[quote]pushharder wrote:
Everything’ll be alright, Eph. We understand you better than you think…[/quote]
I like to think I’m just a little less crazy than you are puss. It makes a world of difference though.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I realise what I’ve said might appear extreme to you, but I only wish you’d see how the american political circus appears to foreign eyes.[/quote]
- Again, I’m not primarily talking about that.
- Your assumption is wrong. I have plenty of experience with “foreign eyes.”[/quote]
I exeggarate possible scenarios to make a point. It’s the same tactic as saying that gay marriage leads to the downfall of society.
I might think such a far fetched scenario could happen, but I don’t hope so.
I also think that we live in a time where the old guard struggles with new technology; where people have acces to information on an unparalled level.
We see it in the Arab Spring revolts, we see it in the #Occupy protests, the internet black-out against SOPA, and this weekend in the protests in Europe against ACTA.
We are not done learning as a species. We’re not “there” yet by a very long stretch. By nature, we can’t look far into the future and live our lives on the short term.
I do believe that technology will give us acces to free, renewable energy but the closer this moment nears, the more conservatives will resist the change. It’s just a matter of time.
Enough babble, I wouldn’t want to upset puss.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
People have a hard time separating religious values when it comes to making decisions that affect the state. Any argument they make that starts out with logic eventually progresses to a religious belief when they run out of other ways to back it up.[/quote]
How would an atheist explain morality with logic then? I realise that access to pornography is a big sticking point for you but other people are interested in family values and things like that.[/quote]
Easily. Morality=what is best for the health of you and those around you.
Altruism has been observed in countless species and there’s actually an algebraic expression which quantifies the likelihood of “treating your neighbor like yourself” based on how related two organisms are.
Mirror neurons explain why helping others is so beneficial and EVERYONE should get involved for THEIR OWN well-being. It’s been observed that the neurological effect of nurturing someone else is the same as if you were being nurtured. Thank you mirror neurons.
It’s also easy to show that following the strict recommendations of just about every major religion are common-sense good health practices. Having a relationship based on honesty decreases your chances of contracting STDs and aids in healing each other due to a safe place to talk about feelings. Not drinking or taking drugs is obvious. Trying to promote good feelings towards others increases your positive feelings toward yourself.
As for family values, America has a very limited view of what that term really means, and I’m NOT talking about gay marriage. Our nuclear family is tiny compared with most of the rest of the world, and as a result, so is our common understanding of family systems.
Science and religion are not against each other in terms of establishing a basic moral lifestyle.
Besides morality =/= religion. You can have morality without religion, you know.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Science and religion are not against each other in terms of establishing a basic moral lifestyle.[/quote]
That’s because science doesn’t try to establish a moral lifestyle. It can’t. There is nothing unscientific about rape, for instance.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Besides morality =/= religion. You can have morality without religion, you know. [/quote]
Well, yes, you see, without a deity you lack absolute authority and that makes your version of morality worthless.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Besides morality =/= religion. You can have morality without religion, you know. [/quote]
Could you share a ‘moral’ precept with me? I want to dissect it… Or, at least do mathematics with it. Thanks.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Science and religion are not against each other in terms of establishing a basic moral lifestyle.[/quote]
That’s because science doesn’t try to establish a moral lifestyle. It can’t. There is nothing unscientific about rape, for instance.
[/quote]
lmao. You really think that science doesn’t show that there’s a negative effect caused by rape both to the psyche of the person receiving and the person giving? There is. And no, I’m not looking things up for people this year. If you disagree with it, look up the studies yourself.
Science doesn’t call the lifestyle it establishes moral. It calls it “healthy”. According to this, there is no “good and bad” only “healthy and unhealthy”. Rape, drinking, beating other people senseless, etc, all of these things have negative effects on the brain and on the body, and are therefore established as unhealthy. Taking care of yourself and others are all shown to have a positive effect on the brain and body, and are therefore healthy. Healthy people make for a healthy society and thus what’s healthy should be the basis of political decisions.
As for the topic of porn, it’s easy to show that it’s an addictive “substance” that can have negative effects on the user (erectile dysfunction during normal sex, change in tastes as to what is a turn on, etc). Therefore, it should be treated as an addictive substance. Put a warning with the findings of studies on it, and an age limit, and let people make their own decisions.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Everything’ll be alright, Eph. We understand you better than you think…[/quote]
I like to think I’m just a little less crazy than you are puss. It makes a world of difference though.
[/quote]
Eph, your posts especially on this thread absolutely, positively confirm your batshit craziness. I certainly have my detractors on this site and you are one of them but ANYBODY who claims the USA is culpable for the fundamentalist civil laws in Islamic Saudi Arabia by virtue of the fact that the two countries hold a military alliance is on a space ship from Neptune.[/quote]
I can’t be held accountable for what you choose to read into my posts, push.
Nothing in that post suggests what you’re suggesting here. Nothing.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No. Being female is not a birth defect.
That’s just it, in China, it is. Why do you get to make the judgment on what a defect is and the value of a life is, and the Chinese people don’t?
Why do you get to decide what are acceptable odds. A good parent would sacrifice themselves for a 1% chance to save their kid’s life.
But, on what authority is your evaluation of a life the right one?[/quote]
Yeah, china, middle east, north africa, women are pretty much cum dumpsters who better shut the fuck up and clean the cave. Being female should not be considered a birth defect, but in some cultures, sadly it is.
That’s one of those lovely eggs moral relativists usually choke on. “No it ain’t right, but uh, um, I mean, like, kinda…”[/quote]
And yet you care so much for women that you’d take them into protective custody [in a roundabout way] rather than let women decide for themselves what to do with a pregnancy.
[/quote]
Late to the party E. I am not actually concerned with punishment as I am in stopping this abominable practice it a general sense. I want people to see an acknowledge it for what it is, be honest about it and find better ways to deal with bad situations. I am tired of people whitewashing this issue as a “choice” and own body bullshit. When you have become pregnent you have brought somebody else in to the mix. No matter what you choose from that point on you are affecting at least two, not just one person.
You yourself agree that fetal people are in fact people at 21 weeks.
I am not interested in raising the prison population, I am interested in stopping the killing.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
lmao. You really think that science doesn’t show that there’s a negative effect caused by rape both to the psyche of the person receiving and the person giving? There is. And no, I’m not looking things up for people this year. If you disagree with it, look up the studies yourself.[/quote]
Negative effect implies some conscious grand, and absolute scheme.
[quote]Science doesn’t call the lifestyle it establishes moral[/quote].
Oh, it establishes lifestyles now? The Church of Science?
Science didn’t need to determine that robbery followed by murder was unhealthy. The dead guy on the ground 100k+ years ago informed man of as much. Risk assessment isn’t remotely morality. There is no scientific absolute that we are MEANT to live healthy. Nothing written in nature that says human beings must flourish. Only some of us need to be healthy enough in a particular environment, to increase our chances at viable and fertile offspring above others. And even if none of us are, the natural world doesn’t care. Didn’t care about an untold number of species any less than us, did it?
[quote] Rape, drinking, beating other people senseless, etc, all of these things have negative effects on the brain and on the body, and are therefore established as unhealthy. Taking care of yourself and others are all shown to have a positive effect on the brain and body, and are therefore healthy. Healthy people make for a healthy society and thus what’s healthy should be the basis of political decisions.
As for the topic of porn, it’s easy to show that it’s an addictive “substance” that can have negative effects on the user (erectile dysfunction during normal sex, change in tastes as to what is a turn on, etc). Therefore, it should be treated as an addictive substance. Put a warning with the findings of studies on it, and an age limit, and let people make their own decisions.
[/quote]
See above.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
And yet you care so much for women that you’d take them into protective custody [in a roundabout way] rather than let women decide for themselves what to do with a pregnancy.
[/quote]
Late to the party E. I am not actually concerned with punishment as I am in stopping this abominable practice it a general sense. I want people to see an acknowledge it for what it is, be honest about it and find better ways to deal with bad situations. I am tired of people whitewashing this issue as a “choice” and own body bullshit. When you have become pregnent you have brought somebody else in to the mix. No matter what you choose from that point on you are affecting at least two, not just one person.
You yourself agree that fetal people are in fact people at 21 weeks.
I am not interested in raising the prison population, I am interested in stopping the killing.[/quote]
Provide proper sex education to children from the age of 12.
Allow girls from age 16 to go to their m.d. without parental consent for birth control.
End the abstinence-only programs.
Keep birth control part of the healthcare package.
And most difficult of all; affect a change in mindset about teenagers having sex. Because teenagers will have sex.
Acknowledge this and provide a safe environment for them to experiment. They’re gonna do it anyway so make sure you don’t end up with an unwanted pregnancy.
This alone will reduce abortions. The USA has the highest instances of teenage pregnancies in the western world. Abolishing abortion won’t solve any of this.
Be pragmatic, not dogmatic.
Population wise, the ‘healthiest’ is what, middle-eastern islamic societies? Not the old, gray, schleroic, and secular west.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Religious beliefs become part of a person’s selfesteem and identity. When something threatens the belief, the believer feels personally attacked and will defend the belief as he’d defend himself against attack.
Combined with an almost religious belief in “the American Dream” and you have a recipe for disaster.
2012 will not be the end of civilisation but it’s going to be an interesting year nonetheless![/quote]
What’s driving this anti-religious hate filled vomit from you? I thought we got past this? I thought you are better than this? You are better than this.
No matter how much people want to make it that, this is not a “religious” issue. Is it a life or not? Is it ok to take a life? That’s the only issue.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Your country was founded on the corpses of the native americans, built with the blood and sweat of african slaves and asian migrants. Your ancestors destroyed the bison, wolf and bear and raped the land’s recources.
In the process the USA became incredibly wealthy and powerful but it did so not based on christian values, but by virtue of greed.
[/quote]
Really? Says you? Says Chomsky? Who are you? What are you doing in the Netherlands? Are you Dutch? What are you doing on the continent? What are you doing in Western Europe? What did your forefathers do in the World Wars? Who the fuck are you?[/quote]
Raise your hand if you don’t live on concurred land…
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Science and religion are not against each other in terms of establishing a basic moral lifestyle.[/quote]
That’s because science doesn’t try to establish a moral lifestyle. It can’t. There is nothing unscientific about rape, for instance.
[/quote]
lmao. You really think that science doesn’t show that there’s a negative effect caused by rape both to the psyche of the person receiving and the person giving? There is. And no, I’m not looking things up for people this year. If you disagree with it, look up the studies yourself.
[/quote]
No, science does no such thing, because judging what a “negative effect caused by rape both to the psyche of the person receiving and the person giving” would be a value judgment and as such beyond the realm of science.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Are you really arguing that America’s main motivator wasn’t/isn’t greed?
[/quote]
Have a look at my post again. It’s a series of questions. I didn’t argue anything.
What has that to do with my post?
I’m not arguing anything. I asked ephrem what s/he/it is doing in Europe. I don’t want people like ephrem in Europe.