| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/20/2010 10:49:29 PM · #4126 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I really think that whole shifting thing needs to be fixed.
Also, for those of you who haven't, may want to read "A Short History of Nearly Everything". Shifting plates is only one of our worries. Volcanos can be more of a problem and in a really big way. But the book itself is fascinating. Has a little of everything. May actually satisfy both evolutionists and creationists when you get right down to it.
Jason, not buying your "harm" arguments. Still waiting for someone to conclusively explain to me why two gay people married to each other can cause harm to any other individual. |
Ask me sometimes on IM. Have you seen the TED Institute video on liberalism vs. conservatism? It was sooo interesting. I recall him saying this:
Liberals are interested in preserving the rights of the underpriviledged at the risk of social chaos.
Conservatives are interested in preserving social order at the risk of neglecting the underpriviledged. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 11:03:13 PM · #4127 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Liberals are interested in preserving the rights of the underpriviledged at the risk of social chaos.
Conservatives are interested in preserving social order at the risk of neglecting the underpriviledged. |
I really think it is just time to ignore this thread for another 6 months or so. I'm really a basically nice and good person who is, according to most, going to hell. Hopefully in a handbasket because that sounds kinda nice. I'm generally considered very open-minded but I really do not think I will ever be able to see where gays are causing harm to non-gays with the desire to have equal rights under the law with respect to marriage.
So please, do carry on. I'll just find another hobby for a few months. Like trying to find a job, perhaps!
Message edited by author 2010-01-20 23:03:47. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 11:06:32 PM · #4128 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Liberals are interested in preserving the rights of the underpriviledged at the risk of social chaos.
Conservatives are interested in preserving social order at the risk of neglecting the underpriviledged. |
I really think it is just time to ignore this thread for another 6 months or so. I'm really a basically nice and good person who is, according to most, going to hell. Hopefully in a handbasket because that sounds kinda nice. I'm generally considered very open-minded but I really do not think I will ever be able to see where gays are causing harm to non-gays with the desire to have equal rights under the law with respect to marriage.
So please, do carry on. I'll just find another hobby for a few months. Like trying to find a job, perhaps! |
Hey Deb. You were complaining that nobody would answer you and then I did and this is the response I get? |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 11:07:08 PM · #4129 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Is playing word games an immutable characteristic or a conscious choice?
Suffering is "bad" because it hurts the sufferer, and for beings with a sense of empathy and compassion it hurts vicariously. Or perhaps you'd like to argue that suffering is "good" ... |
Suffering can be good. But I wasn't the one that made the argument. Louis did. It's not like I'm going to start answering questions before Louis has answered even one. |
Hrm, I'd more say that suffering can result in good, but is generally never good (for the sufferer) during it. Some, like masochists, may ENJOY it, but that's not entirely the same thing either.
I have to say, you're quite adept at trying to derail conversations/arguments/fistfights (heh) with these moronic and useless little non sequitors :D |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 11:09:47 PM · #4130 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Liberals are interested in preserving the rights of the underpriviledged at the risk of social chaos.
Conservatives are interested in preserving social order at the risk of neglecting the underpriviledged. |
I really think it is just time to ignore this thread for another 6 months or so. I'm really a basically nice and good person who is, according to most, going to hell. Hopefully in a handbasket because that sounds kinda nice. I'm generally considered very open-minded but I really do not think I will ever be able to see where gays are causing harm to non-gays with the desire to have equal rights under the law with respect to marriage.
So please, do carry on. I'll just find another hobby for a few months. Like trying to find a job, perhaps! |
And social order is restored for the priviledged!
|
|
|
|
01/20/2010 11:17:20 PM · #4131 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Is playing word games an immutable characteristic or a conscious choice?
Suffering is "bad" because it hurts the sufferer, and for beings with a sense of empathy and compassion it hurts vicariously. Or perhaps you'd like to argue that suffering is "good" ... |
Suffering can be good. But I wasn't the one that made the argument. Louis did. It's not like I'm going to start answering questions before Louis has answered even one. |
Hrm, I'd more say that suffering can result in good, but is generally never good (for the sufferer) during it. Some, like masochists, may ENJOY it, but that's not entirely the same thing either.
I have to say, you're quite adept at trying to derail conversations/arguments/fistfights (heh) with these moronic and useless little non sequitors :D |
Well, if you want to say "suffering can result in good" then I'm OK with it.
And when I'm "adept at trying" does that mean I ultimately fail or I'm actually good at it? :P |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 11:21:28 PM · #4132 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Is playing word games an immutable characteristic or a conscious choice?
Suffering is "bad" because it hurts the sufferer, and for beings with a sense of empathy and compassion it hurts vicariously. Or perhaps you'd like to argue that suffering is "good" ... |
Suffering can be good. But I wasn't the one that made the argument. Louis did. It's not like I'm going to start answering questions before Louis has answered even one. |
Hrm, I'd more say that suffering can result in good, but is generally never good (for the sufferer) during it. Some, like masochists, may ENJOY it, but that's not entirely the same thing either.
I have to say, you're quite adept at trying to derail conversations/arguments/fistfights (heh) with these moronic and useless little non sequitors :D |
Well, if you want to say "suffering can result in good" then I'm OK with it.
And when I'm "adept at trying" does that mean I ultimately fail or I'm actually good at it? :P |
You're good at drawing people in, but ultimately, heh. It's DPC. We all fail. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 11:22:15 PM · #4133 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think it would be fun to play 20 questions where we pick a topic, someone states a position and they have to answer the next 20 questions posed to them. Johnny is making a valiant effort (although I don't agree with everything), but so many people here have never been on the hot seat. Anybody else want to explain suffering in the world? |
Well, not every single one of my posts represent my personal beliefs. I try to offer some unbiased possible explanations alongside my own opinions for the sake of the argument :) I answer questions differently when I face to face with someone than I do in a public forum. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 11:38:33 PM · #4134 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
What's to explain? We're biological animals with nervous systems sensitised to pain and social behaviour that helps us survive but that, together with other evolutionary factors, paves the way for ingroup/outgroup behaviour that causes suffering. Also, the earth is made up of tectonic plates that shift. |
Well, you yourself have said that "suffering is bad". Why do you attach this adjective to something that needs to explanation and is merely the way things are? |
I think it's probably counter-productive to define our terms so precisely. We'll just wind up annoying one another, and nothing of substance will be said. I think you know what one means when one says, "Suffering is bad." One means to say that it is bad, subjectively and vicariously, irrespective of whatever transcendence one may experience incidentally. (By the way, I believe that personal improvements as a result of suffering are easily explained by way of learned behaviour, perfectly in line with our evolutionary heritage. "OW! That fire burned! Won't touch that again..." "OW! Losing my loved one to disease hurt. Next time I'll know what to expect and I can assist others, too -- should I survive it this time.") |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 11:16:27 AM · #4135 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
What's to explain? We're biological animals with nervous systems sensitised to pain and social behaviour that helps us survive but that, together with other evolutionary factors, paves the way for ingroup/outgroup behaviour that causes suffering. Also, the earth is made up of tectonic plates that shift. |
Well, you yourself have said that "suffering is bad". Why do you attach this adjective to something that needs to explanation and is merely the way things are? |
I think it's probably counter-productive to define our terms so precisely. We'll just wind up annoying one another, and nothing of substance will be said. I think you know what one means when one says, "Suffering is bad." One means to say that it is bad, subjectively and vicariously, irrespective of whatever transcendence one may experience incidentally. (By the way, I believe that personal improvements as a result of suffering are easily explained by way of learned behaviour, perfectly in line with our evolutionary heritage. "OW! That fire burned! Won't touch that again..." "OW! Losing my loved one to disease hurt. Next time I'll know what to expect and I can assist others, too -- should I survive it this time.") |
I guess I was looking for you to synthesize your statement above that suffering is to be expected and merely a product of evolutionary forces and your statement from 11/18/08 (holy crap that was a long time ago):
Originally posted by Louis:
In my view, very simply. There is only one moral absolute: suffering is abhorrent. Every nuance of morality proceeds from this. To put it very simply, that which causes suffering is immoral, that which abates suffering is moral. Since we're talking about the human sphere, this doesn't mean to suggest that destructive natural forces like hurricanes are immoral. We also don't need to confuse the abatement of suffering with hedonism, so we don't need to argue that shooting heroin is moral. We don't need gods for any of this, since we are strictly talking about humans' ability to cause or ameliorate suffering. |
Honestly I think they don't quite jibe, but I'm offering you the opportunity to rectify this. |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 11:38:28 AM · #4136 |
McCain surprise
Guess one never knows where support will come from. |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 12:27:09 PM · #4137 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Honestly I think they don't quite jibe, but I'm offering you the opportunity to rectify this. |
Nothing to rectify. |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 12:35:32 PM · #4138 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Nothing to rectify. |
"Suffering is bad." = "suffering is abhorrent. Every nuance of morality proceeds from this." |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 12:44:39 PM · #4139 |
Originally posted by Flash:
McCain surprise
Guess one never knows where support will come from. |
It shouldn't be that much of a surprise ... "true conservatives" (those leaning towards Libertarianism) are traditionally in favor of the rights of the individual, and opposed to "government interference" in people's personal lives. The two attorneys handling the case to overturn Prop. 8 as unconstitutional were on opposite sides of the Bush v. Gore case. Despite the current attitude of the Republican party, political conservatism is often at odds with religious doctrine. |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 12:52:03 PM · #4140 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Liberals are interested in preserving the rights of the underpriviledged at the risk of social chaos.
Conservatives are interested in preserving social order at the risk of neglecting the underpriviledged. |
I really think it is just time to ignore this thread for another 6 months or so. I'm really a basically nice and good person who is, according to most, going to hell. Hopefully in a handbasket because that sounds kinda nice. I'm generally considered very open-minded but I really do not think I will ever be able to see where gays are causing harm to non-gays with the desire to have equal rights under the law with respect to marriage.
So please, do carry on. I'll just find another hobby for a few months. Like trying to find a job, perhaps! |
Hey Deb. You were complaining that nobody would answer you and then I did and this is the response I get? |
Catch me if I'm on. Working off a laptop these days so may or may not maintain a connection. But I think my point was that for all my so called open-mindedness, I'm pretty close-minded on being able to see how two gay people can possibly harm a straight marriage. |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 01:08:43 PM · #4141 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Honestly I think they don't quite jibe, but I'm offering you the opportunity to rectify this. |
Nothing to rectify. |
Really? You see it that way? Here's what I don't get. On one hand, when Johnny tries to give his explanation for the suffering in the world your answer is that suffering is nothing but the status quo. It is to be expected as part and parcel of evolution and life. But on the other hand you say that suffering is abhorrent and that all morality is aimed at its avoidance. Why would we avoid something that is the status quo? Why would you react to it like that? If suffering is the status quo, I would think the proper way to deal with it is simple acceptance. But you don't seem to want to accept it. You want to fight it. Avoid it. Make it so there is less in the world for everybody.
That is what I don't get. You used a very strong word, "abhorrent" which means you "consider it completely unacceptable". I find it quite incongruous that you consider suffering to be the way the world works but yet you find it totally unacceptable. |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 01:26:31 PM · #4142 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's what I don't get. On one hand, when Johnny tries to give his explanation for the suffering in the world your answer is that suffering is nothing but the status quo. It is to be expected as part and parcel of evolution and life. But on the other hand you say that suffering is abhorrent and that all morality is aimed at its avoidance. Why would we avoid something that is the status quo? |
They don't jibe to you because you're not talking about the same thing. Again. You're still trying to conflate a Christian perspective with the "real" world. The question Johnny faces is why God allows (or inflicts) suffering. That's a moral question because there is intent— a being is causing the suffering. This only applies within a religious context. There is suffering in the world of all sorts, but only religion assumes direct control and responsibility for every event. To put it not so delicately, it's the difference between a willful action (which can be subjectively considered right or wrong) and "shit happens" (which is neither right nor wrong).
When Louis et al refers to suffering in terms of morality, he's talking about the actions of people. There will still be suffering in the world in the form of accidents, natural disasters, disease and other tragedy, but those are inherently amoral events unless you assume some magical deity caused them to occur.
Message edited by author 2010-01-21 13:26:44. |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 01:35:38 PM · #4143 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Honestly I think they don't quite jibe, but I'm offering you the opportunity to rectify this. |
Nothing to rectify. |
Really? You see it that way? Here's what I don't get. On one hand, when Johnny tries to give his explanation for the suffering in the world your answer is that suffering is nothing but the status quo. It is to be expected as part and parcel of evolution and life. But on the other hand you say that suffering is abhorrent and that all morality is aimed at its avoidance. Why would we avoid something that is the status quo? Why would you react to it like that? If suffering is the status quo, I would think the proper way to deal with it is simple acceptance. But you don't seem to want to accept it. You want to fight it. Avoid it. Make it so there is less in the world for everybody.
That is what I don't get. You used a very strong word, "abhorrent" which means you "consider it completely unacceptable". I find it quite incongruous that you consider suffering to be the way the world works but yet you find it totally unacceptable. |
John Cage, when asked if he thought there was too much suffering in the world: "There is exactly the right amount of suffering in the world." |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 02:12:54 PM · #4144 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's what I don't get. On one hand, when Johnny tries to give his explanation for the suffering in the world your answer is that suffering is nothing but the status quo. It is to be expected as part and parcel of evolution and life. But on the other hand you say that suffering is abhorrent and that all morality is aimed at its avoidance. Why would we avoid something that is the status quo? |
They don't jibe to you because you're not talking about the same thing. Again. You're still trying to conflate a Christian perspective with the "real" world. The question Johnny faces is why God allows (or inflicts) suffering. That's a moral question because there is intent— a being is causing the suffering. This only applies within a religious context. There is suffering in the world of all sorts, but only religion assumes direct control and responsibility for every event. To put it not so delicately, it's the difference between a willful action (which can be subjectively considered right or wrong) and "shit happens" (which is neither right nor wrong).
When Louis et al refers to suffering in terms of morality, he's talking about the actions of people. There will still be suffering in the world in the form of accidents, natural disasters, disease and other tragedy, but those are inherently amoral events unless you assume some magical deity caused them to occur. |
Well, that's not exactly what I'm saying, although I do think you talk reasonable about Johnny's position or dilemma. I'll give Louis a chance to respond. I would expect him to give a response much more like John Cage below. Suffering is suffering. But he did not. He said suffering is abhorrent, unacceptable, to be avoided.
Message edited by author 2010-01-21 14:13:34. |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 02:29:17 PM · #4145 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why would we avoid something that is the status quo? Why would you react to it like that? |
Why is it difficult to understand that any sentient being capable of empathy would find suffering abhorrent? You have yet to convince me that such a position is incongruous with the understanding that suffering is inherent to what we are. Why am I compelled to be neutral on the subject of others' suffering when I understand that animals with nervous systems who live on tectonic plates will necessarily suffer?
I think zeus' quote is wonderful, and I wish I had said something so apt. |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 02:32:04 PM · #4146 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why would we avoid something that is the status quo? Why would you react to it like that? |
Why is it difficult to understand that any sentient being capable of empathy would find suffering abhorrent? You have yet to convince me that such a position is incongruous with the understanding that suffering is inherent to what we are. Why am I compelled to be neutral on the subject of others' suffering when I understand that animals with nervous systems who live on tectonic plates will necessarily suffer?
I think zeus' quote is wonderful, and I wish I had said something so apt. |
"To put it very simply, that which causes suffering is immoral, that which abates suffering is moral."
"There is exactly the right amount of suffering in the world."
So you are saying there is exactly the right amount of immorality in the world? |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 02:33:37 PM · #4147 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why would we avoid something that is the status quo? Why would you react to it like that? |
Why is it difficult to understand that any sentient being capable of empathy would find suffering abhorrent? You have yet to convince me that such a position is incongruous with the understanding that suffering is inherent to what we are. Why am I compelled to be neutral on the subject of others' suffering when I understand that animals with nervous systems who live on tectonic plates will necessarily suffer?
I think zeus' quote is wonderful, and I wish I had said something so apt. |
"To put it very simply, that which causes suffering is immoral, that which abates suffering is moral."
"There is exactly the right amount of suffering in the world."
So you are saying there is exactly the right amount of immorality in the world? |
I think you don't appreciate the quote. At any rate, there is exactly the right amount of everything in the world. |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 02:38:32 PM · #4148 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why would we avoid something that is the status quo? Why would you react to it like that? |
Why is it difficult to understand that any sentient being capable of empathy would find suffering abhorrent? You have yet to convince me that such a position is incongruous with the understanding that suffering is inherent to what we are. Why am I compelled to be neutral on the subject of others' suffering when I understand that animals with nervous systems who live on tectonic plates will necessarily suffer?
I think zeus' quote is wonderful, and I wish I had said something so apt. |
"To put it very simply, that which causes suffering is immoral, that which abates suffering is moral."
"There is exactly the right amount of suffering in the world."
So you are saying there is exactly the right amount of immorality in the world? |
I think you don't appreciate the quote. At any rate, there is exactly the right amount of everything in the world. |
Well, I'd hate to upset the balance by righting the wrong of no gay marriage... ;)
Anyway, I declare you to have shifted your position. Because your original paragraph sounds nothing like someone who would say "there is exactly the right amount of everything in the world". It sounds like a person who thinks suffering is bad and the less there is in the world the better. Especially in the quote below:
"...the only reasonable measurement of the morality of an action is to quantify the amount of suffering it causes or reduces"
Message edited by author 2010-01-21 14:44:58. |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 03:13:17 PM · #4149 |
Sorry, but I'm still not convinced. I'll even state my position again. People suffer because of what they are and how they, the planet, and by extension the universe work, not for any supernatural reasons. Also because of what we are, suffering is bad. Because of what we are, suffering pains us physically and emotionally, and there are obvious evolutionary reasons for this. In terms of our relation to one another, immorality can be seen to arise out of either inflicting suffering in others or willfully failing to ameliorate it.
So your quarrel is with that lovely Zen-like quote, and you've used its introduction as a way to discredit what I'm saying. If suffering is to be expected, you say, and there is "just the right amount", I should be happy with that and not talk of morality and helping others overcome things. I should be neutral when others suffer if I am to be consistent.
But that's to misunderstand what I believe to be the quote's intent. It's a metaphor; it's not a literal rule for interacting with others, or a guide to moral behaviour. It's the same as saying, "There is just as much matter in the universe as there ought to be." You are ascribing meaning to it where there is none. Consider that it sounds very Zen-like, very Buddhist, but the raison d'être of Buddhism is to abolish suffering. Put simply, you're ascribing intent where there is none. I also submit that you would have a much more difficult time discrediting what I've said had the quote not been offered, or if you understood it in context. |
|
|
|
01/21/2010 03:49:29 PM · #4150 |
Quoted from the Oregon State University website
"Diversity - The concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect. It means understanding that each individual is unique, and recognizing our individual differences. These can be along the dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other ideologies. It is the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive, and nurturing environment. It is about understanding each other and moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individual."
Doesn't sound all that horrible, does it? Quite simply, stop shunning others (but rather learn & share life WITH them). It doesn't ask anyone to deny their beliefs... only to set them aside momentarily & see if that other person might be human after all. ;)
|
|
