo hates them.

  4. #574
    Grok's Avatar
    Grok is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    LakeRidge Golf Course
    Posts
    3,682
    Shocking video from Thursday, July 26th, 2012, at approximately 6:00 pm in Ventura, California. James Stewart, the 65-year-old raw "milk man" and founder of Rawesome Foods, was assaulted near his home today by three armed men driving unmarked luxury vehicles with no license plates. Carrying firearms on their hips and dressed in gangster-style street clothes, Satanic T-shirt imagery and tattoos, they claimed to be making an "arrest" and verbally assaulted James, sprayed his face with PEPPER SPRAY, forced his head against a car and screamed, according to witnesses, "You better listen to me or you're gonna have a bad f*ckin' day!"


  5. #575
    Piscator's Avatar
    Piscator is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    403
    "...that to secure these rights, governments are instituted..."

    Ohhh, so governments are instituted to secure rights.... my how far we've come.

  6. #576
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    The spread of information through media (plural for medium: internet, TV, etc) has lead to greater moral relativism than ever before. This is good for a nation in a lot of ways, but it is bad for a person (the intermediary levels of government are somewhere inbetween). A nation needs relativism on non-crucial matters so that the people will be free to decide for themselves, but a person needs objectivism so that they may have clarity in their life. Information overload seems to plague many people to the point that they know (as in, know a truth) nothing, only knowing sides to an argument. Albeit, some people rise to the challenge of the overload and use it to their advantage by achieving more knowledge than a layman a 100 years ago ever thought possible.

    Therefore, moral relativists (liberals) tend to view society from the outside in. They look at the world, and then they figure out what they need to do to make it better. They don't set goals for themselves so much as they set goals for society in general.

    Objectivists tend to view society from the inside out. They look at themselves, and they figure out what they want to do themselves within society. They set goals for themselves first.

    It's good for our nation to be relativist on many topics that protect all the general rights we deserve as natural human beings. It's good for each and every person to be objectivist to achieve what they want to do personally because passion breeds excellence. Excellence of a few pays the whole society back many times over for all the other individuals who failed to reach such excellence. What we need to do as a society is be relative at a very large scale while protecting basic rights and not infringing on the smaller organization levels. The smaller levels of organization (state gov., city gov., clubs, and even businesses) need to play the role of "deciding what they shall do". All the while, the nation needs to protect these smaller actors from dominant outside businesses or governments (foreign or domestic) so that these smaller actors may thrive. And especially us as individuals, we need to decide what we shall do. What talent we will use.

    Not only is the information coming at you from every direction, but it is often un-intelligable. You generally have to do research to find the intelligent opinions and scientific knowledge. This relativism combined with poor education (I'm not talking about schools, I'm talking the ways that all of society communicates knowledge) leads to mob rule. The needle is easy to sway to either side of an argument due to a lack of moral fortitude (relativism), and then you get charismatic people that stuns society as a whole because these laymen don't have enough true knowledge to know if the charismatic person is correct or not. Mob rule....bad. Easy for one person to gain power....bad. This should be recognized by people as a whole; what their internet, TV, etc is doing to them. People need to be more objectivist in their own lives so that they may benefit society.

    Yes, it is moral relativism that has become the problem. Another thing we must avoid is outside motivation on career/life choices (college degree bubble, white collar job suckitude) and figure out what your soul wants to do. This leads to innovation of technology and changes in lifestyle. The lifestyle changes will be undoubtedly be easier on the natural resources of the world when people realize they don't have to work so damn hard. Why work 50 hours a week if you are unhappy? Work less hours, be happy for yourself; the natural world everyone draws upon (gas, soil, ocean, trash/pollution, etc) will undoubetly be able to rest a little if we become more objectivist, do what we WANT to do, and get off the hamster wheel. The hamster wheel DRIVES waste and consumerism. We will also be less vulnerable to mob rule, loss of liberties, and control from outside parties (gov. or business).
    Last edited by wiltondeportes; 07-28-2012 at 03:11 AM.

  7. #577
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    930
    It's good for our nation to be relativist on many topics that protect all the general rights we deserve as natural human beings.
    By it's very definition Moral Relativism rejects any notion of Natural (or Universal) Human Rights.

    Meta-ethics can be divided into Moral Realism or Moral Ant-Realism. Moral Objectivism, Situational Ethics (not to be confused as Moral Relativism), Moral Absolutism are different moral philosophical distinctions that would come under Moral Realism. Realism is a belief that morality is not only real (as opposed to something akin to invented aesthetics) it can be knowable.

    Moral Relativism and Subjectivism come under Moral Ant-Realsim. It's a belief that there is no such thing as a, for example, a human right. It's a belief that there are no moral Truths (cap "T"). There are no inherent moral right or wrongs in any action. A cultures (cultural relativism) simply invents the rules by which it chooses to live by and then applies that rule to certain acts/actions.

    It's irrational to say a thing can exist and not exist at the same time so moral realism and anti-realism cannot both be true at the same time.

    Sources:
    Moral Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
    Moral Anti-Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

    Moral Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
    Moral Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
    Moral Relativism

    This is moral relativism in a nutshell
    Philosophical Materialism
    [14] "An evolutionary account of the origin of moral judgment in human beings does not tell us what (if anything) makes a specific action moral. On a materialist view, all codes of conduct must ultimately be man-made or socially constructed; there are no objective moral laws existing independently of sentient beings in the way that laws of nature do. Thus there are no objective criteria for determining if human actions are right or wrong. The objectivity of laws of nature is clear--our approximations to them (laws of physics) are publicly falsifiable and can be corroborated by empirical evidence. Moreover, unlike natural laws, moral laws can be violated. But if what we call moral laws are really man-made inventions, our ethical rules are arbitrary and thus individuals are not obligated to follow them. Nothing makes an action objectively moral or immoral; individual and social codes vary because ethics, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. But then there are no compelling grounds for arguing that Aztec human sacrifice, Nazi or Serbian genocide, or infanticide is really wrong. Core ethical rules are no doubt determined by intersubjective consensus across cultures--for example, incest and murder are universally prohibited. But such consensus does not demonstrate the objectivity of ethics; it merely demonstrates that human beings or societies are largely 'built' the same way and react similarly to certain types of behavior. Suppose we have inherited an aversion to committing murder. That such a genetic disposition would be widespread makes evolutionary sense. A known murderer's neighbors will fear that the murderer might kill them. Out of mutual self-interest they would be wise to band together and eliminate the murderer before he could eliminate them. Since murderers would tend to be eliminated before they could reproduce, individuals with a genetic inclination to commit murder would tend to dwindle. But this is merely an accident of natural selection, and trying to base morality on the fact that adhering to certain ethical norms will make you more "fit" to stay alive and reproduce is insufficient. The origin of behavior is irrelevant to whether a behavior is right or wrong; what makes an individual evolutionarily 'fit' (e.g. infidelity) is not necessarily moral. There will no doubt still be some individuals who are genetically inclined to commit murder; but we do not conclude that they are exempt from moral prohibitions on murder because of this. Furthermore, the fitness of certain evolutionary traits changes when the environment changes. Would murder suddenly become morally acceptable--even obligatory [honor killing]--if it provided us a selective advantage? On a materialist account, the only foundations for behavioral codes are preserving self-interest and satisfying one's conscience--there are no additional 'moral facts' which motivate behavior." end quote.

    So human rights, by their very nature of universality independent of subjective beliefs, are opposed to the inherent arbitrary nature of moral relativism/subjectivism.

    Human Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
    Are Human Rights Universal?
    Last edited by Scott F; 07-28-2012 at 01:53 PM.
    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

  8. #578
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott F View Post
    By it's very definition Moral Relativism rejects any notion of Natural (or Universal) Human Rights.

    (Snipped rest)
    Well, I wasn't claiming the purest form of relativism. There's a divide between philosophy and practice. The practice of many people who believe in relativism may be to enter into a social contract by following laws so that they may be protected of their basic rights. Some of these people participate in our government. They may reject the notion of universal human rights in a moral sense, but they accept them in practice so that their life is safe.

    Point taken on the verbage though. It's clear that relativism is on one end of the sliding scale, and objectivism is on the other. If relativism is not the correct label for a particular statement, take it to mean "towards relativism". Likewise for objectivism: if it is not pure objectivism that I mention, assume I mean "towards objectivism".

    I think relativist thinking is toxic when that becomes one's mindset all the time. "Towards relativist" thinking is only practical and good on a large scale so that all of the states, counties, groups, clubs, businesses under it may operate as freely as possible.
    Last edited by wiltondeportes; 07-28-2012 at 02:39 PM.

  9. #579
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    930
    I agree with you that relativism is nuts. But I don't see it as a sliding scale. Relativism simple makes ethics ultimately pointless. It's an either/or proposition. If MR is the nature of morality the objective morals become the stuff of myth making and the UN Declaration of Human Rights is a modern myth.
    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

  10. #580
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott F View Post
    I agree with you that relativism is nuts. But I don't see it as a sliding scale. Relativism simple makes ethics ultimately pointless. It's an either/or proposition. If MR is the nature of morality the objective morals become the stuff of myth making and the UN Declaration of Human Rights is a modern myth.
    I realize relativism is cut and dry as a theory, but people 'in practice' have varying levels of belief in relativity. Thus, they act with varying levels of the feeling that all morality is relative.

Page 58 of 62 FirstFirst ... 8485657585960 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •