 | | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
Snipped a lot of head twisting stuff to just answer two questions, then I HAVE to get back to writing docs... more later, maybe. (...) Yes. (...) I can't accurately answer that hypothetical. It's indeterminate since I don't accept the premise and (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) Ah, ok. So what you're objecting to is specifically my method of moral judgement, instead proposing that some unspecified (at least at present) yet universal code is a better tool for judging morality, and that you have at least some inkling (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) Ok. I think that 'morality...derived from enforcement' and 'whatever you have the power to do is OK' are equivalent statements, but that's just quibbling. (...) That consequence does follow fairly directly, so I guess that's where it fails for (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) Right, I understand that concept. I just don't find it valid. Because I don't accept relative morality. (...) Yes. (...) I don't think that's what I am saying, but since I haven't provided a derivation for universal morality I guess that might (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) Ah, then ok. I'm fine with that. Just so long as we make sure to clarify that the 'right' in MMR isn't a moral right. The only problem being, though, that while theoretically true, it's not the case in reality, only because human moral codes (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes: Snip. (...) I would not agree with the above definition, but rather offer this one instead: MMR is the belief that there *is* no morality. whatever you have the power to do is OK, with no objective (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) No, I think you've got it backwards. Moral relativism is (essentially) stating that morality is subjective & internal, while 'might makes right' is stating that moral action is anything that can be enforced. I've started to go further about (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) ? Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I don't see that connection-- I.E. that "might makes right"... What do you mean by "right"? If you mean "moral" then no. If you mean "not immoral" then yes. But then again, 'weak' would make right too... (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) Yep. That is a good summation of both David's position and mine, I think. Now back to might makes right... *isn't* moral relativism a kind of "might makes right"? I think it is (without too much, if any, twisting) and that's one of my issues (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) It could be twisted into meaning that, I suppose, but just about anything can be twisted around until it supports a 'might makes right' mindset. It boils down to relative morality. When David talks about someone acting morally (or (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
|
(...) Ah-- so (once again I'll try) your logic goes something like this: 1. There were predictions made 2. These predictions prove true in the Bible 3. No human is likely to have been able to accurately make these predictions 4. Therefore something (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
|
(...) Well, obviously you won't take too keenly to the theory to begin with, BUT, since you asked :) Let's look at our society. Take theft for example. Suppose there was someone who didn't believe in the right to own physical property. He couldn't (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Further, there is no one "literal" interpretation of the Bible, since every conscious reader will by necessity arrive at a different interpretation, just as with any text. Dave! (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) As Bruce and I have pointed out countless times previously, *EVERY* organism that ever lived is a transitional form, fossil or otherwise. Further, my "ad infinitum" comment is a straightforward rhetorical consequence of demanding a (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Even more interesting to me is the question of why creationists feel compelled to "prove" their mythology using the very science that their mythology invalidates by definition. Dave! (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Can God actually be limited to our subjective experience? Assuming that our path is unique in the near infinity of possible universes, all of which God understands totally, is it actually possible for God to comprehend how linear this (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Franks writes: Some more thoughts: (...) Here's another "convenient" explanation. Life consists of the most successful organisms as constrained by environment and history. Obviously some organisms are very (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) And the improvements often come in big jumps -- or lots of little jumps. It happens when a gene successfully strays away from the local maxima that it's been stuck on and climbs to a new local maxima. In n-dimensional space, there are very few (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) I just do not see it that way, except to the level of having faith in the basic evidence of one's senses, in the chain of verifiabillty (I am reasonably certain that Brazil exists based on verifiability), and in the prowess of logic. No theory (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Well, this is an interesting take! Do expound, sounds like fertile ground for discussion, unlike creationism. I would think that property and rights are inventions before I'd think they were myths. ++Lar (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
