Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:13 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:57 pm Human nature is still undefined and possibly undefinable until judgement day.
If that were completely true, B., there would be no generalizations about human beings possible. There would also be no regularities and patterns in history, since human inclinations would be random and would vary too widely to be recognizable.

Since there obviously are generalizations, and because it's not really very hard to find patterns in history, there must be some sort of "human nature," even if we debate its exact distribution of values.
It's a fact we generalise about human nature very tentatively, more tentatively than about say biology, or any of the other natural sciences. It is hard to generalise about one individual man let alone the entire species.

Patterns in history are much debated. For instance a right wing historian argues the industrial revolution was good for the workers despite some suffering but a left wing historian argues the industrial revolution was bad for the workers and their suffering was not worth the few benefits they received.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 5:54 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:11 pm I cannot imagine any other way they could have it. :shock:
There's not much I can do about your intellectual deficiencies. If you can't understand (or imagine?) it, then you can't.
Hmmm.

Well, you can't seem to find a way to say what you actually mean, so what you mean must remain opaque. So be it.

Apparently, nobody can cure you of the ad hominem fallacy either. Carry on.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:11 pm ... As you know, I'm no Determinist, nor am I any kind of Collectivist. "Human nature," I think, is a concept that applies to broad inclinations and instincts all humans have in common, not something determinative of specific choices of individuals.
Human behavior is not determined, you say, but have, "broad inclinations and instincts," that, what?.
Heh. Don't reel: that's easy.

My cats have a common broad inclination to hunt. But one hunts bugs, and the other chooses not to. They're free agents, but also have the basic cat nature. Do you think they're not cats?

What one chooses, and what one's natural inclinations are, are two very different questions. Human nature has to do with capabilities, inclinations and propensities, but does not strictly dictate particular choices on particular occasions.
You think every kind of evil is also rational.
I'd put it another way: evil comes up with rationales for what it does. A knife is good in the hands of a surgeon, and bad in the hands of a psychopath. It is the character of the wielder that determines what the tool does.

Reason's the same. It's a tool, or better, a sytematic methodology, for arriving at the connnection between what one wants and how one gets it. Reason itself has no opinion about what a person wants. That's a matter of personal intention.

You can't give me even one moral precept that is dictated by reason qua reason. You'll have to take an assumption first, or reason will remain silent on the matter.
If everyone just ignored the, "unscrupulous," and went about living their own lives, the unscrupulous would be able to do nothing.

That's manifestly untrue.

It's like saying, "If everyone ignored thieves, they couldn't steal," or "If everybody ignored murderers, they couldn't kill anyone." Of course they could.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 5:59 pm It is hard to generalise about one individual man let alone the entire species.
Actually, we can generalize about the entire species: that's easy, because "species" is a generalization.

But you're right to say that we cannot generalize from the species to a specific individual at a specific time and circumstance. That's likely to be misleading.
...a left wing historian argues the industrial revolution was bad for the workers and their suffering was not worth the few benefits they received.
If the Leftist historian is not keen on the Industrial Revolution, I invite him to forego all its benefits immediately.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:25 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 5:54 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:11 pm I cannot imagine any other way they could have it. :shock:
There's not much I can do about your intellectual deficiencies. If you can't understand (or imagine?) it, then you can't.
Hmmm.

Well, you can't seem to find a way to say what you actually mean, so what you mean must remain opaque. So be it.

Apparently, nobody can cure you of the ad hominem fallacy either. Carry on.
I wasn't making an argument. How can it be a fallacy? Oh well.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:11 pm ... As you know, I'm no Determinist, nor am I any kind of Collectivist. "Human nature," I think, is a concept that applies to broad inclinations and instincts all humans have in common, not something determinative of specific choices of individuals.
Human behavior is not determined, you say, but have, "broad inclinations and instincts," that, what?. [/quote]
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:25 pm My cats have a common broad inclination to hunt. But one hunts bugs, and the other chooses not to. They're free agents, but also have the basic cat nature. Do you think they're not cats?

What one chooses, and what one's natural inclinations are, are two very different questions. Human nature has to do with capabilities, inclinations and propensities, but does not strictly dictate particular choices on particular occasions.
I really do not know how to address that comment. The irrational animals do not have volition, which is why they do not need verbal knowledge to think and make choices with and why they have instinct to determine all their behavior. Only human beings have volition, which is why they need verbal knowledge to think and make choices and do not have instinct to guide their behavior. It is the fundamental difference between human beings and all other animals.

This obviously all escapes you. There is no way I can address the confusion you entertain between animal and human nature.
You think every kind of evil is also rational.
You can't give me even one moral precept that is dictated by reason qua reason. You'll have to take an assumption first, or reason will remain silent on the matter.[/quote]
There is no such thing as a, "moral precept." Values are not pronounced or determine by some dictator. A value is determined by some objective or purpose relative to which is either good (if it furthers or fulfills the purpose) or bad (if it hinders or prevents it).

Since the only beings in the universe that have purposes (ends, goals, or objectives), values only pertain to human beings. Right values are those that enable a human to live happily and successfully in this world as a volitional, intellectual, rational being.

Here are three essential values:

1. Learning and gaining knowledge is the first value. A human being must learn all he can possibly learn about as many things as he possibly can.

2. Reasoning correctly is the second value. A human being must learn to think and use his knowledge to reason as well as he can to make right choices in every pursuit of his life.

3. Productive work is the third value. A human must do productive work to provide himself with all that he needs or desires to live successfully as a human being. His work is whatever he does to provide a service or product of value to himself, or others he can trade with for what they have produced or provided.

There are no guarantees in life, but failing to live by these three values ensures failure.

If there were such a thing as morality, these would be three moral precepts.

There are many other values.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:11 pm
If everyone just ignored the, "unscrupulous," and went about living their own lives, the unscrupulous would be able to do nothing.

That's manifestly untrue.

It's like saying, "If everyone ignored thieves, they couldn't steal," or "If everybody ignored murderers, they couldn't kill anyone." Of course they could.
We were talking about Tyrants ruling whole countries (wholesale crime), not individual thugs (retail crime). If everyone just ignored Biden, exactly what could he do. Nothing. The reason there are tyrants is because most people have ulterior motives for supporting, or at least, tolerating them. They will never ignore them and therefore will continue to be ruled by them.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 7:17 pm The irrational animals do not have volition,
So you have no pets, I must suppose.

Well, they have volition. They don't have self-awaeness, and they don't do ethics. But they sure choose what they do.

Get a cat. You'll find out.
You think every kind of evil is also rational.
You can't give me even one moral precept that is dictated by reason qua reason. You'll have to take an assumption first, or reason will remain silent on the matter.
There is no such thing as a, "moral precept."
It just means "axiom" or "principle," if you prefer those words.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:11 pm
If everyone just ignored the, "unscrupulous," and went about living their own lives, the unscrupulous would be able to do nothing.

That's manifestly untrue.

It's like saying, "If everyone ignored thieves, they couldn't steal," or "If everybody ignored murderers, they couldn't kill anyone." Of course they could.
We were talking about Tyrants ruling whole countries
Well, plenty of them have done that, with no democratic process involved. The guy with the guns rules.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 7:55 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 7:17 pm The irrational animals do not have volition,
So you have no pets, I must suppose.

Well, they have volition. They don't have self-awaeness, and they don't do ethics. But they sure choose what they do.

Get a cat. You'll find out.
I'm owned by two cats at the moment and have had cats all my life. Cats do not have volition.

Instinct is a pre-programmed pattern of behavior that provides those animals that have it with the appropriate behavior to every situation and stimulation, both internal and external to ensure the organism's survival. It does not have to learn anything, like what is or is not food, that it must have water, how to groom itself if it is required, or how to find and acquire what it needs from building materials for nests to food. All of an animals behavior is automatic driven by internal impulses. A cat spends most of its time sleeping. It does not say to itself, I'm tired, I think I will take nap. It's instinct makes that choice for the animal. It is not a volitional choice. It cannot choose to do otherwise than what its instinct causes it to do.

A human being must learn everything, because it has no instinct. It must discover or learn what the requirements of his life are, that he must eat, what constitutes food, how to acquire it and in most cases prepare it. Everything a human must have and do to live, much less live well, must be discovered or learned, but even after gaining that knowledge he is require to choose to use it and to do the things his life requires. Even having a nap for a human being requires a conscious choice.

The primary difference between instinctive behavior and volitional behavior is the necessity for a human being to identify alternatives. All of an animals behavior is a direct response to whatever it is conscious of at the moment, its own internal states and that which perceives externally. All of a human being's volitional behavior requires identifying possible actions that cannot be immediately perceived, which means, he must be conscious of them as concepts. Volition is impossible without language. (Which is another reason animals cannot have volition).

A volitional choice means being aware of some objective, immediate or long term, and using reason to evaluate possible alternatives in order to choose what to do. Acting on impulse, reflex actions, and biological behavior is not volitional choice. Recognizing one is hungry and using the knowledge that one has the makings of a sandwich or a bowl of soup, and deciding the sandwich is more appealing and making the sandwich is a volitional choice. All of that thinking is only possible using the concepts (language) necessary to identify each of those things one is evaluating. That kind of choice no animal is capable of making.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:11 pm It's like saying, "If everyone ignored thieves, they couldn't steal," or "If everybody ignored murderers, they couldn't kill anyone." Of course they could.
We were talking about Tyrants ruling whole countries[/quote]
Well, plenty of them have done that, with no democratic process involved. The guy with the guns rules.[/quote]
Sigh! One man with a gun can control twenty million people? I'd like to see that.

I think you mean one guy with lots of armed followers. That was my point. No, "one guy," totally ignored by everyone else can do anything. One guy with a gang or army is not being ignored by everyone. And that will always be the problem.

By the way, that is one definition of government. When gangs compete, the biggest (or most duplicitous or vicious) wins and is called, "the government." It's called democracy.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:33 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 7:55 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 7:17 pm So you have no pets, I must suppose.


I'm owned by two cats at the moment and have had cats all my life. Cats do not have volition.

Instinct is a pre-programmed pattern of behavior that provides those animals that have it with the appropriate behavior to every situation and stimulation, both internal and external to ensure the organism's survival. It does not have to learn anything, like what is or is not food, that it must have water, how to groom itself if it is required, or how to find and acquire what it needs from building materials for nests to food. All of an animals behavior is automatic driven by internal impulses. A cat spends most of its time sleeping. It does not say to itself, I'm tired, I think I will take nap. It's instinct makes that choice for the animal. It is not a volitional choice. It cannot choose to do otherwise than what its instinct causes it to do.

A human being must learn everything, because it has no instinct. It must discover or learn what the requirements of his life are, that he must eat, what constitutes food, how to acquire it and in most cases prepare it. Everything a human must have and do to live, much less live well, must be discovered or learned, but even after gaining that knowledge he is require to choose to use it and to do the things his life requires. Even having a nap for a human being requires a conscious choice.

The primary difference between instinctive behavior and volitional behavior is the necessity for a human being to identify alternatives. All of an animals behavior is a direct response to whatever it is conscious of at the moment, its own internal states and that which perceives externally. All of a human being's volitional behavior requires identifying possible actions that cannot be immediately perceived, which means, he must be conscious of them as concepts. Volition is impossible without language. (Which is another reason animals cannot have volition).

A volitional choice means being aware of some objective, immediate or long term, and using reason to evaluate possible alternatives in order to choose what to do. Acting on impulse, reflex actions, and biological behavior is not volitional choice. Recognizing one is hungry and using the knowledge that one has the makings of a sandwich or a bowl of soup, and deciding the sandwich is more appealing and making the sandwich is a volitional choice. All of that thinking is only possible using the concepts (language) necessary to identify each of those things one is evaluating. That kind of choice no animal is capable of making.

We were talking about Tyrants ruling whole countries
Well, plenty of them have done that, with no democratic process involved. The guy with the guns rules.
Sigh! One man with a gun can control twenty million people? I'd like to see that.

I think you mean one guy with lots of armed followers. That was my point. No, "one guy," totally ignored by everyone else can do anything. One guy with a gang or army is not being ignored by everyone. And that will always be the problem.

By the way, that is one definition of government. When gangs compete, the biggest (or most duplicitous or vicious) wins and is called, "the government." It's called democracy.
Volition in action is voluntary behaviour. Cats in cat- friendly homes not only do what [/quote]they instinctively do they also do what they want to do. That is voluntary behaviour. It's odd to define voluntary behaviour by adding conceptualisations to doing what it wants do.
A volitional choice means being aware of some objective, immediate or long term, and using reason to evaluate possible alternatives in order to choose what to do. Acting on impulse, reflex actions, and biological behavior is not volitional choice.
RCS
Behaviour can be learned by training through stimulus and response and felines can be trained to specific stimuli and specific responses. Not as readily as canines who are more servile animals, but cats can be trained. A chimpanzee learned enough English to show that he can abstract his memories and generalise those to situations that don't yet exist i.e. he wants a banana which is not detectable in his sensory environment. My dog is trained in a few English phrases and words but is more proficient at body language so that he can indeed abstract a memory of feeding and deliberately and voluntarily let me know it's his dinner time. I say "voluntarily" as he had a choice to either remain comfortably on the sofa or jump on the floor to stand and stare at me.
It is impossible to separate nature from nurture in any species but we can surmise that forward planning in the absence of an immediate stimulus is most pronounced in humans. This is at least partly due to humans' facility with language which can be used as a system of symbols. If there is a line demarcating the volitional from the instinctive, that line is the ability to abstract learned symbols (NB not learned signs or learned cues)from the concrete and apply those symbols elsewhere. It does seem that at least some other animals can to some extent use learned symbols.

RCSaunder's thesis is dangerously close to an especially cruel aspect of Cartesian dualism that animals are automata.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 30, 2021 8:53 am Volition in action is voluntary behaviour. Cats in cat- friendly homes not only do what they instinctively do they also do what they want to do. That is voluntary behaviour. It's odd to define voluntary behaviour by adding conceptualisations to doing what it wants do.
A volitional choice means being aware of some objective, immediate or long term, and using reason to evaluate possible alternatives in order to choose what to do. Acting on impulse, reflex actions, and biological behavior is not volitional choice.
RCS
Behaviour can be learned by training through stimulus and response and felines can be trained to specific stimuli and specific responses.....
There is no way, without my providing and entire explanation of the epistemological basis of reason and volition, to respond to your comments. I can briefly say what the differences in our views are, because what we mean by knowledge, reason, and volition and language are totally different things.

What I mean by knowledge, learning, reason, and volition are only possible to human beings. Human knowledge requires language, and only what is known by means of language is knowledge. Human learning means learning the meaning of concepts that identify everything one can know or think about. Reason is the use of language to think, ask and answer questions and to make judgements. Volitional is conscious choice made by means of reason and judgement and is not possible without knowing a language.

Knowing a language is not just being able to respond to a few sounds, signs, or symbols. Knowing a language means capable of forming, speaking, writing and understanding complete sentences. Knowing a language means being able to think, read, write, remember, ask questions, and understand verbal explanations in that language.

That is what I mean by those terms. It does not have to be what you mean, and obviously isn't.

Based on what you have said (and I admit I only have that to go by, and you can correct me if I'm mistaken): Knowledge is just anything an organism is conscious of or aware of, and does not require language. (If a dog sees a tree, "seeing the tree," is knowledge.) Learning is anything (like animal conditioning) that alters of affects an organisms behavior (like your, "stimulus and response"). Reason can be ascribed to just anything that goes on in the consciousness of an organism and does not require language. Volition can be ascribed to just anything a living organism does. Language is just any kind of grunts, growls, squeaks, peeps, barks, oinks, or meows an animal makes or just any kind of sounds, gestures, or signs it responds to.

So we are talking about totally different things.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:28 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 5:59 pm It is hard to generalise about one individual man let alone the entire species.
Actually, we can generalize about the entire species: that's easy, because "species" is a generalization.

But you're right to say that we cannot generalize from the species to a specific individual at a specific time and circumstance. That's likely to be misleading.
...a left wing historian argues the industrial revolution was bad for the workers and their suffering was not worth the few benefits they received.
If the Leftist historian is not keen on the Industrial Revolution, I invite him to forego all its benefits immediately.
I am aware that your tastes are right wing.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:16 am
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 30, 2021 8:53 am Volition in action is voluntary behaviour. Cats in cat- friendly homes not only do what they instinctively do they also do what they want to do. That is voluntary behaviour. It's odd to define voluntary behaviour by adding conceptualisations to doing what it wants do.
A volitional choice means being aware of some objective, immediate or long term, and using reason to evaluate possible alternatives in order to choose what to do. Acting on impulse, reflex actions, and biological behavior is not volitional choice.
RCS
Behaviour can be learned by training through stimulus and response and felines can be trained to specific stimuli and specific responses.....
There is no way, without my providing and entire explanation of the epistemological basis of reason and volition, to respond to your comments. I can briefly say what the differences in our views are, because what we mean by knowledge, reason, and volition and language are totally different things.

What I mean by knowledge, learning, reason, and volition are only possible to human beings. Human knowledge requires language, and only what is known by means of language is knowledge. Human learning means learning the meaning of concepts that identify everything one can know or think about. Reason is the use of language to think, ask and answer questions and to make judgements. Volitional is conscious choice made by means of reason and judgement and is not possible without knowing a language.

Knowing a language is not just being able to respond to a few sounds, signs, or symbols. Knowing a language means capable of forming, speaking, writing and understanding complete sentences. Knowing a language means being able to think, read, write, remember, ask questions, and understand verbal explanations in that language.

That is what I mean by those terms. It does not have to be what you mean, and obviously isn't.

Based on what you have said (and I admit I only have that to go by, and you can correct me if I'm mistaken): Knowledge is just anything an organism is conscious of or aware of, and does not require language. (If a dog sees a tree, "seeing the tree," is knowledge.) Learning is anything (like animal conditioning) that alters of affects an organisms behavior (like your, "stimulus and response"). Reason can be ascribed to just anything that goes on in the consciousness of an organism and does not require language. Volition can be ascribed to just anything a living organism does. Language is just any kind of grunts, growls, squeaks, peeps, barks, oinks, or meows an animal makes or just any kind of sounds, gestures, or signs it responds to.

So we are talking about totally different things.
This is all very interesting, and it's so difficult to discuss psychological matters when we disagree about what terms mean.
Volition means doing doing something because you want to do it, so that we have related word 'voluntary' and 'voluntarily'. Note that I wrote
Acting on impulse, reflex actions, and biological behavior is not volitional choice.
If you act on impulse you have no alternative but to act on impulse. Cats and dogs can be trained not to act on impulse but to inhibit their biological urges to some extent.

Language can mean reactive grunts etc, instinctive communications like bird songs, body language, commands, propositions, questions, and symbolic systems.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:27 pm Language can mean reactive grunts etc, instinctive communications like bird songs, body language, commands, propositions, questions, and symbolic systems.
Sure! You can define language in any way you like. If you are going to define language to mean just anything, then a new concept will be required for conceptual language by which reading, writing and thinking are done, books are written, histories are recorded, science is documented, and by which logic, mathematics, and language itself are explained and taught.

Human language makes it possible for human beings to discuss, understand, and write books about animal behavior. Books by animals about anything are very rare. You'll convince me animal signs and sounds are language when I see the first book written by one. I don't care what you choose to call language. When I use that word I'm only referring to that which makes judgement by means of verbal reasoning possible and by volition I am only referring to choice made by means of verbal rational judgement.

You are aware, are you not, that what Hugh Lofting, Rudyard Kipling, and Charles Dodgson wrote is fiction?
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Oct 01, 2021 8:31 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:27 pm Language can mean reactive grunts etc, instinctive communications like bird songs, body language, commands, propositions, questions, and symbolic systems.
Sure! You can define language in any way you like. If you are going to define language to mean just anything, then a new concept will be required for conceptual language by which reading, writing and thinking are done, books are written, histories are recorded, science is documented, and by which logic, mathematics, and language itself are explained and taught.

Human language makes it possible for human beings to discuss, understand, and write books about animal behavior. Books by animals about anything are very rare. You'll convince me animal signs and sounds are language when I see the first book written by one. I don't care what you choose to call language. When I use that word I'm only referring to that which makes judgement by means of verbal reasoning possible and by volition I am only referring to choice made by means of verbal rational judgement.

You are aware, are you not, that what Hugh Lofting, Rudyard Kipling, and Charles Dodgson wrote is fiction?
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Oct 01, 2021 8:31 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:27 pm Language can mean reactive grunts etc, instinctive communications like bird songs, body language, commands, propositions, questions, and symbolic systems.
Sure! You can define language in any way you like. If you are going to define language to mean just anything, then a new concept will be required for conceptual language by which reading, writing and thinking are done, books are written, histories are recorded, science is documented, and by which logic, mathematics, and language itself are explained and taught.

Human language makes it possible for human beings to discuss, understand, and write books about animal behavior. Books by animals about anything are very rare. You'll convince me animal signs and sounds are language when I see the first book written by one. I don't care what you choose to call language. When I use that word I'm only referring to that which makes judgement by means of verbal reasoning possible and by volition I am only referring to choice made by means of verbal rational judgement.

You are aware, are you not, that what Hugh Lofting, Rudyard Kipling, and Charles Dodgson wrote is fiction?
It's a shame you don't know that fiction tells truths.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:33 pm Cats do not have volition.
Interesting. They exhibit more volition than practically any other pet, actually. Try to train one, and you'll find that though they are as intelligent as dogs, they do not have dogs' compliance. They've got their own wills, alright. You can train them, but not easily...and not without them often doing what you don't want them to do, first.
We were talking about Tyrants ruling whole countries
Well, plenty of them have done that, with no democratic process involved. The guy with the guns rules.
Sigh! One man with a gun can control twenty million people? I'd like to see that.
Did you miss the plural?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:11 pm ...a left wing historian argues the industrial revolution was bad for the workers and their suffering was not worth the few benefits they received.
If the Leftist historian is not keen on the Industrial Revolution, I invite him to forego all its benefits immediately.
I am aware that your tastes are right wing.
Not relevant to the question, even if it were true.

Any historian who says, "The Industrial Revolution was bad" is welcome to do the same. The point is that the complainant is basking in all the benefits of that revolution, while using the abundance of recreational time it has provide him to find ways of complaining about it.

He's like a "vegetarian" who is campaigning for his diet while chewing down on a T-bone steak.
Post Reply