A Dawkins No-No

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:15 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:16 pm
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 8:08 pm

Hey, you want detail, I'm happy to oblige. You never do. Like a lotta folks, you sniff my posts, ask no questions and just criticize. In the face of that why would I offer details? I have, you know, here and there, and it never goes well. When I explain and detail and justify, the opponent, just reverts back some inane criticism, or pretends I meant sumthin' other than what I actually said.

How many times have I posted this...

a man belongs to himself

a man's life, liberty, and property are his

a man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property


...only to have you declare it as my utopian strongman wet-dream without any explanation of how recognizin', respectin', and defendin' the individual leads to the opposite.

You don't pay attention, cuz you don't care...almost no one here does.
Yet none of it MEANS ANYTHING.
See? No questions, just inane criticism.

I have questions for you, though (none are meant to be crass or or misleading...I believe they cut to the root of things)

Is rape wrong?

If yeah, why?

If not, why not?

Please, think on it before you answer.
Where I'm from rape is illegal (hence the word 'rape'). How does that explain how your utopia would work in a practical sense? I don't think there's even enough room on the planet for every human to be isolated from every other human.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22139
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by Immanuel Can »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:33 am Where I'm from rape is illegal (hence the word 'rape').
But it's only "where you're from."

In northern Pakistan, for example, rape is culturally approved, and even considered virtuous, especially when it's revenge rape. In some other countries, practically nothing you can do to a woman qualifies as "rape" -- child abuse, forced "marriage," concubinage, prostitution, sex slavery...Yet you and I would, I hope, take issue with that.

So if you still think rape is wrong, either you're arbitrarily imposing your local values on the globe, to which you would have no right and no justification as to why you should be believed, or you are, without your consciousness of it, drawing on a universal moral precept, namely that rape is always evil.

For you, what grounds that universal precept? In fact, other than our visceral dislike for it (which might be merely cultural, after all) do you even know it IS a universal precept.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:40 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:33 am Where I'm from rape is illegal (hence the word 'rape').
But it's only "where you're from."

In northern Pakistan, for example, rape is culturally approved, and even considered virtuous, especially when it's revenge rape. In some other countries, practically nothing you can do to a woman qualifies as "rape" -- child abuse, forced "marriage," concubinage, prostitution, sex slavery...Yet you and I would, I hope, take issue with that.

So if you still think rape is wrong, either you're arbitrarily imposing your local values on the globe, to which you would have no right and no justification as to why you should be believed, or you are, without your consciousness of it, drawing on a universal moral precept, namely that rape is always evil.

For you, what grounds that universal precept? In fact, other than our visceral dislike for it (which might be merely cultural, after all) do you even know it IS a universal precept.
What does it have to do with Henry's utopia?
Some people think sex before marriage is 'wrong'. This is why we have laws and separation of church and state in civilised countries.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22139
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by Immanuel Can »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:48 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:40 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:33 am Where I'm from rape is illegal (hence the word 'rape').
But it's only "where you're from."

In northern Pakistan, for example, rape is culturally approved, and even considered virtuous, especially when it's revenge rape. In some other countries, practically nothing you can do to a woman qualifies as "rape" -- child abuse, forced "marriage," concubinage, prostitution, sex slavery...Yet you and I would, I hope, take issue with that.

So if you still think rape is wrong, either you're arbitrarily imposing your local values on the globe, to which you would have no right and no justification as to why you should be believed, or you are, without your consciousness of it, drawing on a universal moral precept, namely that rape is always evil.

For you, what grounds that universal precept? In fact, other than our visceral dislike for it (which might be merely cultural, after all) do you even know it IS a universal precept.
What does it have to do with Henry's utopia?
Some people think sex before marriage is 'wrong'. This is why we have laws and separation of church and state in civilised countries.
Another argument against the idea that saying "X is illegal" tells you whether or not it's moral.

There are immoral things that are illegal, and immoral things that are not illegal. There are moral things that have been made illegal by certain states, and moral things that are not illegal anywhere.

So "Where I'm from, rape is illegal" tells us nothing. Your answer was no good.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:06 pm TBH I didn't realise RC shared your ideology. I got the impression you two disagreed on most things. I haven't had much to do with him.
You have raised my curiosity, and it's my only reason for asking but:
"who is TBH," and what is his ideology.

It's curious to me, especially since I do not have an ideology and regard all ideologies, especially political and social ideologies, philosophies, and religions forms of irrational superstitions.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:28 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:06 pm TBH I didn't realise RC shared your ideology. I got the impression you two disagreed on most things. I haven't had much to do with him.
You have raised my curiosity, and it's my only reason for asking but:
"who is TBH," and what is his ideology.

It's curious to me, especially since I do not have an ideology and regard all ideologies, especially political and social ideologies, philosophies, and religions forms of irrational superstitions.
His ideology is being honest.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:08 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:48 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:40 am
But it's only "where you're from."

In northern Pakistan, for example, rape is culturally approved, and even considered virtuous, especially when it's revenge rape. In some other countries, practically nothing you can do to a woman qualifies as "rape" -- child abuse, forced "marriage," concubinage, prostitution, sex slavery...Yet you and I would, I hope, take issue with that.

So if you still think rape is wrong, either you're arbitrarily imposing your local values on the globe, to which you would have no right and no justification as to why you should be believed, or you are, without your consciousness of it, drawing on a universal moral precept, namely that rape is always evil.

For you, what grounds that universal precept? In fact, other than our visceral dislike for it (which might be merely cultural, after all) do you even know it IS a universal precept.
What does it have to do with Henry's utopia?
Some people think sex before marriage is 'wrong'. This is why we have laws and separation of church and state in civilised countries.
Another argument against the idea that saying "X is illegal" tells you whether or not it's moral.

There are immoral things that are illegal, and immoral things that are not illegal. There are moral things that have been made illegal by certain states, and moral things that are not illegal anywhere.

So "Where I'm from, rape is illegal" tells us nothing. Your answer was no good.
Do you ever see me on any of the religio 'morality' threads? I don't think so.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by henry quirk »

Where I'm from rape is illegal (hence the word 'rape').

Why is it illegal? If it weren't illegal would that mean it was okay for a man to force sex on a woman, another man, a child?


How does that explain how your utopia would work in a practical sense?

I've described no utopia, nor have I advocated for one. As for what I have described, I laid out some particulars upthread with RC, and I'll lay out more in this discussion with you about why rape is wrong.


I don't think there's even enough room on the planet for every human to be isolated from every other human.

Please pony up evidence I ever said men ought to isolate themselves from other men.

You won't, can't, cuz I never said it.

What I have said is man is his own and, becuz he is own, certain things between and among men are impermissible. What I've said is minarchism is one way to offer redress to violations of life, liberty, and property without resorting to legislation (flat-out a road to a kind of hell) and legislators (parasites and slavers, all).
Last edited by henry quirk on Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by henry quirk »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:28 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:06 pm TBH I didn't realise RC shared your ideology. I got the impression you two disagreed on most things. I haven't had much to do with him.
You have raised my curiosity, and it's my only reason for asking but:
"who is TBH," and what is his ideology.

It's curious to me, especially since I do not have an ideology and regard all ideologies, especially political and social ideologies, philosophies, and religions forms of irrational superstitions.
TBH is shorthand for 'to be honest'.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22139
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by Immanuel Can »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:36 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:08 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:48 am

What does it have to do with Henry's utopia?
Some people think sex before marriage is 'wrong'. This is why we have laws and separation of church and state in civilised countries.
Another argument against the idea that saying "X is illegal" tells you whether or not it's moral.

There are immoral things that are illegal, and immoral things that are not illegal. There are moral things that have been made illegal by certain states, and moral things that are not illegal anywhere.

So "Where I'm from, rape is illegal" tells us nothing. Your answer was no good.
Do you ever see me on any of the religio 'morality' threads? I don't think so.
Well, either way, that's no concern here. I'm only speaking of your own earlier rebuff of Henry. And I'm pointing out that it just doesn't work.

"X is illegal in Memphis" doesn't prove X is ultimately morally wrong in Paris, much less in Karachi, or Bankok, or Riyadh. It doesn't even tell us that X should be illegal at all. Maybe the Mephisites got it wrong, for all we know.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:05 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:36 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:08 am
Another argument against the idea that saying "X is illegal" tells you whether or not it's moral.

There are immoral things that are illegal, and immoral things that are not illegal. There are moral things that have been made illegal by certain states, and moral things that are not illegal anywhere.

So "Where I'm from, rape is illegal" tells us nothing. Your answer was no good.
Do you ever see me on any of the religio 'morality' threads? I don't think so.
Well, either way, that's no concern here. I'm only speaking of your own earlier rebuff of Henry. And I'm pointing out that it just doesn't work.

"X is illegal in Memphis" doesn't prove X is ultimately morally wrong in Paris, much less in Karachi, or Bankok, or Riyadh. It doesn't even tell us that X should be illegal at all. Maybe the Mephisites got it wrong, for all we know.
'Morality' doesn't mean anything. it's simply a combination of education and shared ideas. Are dolphins 'immoral' when they ''rape''? Can it be called 'rape' when there are no laws against it? It wasn't that long ago that it was considered impossible to have rape within a marriage, and the laws reflected this. Was that 'moral'? You do realise that women make up more than half the population don't you? I realise that the US is pretty backward, but here there have been many women in high positions of power for a long time.
I'm really not interested in discussing anything with you. You are a religious nut and as such impossible to reason with and you invariably don't understand a word I say anyway. Most of the so-called 'morality' laws have been based on religion and thankfully thrown out.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:55 pm Richard Dawkins has been stripped of his 1996 Humanist of the Year Award for posting the following on Twitter:

Richard Dawkins
@RichardDawkins
In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as.

Discuss.


Discuss?
It seems like a good point to me. I don't see where a person with white skin can't identify with having black skin any more than a person with a penis can't identify as being a woman. So are we going to entertain all manner of "identities" or are we not? It seems to me that the "humanists" need to make a consistent choice in this case. Or does it simply come down to which incident will generate more boos or hurrays depending upon what the most people happen to be in favor of?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Gary Childress wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:44 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:55 pm Richard Dawkins has been stripped of his 1996 Humanist of the Year Award for posting the following on Twitter:

Richard Dawkins
@RichardDawkins
In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as.

Discuss.


Discuss?
It seems like a good point to me. I don't see where a person with white skin can't identify with having black skin any more than a person with a penis can't identify as being a woman. So are we going to entertain all manner of "identities" or are we not? It seems to me that the "humanists" need to make a consistent choice in this case. Or does it simply come down to which incident will generate more boos or hurrays depending upon what the most people happen to be in favor of?
Don't stop there. What about paedophiles 'identifying' as children and being allowed into schools and kindergartens?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:52 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:28 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:06 pm TBH I didn't realise RC shared your ideology. I got the impression you two disagreed on most things. I haven't had much to do with him.
You have raised my curiosity, and it's my only reason for asking but:
"who is TBH," and what is his ideology.

It's curious to me, especially since I do not have an ideology and regard all ideologies, especially political and social ideologies, philosophies, and religions forms of irrational superstitions.
TBH is shorthand for 'to be honest'.
Thanks Henry.

I don't have much use for acronyms. I still read books with paragraphs running on to more than one page. The fact that all communication these days has to be done in, "sound bites," and, "paradigms," is, to me, a reflection of the short attention spans and shallow thinking that dominates the intellectual world.

If thinking were a race, I'd always lose, but have no interest in the useless trivia which is the prize of the winners.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by henry quirk »

I'm really not interested in discussing anything with you you told Mannie.

Then talk to me, Veg.
henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:50 am You said Where I'm from rape is illegal (hence the word 'rape').

Why is it illegal? If it weren't illegal would that mean it was okay for a man to force sex on a woman, another man, a child?
Post Reply