[quote]Oleena wrote:
Are you really arguing that America’s main motivator wasn’t/isn’t greed?
[/quote]
Are you really arguing that people elsewhere are motivated by something else?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[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]
Your understanding of this whole issue is pretty limited. Once again I’m left wondering if that’s on purpose or not.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Susan Komen is taking a spanking in the Phoenix market[/quote]
If there’s a market for spankings in Phoenix I do imagine you’d be the one to know about it.[/quote]
I do not know for sure but I would bet there is a market for spankings but I was referring to the market for charities , sorry if I confused you 
Everyone meet up in Africa. We’ll find a democratic solution as to who will go to what land, and what the borders for those lands will be. We’re going to do this whole radiating out of Africa thing until we get it right!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[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]
If you found out tomorrow with absolute certainty there was no god do you think you would start raping and murdering people?
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Your understanding of this whole issue is pretty limited. Once again I’m left wondering if that’s on purpose or not.[/quote]
Mmm, yes, yes. I’m simply too unschooled to realize that Science has discovered the prime value judgments, the absolute plan for human action, in order to appreciate the ‘moral’ system science is establishing for us. You actually undid your own post when admitting that science wouldn’t say ‘good or bad (evil),’ only healthy vs unhealthy. We’ve known a rock tipped spear to the gut was unhealthy for how long, now? That’s not a values judgement.
[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]
Here was the exchange that got you going on about unhealthy vs healthy. Yet, you failed to say anything about morality. Even though apparently science is now establishing moral lifestyles. In fact, your response wasn’t a response to what had been said.
[quote]orion wrote:
[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]
Negative effect= negative in in terms of health. These activities are anti-adaptive to the current society we live in. Rape, from both ends, makes it more difficult for those involved to create healthy bonds with those around them. We are a social animal, so this is unhealthy. That isn’t the complete story, but I don’t have time to make this much longer.
So you would say that science is useless in making health decisions? Perhaps we should give up these studies on drugs, alcohol, meditation, exposure to toxins, research on brain damage, PTSD, exercises and depression etc? What good are they going to do us if we cannot use them to make life decisions? People are changing their life-decision-making strategies from morals given to them by someone else to what science is telling them (which is sometimes wrong, of course). This applies to all facets of life.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Are you really arguing that America’s main motivator wasn’t/isn’t greed?
[/quote]
Are you really arguing that people elsewhere are motivated by something else?
[/quote]
What? Definitely not.
[quote]Sloth 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]
Here was the exchange that got you going on about unhealthy vs healthy. Yet, you failed to say anything about morality. Even though apparently science is now establishing moral lifestyles. In fact, your response wasn’t a response to what had been said. [/quote]
Morality is a method of determining the best way to live life. If you do this=good. If you do that=bad. I’m suggesting that there’s a “new” decision making strategy replacing this. My original wording was terrible. I’m sorry for that.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
If you found out tomorrow with absolute certainty there was no god do you think you would start raping and murdering people?[/quote]
That’s not even hypothetically possible. A theory isn’t even ‘absolutely certain.’ So how could I contemplate the absolute non-existence of something that science doesn’t even claim to be able to falsify? Who knows what I would be in a hypothetical, absolute certain science, universe. Well, perhaps I would be a God, with that kind of omniscience.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
If you found out tomorrow with absolute certainty there was no god do you think you would start raping and murdering people?[/quote]
That’s not even hypothetically possible. A theory isn’t even ‘absolutely certain.’ So how could I contemplate the absolute non-existence of something that science doesn’t even claim to be able to falsify? Who knows what I would be in a hypothetical, absolute certain science, universe. Well, perhaps I would be a God, with that kind of omniscience.
[/quote]
I vote this the most dodging post of the year. Nice work.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[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]
Negative effect= negative in in terms of health. These activities are anti-adaptive to the current society we live in. Rape, from both ends, makes it more difficult for those involved to create healthy bonds with those around them. We are a social animal, so this is unhealthy. That isn’t the complete story, but I don’t have time to make this much longer.
So you would say that science is useless in making health decisions? Perhaps we should give up these studies on drugs, alcohol, meditation, exposure to toxins, research on brain damage, PTSD, exercises and depression etc? What good are they going to do us if we cannot use them to make life decisions? People are changing their life-decision-making strategies from morals given to them by someone else to what science is telling them (which is sometimes wrong, of course). This applies to all facets of life.
[/quote]
So, you define health and then declare that some acts are “unhealthy”.
Thank you, we do not need science for that.
Let alone that the pursuit of health as an overriding value is of course a value judgment. healthy in and of itself is neither good not bad and so further and so on, he is right you are wrong, move on and do not make this very basic mistake again, thank you.
Or, keep backpedaling over the next 10 pages, this is PWI after all.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[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]
Negative effect= negative in in terms of health. These activities are anti-adaptive to the current society we live in. Rape, from both ends, makes it more difficult for those involved to create healthy bonds with those around them. We are a social animal, so this is unhealthy. That isn’t the complete story, but I don’t have time to make this much longer.
So you would say that science is useless in making health decisions? Perhaps we should give up these studies on drugs, alcohol, meditation, exposure to toxins, research on brain damage, PTSD, exercises and depression etc? What good are they going to do us if we cannot use them to make life decisions? People are changing their life-decision-making strategies from morals given to them by someone else to what science is telling them (which is sometimes wrong, of course). This applies to all facets of life.
[/quote]
So, you define health and then declare that some acts are “unhealthy”.
Thank you, we do not need science for that.
Let alone that the pursuit of health as an overriding value is of course a value judgment. healthy in and of itself is neither good not bad and so further and so on, he is right you are wrong, move on and do not make this very basic mistake again, thank you.
Or, keep backpedaling over the next 10 pages, this is PWI after all. [/quote]
So you would say that health is not important to the survival of species and therefore we don’t need science to define it?
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Are you really arguing that America’s main motivator wasn’t/isn’t greed?
[/quote]
Are you really arguing that people elsewhere are motivated by something else?
[/quote]
What? Definitely not. [/quote]
I guess the point is the importance of moral relativism then? For example, the British occupation of India in the 1930’s was no different from the Japanese occupation of Burma. Absolutely. You see how everything works? Everyone is equally bad and equally good and history is just some amorphous mush to mould into whatever fits the party line.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Morality is a method of determining the best way to live life. If you do this=good. If you do that=bad. I’m suggesting that there’s a “new” decision making strategy replacing this. My original wording was terrible. I’m sorry for that.
[/quote]
One minor problem. You forgot that which determines what the ‘best’ life to be lived is, before you could even decide the ‘best’ way to live life. If I arm myself with a banana to rob a bank, my means aren’t logical to my end. But arming myself with body armor, grenades, firearms, and a couple of comrades would be the best way to live the life that is ‘best.’ Healthy vs unhealthy is information in a risk assessment. It has nothing to with ‘morality.’
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[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]
Negative effect= negative in in terms of health. These activities are anti-adaptive to the current society we live in. Rape, from both ends, makes it more difficult for those involved to create healthy bonds with those around them. We are a social animal, so this is unhealthy. That isn’t the complete story, but I don’t have time to make this much longer.
So you would say that science is useless in making health decisions? Perhaps we should give up these studies on drugs, alcohol, meditation, exposure to toxins, research on brain damage, PTSD, exercises and depression etc? What good are they going to do us if we cannot use them to make life decisions? People are changing their life-decision-making strategies from morals given to them by someone else to what science is telling them (which is sometimes wrong, of course). This applies to all facets of life.
[/quote]
So, you define health and then declare that some acts are “unhealthy”.
Thank you, we do not need science for that.
Let alone that the pursuit of health as an overriding value is of course a value judgment. healthy in and of itself is neither good not bad and so further and so on, he is right you are wrong, move on and do not make this very basic mistake again, thank you.
Or, keep backpedaling over the next 10 pages, this is PWI after all. [/quote]
Orion, I’m going to give credit where it’s due. Very nice.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Should stick to this argument, too bad no one quoted this and went for your other one instead. “healthy vs unhealthy” was a little easier to attack since everyone interpreted it too literally.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
So you would say that health is not important to the survival of species and therefore we don’t need science to define it?
[/quote]
Are you saying there is law in the natural world that human beings must care one iota about the survival of the species? In this life I can get rich, be a miser, sow my wild oats (heck, I don’t even have to reproduce anymore), swindle, pollute, and die. Plenty of folks are living such lifestyles as we speak. Are they living out of communion with some commandment?