Why is there religion???


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, moralist said:

Murder someone. See what you get. See what kind of creature you degenerated into. Then get back to me on how there are no moral laws governing the consequences of your own actions.

You bear the mark of government imprinting, Bob. Government education made you stupid because it told you what to think, not how to think.

 

Greg

Do you know the difference between an action a person takes and the basic forces of physics?   I  do.  Do you ?  

Only I tell me what to think.   Moral laws are all human artifacts.  Nature does not give one good God Damn about our morality.  Long before there were humans light shone and matter gravitated.  Long after we and our moral bullshit  have perished from the cosmos,  light will still shine and matter will still gravitate.

Morality is human shit from beginning to end.  The universe outside  of human doing knows nothing of morality.  In fact the universe out side our consciousness knows nothing --- period.   Because it is not sentient.  The universe is mostly non-living and non-sentient.  Matter and energy twittering about in space-time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 405
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Now, when we act selfishness or not comes into full and proper play. (This is a continuation of my previous post.) It is moral to act selfishly and that's proper qua Objectivist ethics. That's because all actions are individualistic OR SHOULD BE! This does not redeem the title of Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness because she immediately dropped the ball inside. How we act is selfish. How we torment ourselves is selflessness. Selflessness is the torturer's tool. It is put in your hands after proper instruction so you spend a lifetime torturing yourself and going along with all the crap from your "Betters." That's why Atlas Shrugged has been so liberating to so many.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Do you know the difference between an action a person takes and the basic forces of physics?   I  do.  Do you ?  

Only I tell me what to think.   Moral laws are all human artifacts.  Nature does not give one good God Damn about our morality.  Long before there were humans light shone and matter gravitated.  Long after we and our moral bullshit  have perished from the cosmos,  light will still shine and matter will still gravitate.

Morality is human shit from beginning to end.  The universe outside  of human doing knows nothing of morality.  In fact the universe out side our consciousness knows nothing --- period.   Because it is not sentient.  The universe is mostly non-living and non-sentient.  Matter and energy twittering about in space-time. 

Now you sound desperate.

You never consider considered objections; you just repeat with more emphasis. That's why Greg has you by the balls by default. All you are talking about is getting an ought from an is. Greg says yes and you say no, but neither you nor him know this or, if you did, care. On one level I'm on Greg's side, but that doesn't include the ball-grabbing side. I just think one does (can) get ought from is. You say bullshit. Okay. This means you say "Don't fuck with the Jews!" I say, "You shouldn't fuck with the Jews." It's immoral, you see. That's me. It's impractical, you say, for those Jews will kick your ass. I can say that too, and I do, but I can say what I say about the morality too for it's true. So I have both the practical and moral and you have only the practical. The "moral" you call bullshit. Why? Because you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Fortunately, most Jews do. (I hope.)

--Brant

~you don't know the power of the moral~

you're for going to war with ("Go get Ba'al")

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate meat from fish, cows, birds, porkers and, if I'm really hard up, from road kill. Maybe, if stuck in the Donner Pass, from long pig.

--Bratworst

I need more sauce, please, a lot more

put another meat covered skeleton on the barbie--fuck the "star dust;" I got that already

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love steak, hamburger, pork chops, sausage, chicken, turkey, and fish (especially salmon). I haven't had to resort to cannibalism...yet...though some folks have tried to tear chunks out of me from time to time.

Ribeye REB

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Yep. You are as dogmatic as Greg, only in a different way. And neither of you can ever know it.

Unlike Bob, I know it, Brant. :)

I'm completely dogmatic about my subjective opinions. The only way I know whether or not my subjective opinions agree with objective reality is by observing the results of acting on them.

My subjective opinions have been tested by the fire of living them.

 

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Now you sound desperate.

You never consider considered objections; you just repeat with more emphasis. That's why Greg has you by the balls by default. All you are talking about is getting an ought from an is. Greg says yes and you say no, but neither you nor him know this or, if you did, care. On one level I'm on Greg's side, but that doesn't include the ball-grabbing side. I just think one does (can) get ought from is. You say bullshit. Okay. This means you say "Don't fuck with the Jews!" I say, "You shouldn't fuck with the Jews." It's immoral, you see. That's me. It's impractical, you say, for those Jews will kick your ass. I can say that too, and I do, but I can say what I say about the morality too for it's true. So I have both the practical and moral and you have only the practical. The "moral" you call bullshit. Why? Because you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Fortunately, most Jews do. (I hope.)

--Brant

~you don't know the power of the moral~

you're for going to war with ("Go get Bob")

I merely state FACTS.  FACTS  trump principle  each and every time.  According the Wittgenstein  the cosmos is all the facts.  We puny mortals have only a few. Moral rules  are rules of the "game" humans play with each other.  They have no more ontological status than the rules of chess or the rules of bridge.  The main difference is that moral rules are enforced by guns, clubs, chains, and nasty pointy things.  Morality is a -human artifact-.   Before humans there was no morality.  After humans there will be no morality.   All there ever was in the cosmos  were matter and energy in space-time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I merely state FACTS.  FACTS  trump principle  each and every time.  According the Wittgenstein  the cosmos is all the facts.  We puny mortals have only a few. Moral rules  are rules of the "game" humans play with each other.  They have no more ontological status than the rules of chess or the rules of bridge.  The main difference is that moral rules are enforced by guns, clubs, chains, and nasty pointy things.  Morality is a -human artifact-.   Before humans there was no morality.  After humans there will be no morality.   All there ever was in the cosmos  were matter and energy in space-time. 

Yeah. Principles extant in society aren't facts.

At least Greg doesn't use "reason" as a "stolen concept." He's got you there. But because you do you ironically operate on a slightly higher cognitive plane. Thus I can irritate the hell out of you while anything I say to Greg about Greg is like water off a duck's back. Your only safe place is in your math and science beyond the reach of the liberal arts. This is not a math and science forum except for the most basic of the latter of which I personally have a solid methodological understanding.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Yeah. Principles extant in society aren't facts.

At least Greg doesn't use "reason" as a "stolen concept." He's got you there. But because you do you ironically operate on a slightly higher cognitive plane. Thus I can irritate the hell out of you while anything I say to Greg about Greg is like water off a duck's back. Your only safe place is in your math and science beyond the reach of the liberal arts. This is not a math and science forum except for the most basic of the latter of which I personally have a solid methodological understanding.

--Brant

Robert Heinlein, the great American sci fi writer once wrote:  People who cannot cope with mathematics are not fully human.  They may wear shoes and keep themselves clean but they are not fully human. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Robert Heinlein, the great American sci fi writer once wrote:  People who cannot cope with mathematics are not fully human.  They may wear shoes and keep themselves clean but they are not fully human. 

Ah, aside from this fallacy I adequately cope with mathematics. But the way you approach this is like saying you yourself can't cope with mathematics because you aren't Einstein, Newton or Euclid.:)

--Brant

people who can't cope with philosophy . . .

I hope you're enjoying yourself

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Ah, aside from this fallacy I adequately cope with mathematics. But the way you approach this is like saying you yourself can't cope with mathematics because you aren't Einstein, Newton or Euclid.:)

--Brant

people who can't cope with philosophy . . .

I hope you're enjoying yourself

I can cope with philosophy because it requires less brain-work to comprehend than physics or mathematics.  I disdain philosophy because most of it is useless or even harmful.  Metaphysics is mostly useless.   Moral philosophy,  political philosophy and theology are potentially harmful.  For example Plato's "Republic" is a field manual for just about every vicious totalitarian system that has subsequently existed.  Theology particularly Christian and Islamic has led to war, bloodshed, death and tyranny. Political philosophy and economic philosophy has led, in some cases, to tyranny and death.  Thank of Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels in this connection.   Both were enabled by Kant and Hegel.   Mathematics  as such  has not lead to bloodshed.  Physics in its most abstract form is harmless although some applications,  misused and abused have created death and damage.  The misuse of physics is mostly driven by political and economic perversity.  E = mc2  did not shed blood,  but atom-bombs have. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I can cope with philosophy because it requires less brain-work to comprehend than physics or mathematics.  I disdain philosophy because most of it is useless or even harmful.  Metaphysics is mostly useless.   Moral philosophy,  political philosophy and theology are potentially harmful.  For example Plato's "Republic" is a field manual for just about every vicious totalitarian system that has subsequently existed.  Theology particularly Christian and Islamic has led to war, bloodshed, death and tyranny. Political philosophy and economic philosophy has led, in some cases, to tyranny and death.  Thank of Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels in this connection.   Both were enabled by Kant and Hegel.   Mathematics  as such  has not lead to bloodshed.  Physics in its most abstract form is harmless although some applications,  misused and abused have created death and damage.  The misuse of physics is mostly driven by political and economic perversity.  E = mc2  did not shed blood,  but atom-bombs have. 

Math and physics are cradled and nurtured by the philosophy you disdain. As for the brain work needed you've not used very much with philosophy to sort it out properly and since it's mostly bathwater you throw out the baby with it. Philosophy is the least of it, btw. Your brain can get all the difficult complexity you need for bragging rights by getting it around human existence generally respecting sociology, religion, history, philosophy, language, weather, disease, climate, science and and math, warfare, economics, psychology, etc. and integrating these into as close a proper understanding of human being as is possible. There is no need for expertness in any of these fields. There is such a need in knowing how to extract expertise. Each has its own generous amount of bath water.

--Brant

as for physics and mathematics, what level of comprehension are you talking about?

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Math and physics are cradled and nurtured by the philosophy you disdain. As for the brain work needed you've not used very much with philosophy to sort it out properly and since it's mostly bathwater you throw out the baby with it. Philosophy is the least of it, btw. Your brain can get all the difficult complexity you need for bragging rights by getting it around human existence generally respecting sociology, religion, history, philosophy, language, weather, disease, climate, science and and math, warfare, economics, psychology, etc. and integrating these into as close a proper understanding of human being as is possible. There is no need for expertness in any of these fields. There is such a need in knowing how to extract expertise. Each has its own generous amount of bath water.

--Brant

as for physics and mathematics, what level of comprehension are you talking about?

Physics  parted company with Aristotle  back in the 17 th century.  Galileo was an anti-Aristotelian.   Francis Bacon disdained Aristotle as did Thomas Hobbes. Once empirically based  experimentally guided science became the dominant form it was Goodbye (and Good Riddance)  to Aristotle.  These days, most people is the physical sciences have a low opinion of philosophy.  About the only philosopher  the physicists do not disdain   is Karl Popper. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they disdain. They only understand philosophers they disdain to the extent needed to disdain them. I'll certainly concede Aristotle was no scientist, much less an Archimedes. I love Archimedes. I love the Egyptian, sorta back in Archie's time, who figured out by experiment the actual circumference of the earth. I have no love or much appreciation for Aristotle, but maybe I should. I think Rand's right to see him as basically contra Plato. We aren't going to say science flowed from Plato's context, that's for sure.

--Brant

I'd blame the Church rather than Aristotle for the Aristotelism you complain about respecting science just as I'd not blame Rand too much for her Randians

Link to post
Share on other sites

From: "Andrew Taranto" Subject: Starship Troopers (was Re: ATL: collectivized ethics and US intervention) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:37:54 -0500

 

Ellen L replying to Sandra M:

>Joey, you have the great benefit of living in the freest country in the world. I agree with Robert Heinlein's view that citizens should do something to *earn* that citizenship? Ayn Rand earned her citizenship by writing a book that gave an ethical underpinning to laissez-faire capitalism (THE FOUNTAINHEAD) by writing another book that exposed the horrors of life under communism (WE THE LIVING) and by writing ATLAS SHRUGGED and numerous essays that greatly clarified the political and economic thinking of the generations that followed.

 >Robert Heinlein wrote over a period of at least 30 years. I haven't read Starship Troopers but I doubt seriously if he ever really believed that citizenship was to be earned, and if he did I doubt he kept that view.  You might read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for what was probably more his real view point.  I suspect the character of Prof de la Paz was his role in the book.

 

In the Starship Troopers ethos, citizenship was "earned" by ~voluntary~ military service; and one could opt out of one's service at any point. Citizenship then gave one the right to vote and hold public offices. It makes some sense: if one wants political power, one must lay one's life on the line. Conversely, force someone to lay his life on the line, and he becomes a thorn in the government's side when he assumes his rightful position in public office.

 

Also note that non-citizenship did not relegate people to second class status: they were simply barred from voting or holding political offices. Besides the slight enmity between citizens and non-citizens in the book, I really don't think it displayed a caste society in any meaningful sense.

 

I have no idea if Heinlein ~believed~ in this form of polity; but _Starship Troopers_ made a very compelling (and entertaining) thought experiment. If anything, I think Heinlein provided a viable (or at least semi-viable) alternative to the kind of political order we have now, or at least an interesting principle upon which to base such an alternative (i.e., voluntary citizenship, with full individual rights retained by non-citizens).

Laissez-faire,

Andrew Taranto

 

From: Michael Hardy Subject: ATL: Re: Starship Troopers Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:13:32 -0500 (EST)

Andrew Taranto attributed the following to Ellen Lewit: >Robert Heinlein wrote over a period of at least 30 years.

 

      *Only* 30?  Well, it said "at least" 30, but it still seems like a ridiculously small number to assign to this.  Heinlein was diagnosed terminally ill in 1935 (and therefore kicked out of the navy) and died in 1988.  He wrote fiction from 1939 until shortly before his death in 1988, two months before his 81st birthday (he was born on 7/7/07).

 

>I haven't read Starship Troopers but I doubt seriously if he ever really believed that citizenship was to be earned, and if he did I doubt he kept that view.  You might read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for what was probably more his real view point.  I suspect the character of Prof de la Paz was his role in the book.

 

      Heinlein did play Devil's advocate a lot.

 

      But ferchrissake: Heinlein was no good at non-fiction or philosophy.  I've outgrown the stuff he wrote for primarily adult audiences.  The stuff he wrote for 14-year-olds was GREAT, and I recommend it to adults and to everyone else.  It's unfortunate that crap like _Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land_ gets so much publicity and turns people off to Heinlein, and then they never read his "juvenile novels" that were originally serialized in the boy scout magazines during the '50's.  Even _Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land_ was written in an entertaining way, but the plot as a whole has too much silliness that adults will see through.  Not so his "juveniles."  (Yes, they have implausibilities that you can poke holes in if you like pointing out others' imperfections, but they're not important to the value of the stories.)

 

Here are some very good ones:

 

Have Space Suit, Will Travel.

Starman Jones.

The Sky Beast.

Farmer in the Sky.

 

      The protagonist of this last one is perhaps 11 or 12 years old   --- younger than most protagonists of Heinlein's "juveniles."  Here's a very interesting tidbit from it: Bill, the protagonist, is the only child of a widower.  He and his father are going to emigrate to a planet being newly colonized, to which emigration is restricted to married couples with children.  The father will marry a widow with a daughter before their departure.  To the son the prospect of colonizing this primitive place is a great adventure, and of course that's why he wants to go.  One day the father is astonished to learn that the son thinks the father is getting married so that he can emigrate.  And then the son is surprised when the father says that's not how it is.  The father explains that he is emigrating so that he can re-marry.  He wants to make a kind of complete break with his past life and career for emotional reasons.

 

      In the '50's there were some silly movies about monsters attacking cities, and I don't think they dealt with the lawsuits that would ensue.  Clearly if a monster attacks a city then somebody's going to sue somebody, right?  That's a major part of what _The_Sky_ _Beast_ is about.  But it's even more complicated: The monster turns out to have relatives in high political offices, and diplomatic hassles turn out to be most of what the story's about.

 

      In _Starman_Jones_, Max Jones starts out as a subsistence farmer. Getting from there to being a respected professional is a matter of using your head.  That's the story.  What goes on in Max's head – the workings of his intellect and of his conscience -- are followed, but it's not overly, and certainly not explicitly,  psychological.  When I read it at the age of 15, I was totally surprised by a climactic event, which I only much later realized was, like most of Heinlein's fiction, inspired by Heinlein's own biography.  A hint: Heinlein graduated from the Naval Academy.

 

      _Have_Space_Suit,_Will_Travel_ is delightful and anyone who is not delighted by it is a member of the Taliban and is hereby scheduled to be an organ-donor for heart- lung- and liver-patients tomorrow morning.

Everyone here is ordered to read the first chapter of it tonight. You'll love Kip Russell's father.  (It's also the book from which, at the age of 11, I first heard of MIT.)

        Mike Hardy

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

From: "Andrew Taranto" Subject: Starship Troopers (was Re: ATL: collectivized ethics and US intervention) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:37:54 -0500

 

Ellen L replying to Sandra M:

>Joey, you have the great benefit of living in the freest country in the world. I agree with Robert Heinlein's view that citizens should do something to *earn* that citizenship? Ayn Rand earned her citizenship by writing a book that gave an ethical underpinning to laissez-faire capitalism (THE FOUNTAINHEAD) by writing another book that exposed the horrors of life under communism (WE THE LIVING) and by writing ATLAS SHRUGGED and numerous essays that greatly clarified the political and economic thinking of the generations that followed.

 >Robert Heinlein wrote over a period of at least 30 years. I haven't read Starship Troopers but I doubt seriously if he ever really believed that citizenship was to be earned, and if he did I doubt he kept that view.  You might read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for what was probably more his real view point.  I suspect the character of Prof de la Paz was his role in the book.

 

In the Starship Troopers ethos, citizenship was "earned" by ~voluntary~ military service; and one could opt out of one's service at any point. Citizenship then gave one the right to vote and hold public offices. It makes some sense: if one wants political power, one must lay one's life on the line. Conversely, force someone to lay his life on the line, and he becomes a thorn in the government's side when he assumes his rightful position in public office.

 

Also note that non-citizenship did not relegate people to second class status: they were simply barred from voting or holding political offices. Besides the slight enmity between citizens and non-citizens in the book, I really don't think it displayed a caste society in any meaningful sense.

 

I have no idea if Heinlein ~believed~ in this form of polity; but _Starship Troopers_ made a very compelling (and entertaining) thought experiment. If anything, I think Heinlein provided a viable (or at least semi-viable) alternative to the kind of political order we have now, or at least an interesting principle upon which to base such an alternative (i.e., voluntary citizenship, with full individual rights retained by non-citizens).

Laissez-faire,

Andrew Taranto

 

From: Michael Hardy Subject: ATL: Re: Starship Troopers Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:13:32 -0500 (EST)

Andrew Taranto attributed the following to Ellen Lewit: >Robert Heinlein wrote over a period of at least 30 years.

 

      *Only* 30?  Well, it said "at least" 30, but it still seems like a ridiculously small number to assign to this.  Heinlein was diagnosed terminally ill in 1935 (and therefore kicked out of the navy) and died in 1988.  He wrote fiction from 1939 until shortly before his death in 1988, two months before his 81st birthday (he was born on 7/7/07).

 

>I haven't read Starship Troopers but I doubt seriously if he ever really believed that citizenship was to be earned, and if he did I doubt he kept that view.  You might read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for what was probably more his real view point.  I suspect the character of Prof de la Paz was his role in the book.

 

      Heinlein did play Devil's advocate a lot.

 

      But ferchrissake: Heinlein was no good at non-fiction or philosophy.  I've outgrown the stuff he wrote for primarily adult audiences.  The stuff he wrote for 14-year-olds was GREAT, and I recommend it to adults and to everyone else.  It's unfortunate that crap like _Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land_ gets so much publicity and turns people off to Heinlein, and then they never read his "juvenile novels" that were originally serialized in the boy scout magazines during the '50's.  Even _Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land_ was written in an entertaining way, but the plot as a whole has too much silliness that adults will see through.  Not so his "juveniles."  (Yes, they have implausibilities that you can poke holes in if you like pointing out others' imperfections, but they're not important to the value of the stories.)

 

Here are some very good ones:

 

Have Space Suit, Will Travel.

Starman Jones.

The Sky Beast.

Farmer in the Sky.

 

      The protagonist of this last one is perhaps 11 or 12 years old   --- younger than most protagonists of Heinlein's "juveniles."  Here's a very interesting tidbit from it: Bill, the protagonist, is the only child of a widower.  He and his father are going to emigrate to a planet being newly colonized, to which emigration is restricted to married couples with children.  The father will marry a widow with a daughter before their departure.  To the son the prospect of colonizing this primitive place is a great adventure, and of course that's why he wants to go.  One day the father is astonished to learn that the son thinks the father is getting married so that he can emigrate.  And then the son is surprised when the father says that's not how it is.  The father explains that he is emigrating so that he can re-marry.  He wants to make a kind of complete break with his past life and career for emotional reasons.

 

      In the '50's there were some silly movies about monsters attacking cities, and I don't think they dealt with the lawsuits that would ensue.  Clearly if a monster attacks a city then somebody's going to sue somebody, right?  That's a major part of what _The_Sky_ _Beast_ is about.  But it's even more complicated: The monster turns out to have relatives in high political offices, and diplomatic hassles turn out to be most of what the story's about.

 

      In _Starman_Jones_, Max Jones starts out as a subsistence farmer. Getting from there to being a respected professional is a matter of using your head.  That's the story.  What goes on in Max's head – the workings of his intellect and of his conscience -- are followed, but it's not overly, and certainly not explicitly,  psychological.  When I read it at the age of 15, I was totally surprised by a climactic event, which I only much later realized was, like most of Heinlein's fiction, inspired by Heinlein's own biography.  A hint: Heinlein graduated from the Naval Academy.

 

      _Have_Space_Suit,_Will_Travel_ is delightful and anyone who is not delighted by it is a member of the Taliban and is hereby scheduled to be an organ-donor for heart- lung- and liver-patients tomorrow morning.

Everyone here is ordered to read the first chapter of it tonight. You'll love Kip Russell's father.  (It's also the book from which, at the age of 11, I first heard of MIT.)

        Mike Hardy

I read "Citizen of the Galaxy" and "Star Beast" many times as a kid, and everything else he wrote through the next 20-30 years.  Here is Ted Keer's Robert Heinlein page on Radicals for Happinesshttp://radicalsforhappiness.blogspot.com/search/label/Robert Heinlein

It contains a review of Citizen of the Galaxy and Starship Troopers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ted is an interesting person. I think Ted would like to bring back the old west, dueling, and legal, PERSONAL justice.  I am editing this to also mention 007 and his license to kill. Rand thought that was completely moral. Ted's views sound somewhat like Robert Heinlein’s in the following letter.

Peter  

 

From: Ted Keer To: objectivism@wetheliving.com Subject: OWL: License to Kill Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:01:29 -0700. My best friend and lover of years was murdered in a botched robbery five years ago. I concede that the state is not now, if ever, worthy of any trust. The examples of G.H.W. Bush's and Clinton's personally motivated wars, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Amadou Diallo, Rodney King, Abner Louima, and Elian Gonzales, etc., show that agents of the state will go to any end against private citizens.  The stakes for freedom and human rights are too high to leave capital punishment to "O.J. juries", congressional chambers and Christine Todd Whitman's.  The state, and perhaps the culture are indicted.  But am I therefore bound?

 

Do my taxes imprison (feed, clothe, house, educate & entertain) my love's killer?  For whose benefit?  Don't tell me the murderer's imprisonment is for my benefit, I am much smarter, richer and physically imposing than he is.

 

And what of my (if I had one) thirst for revenge?  Will the state protect an (ipso facto rightless) murderer from my free action?  If I kill him will you imprison (feed, clothe, house, educate & entertain) me?  Reductio ad absurdum.

 

Issue me a license to "vent my rage" or just to "carry out my duty." Let the murderer be found guilty of a capital offense in a trial of his peers.  Then, in a second judicial hearing, strip him of his rights, declare him an "outlaw"; that is, out of the protection of the law. Allow myself and the relatives and perhaps friends of the deceased who so wish to file for a license to execute a capital sentence.

 

Let us would be executioners post a bond subject to forfeit to cover the damages due the deceased if he is later found guilty. Let our own lives be forfeit if, in a murder trial, we can be shown to have knowingly executed or used execution to murder an innocent man. Then let us carry out our right to self defense. If the agents of the state cannot be trusted, then maybe private citizens with life and property in jeopardy can.

 

But don't say that private citizens can't be trusted.  Government that is not for by and of the people is tyranny, and a tyranny that protects murderers from victims is ripe for revolution.  Don't fail to protect our rights because the state is corruptible.  The mafia is corruptible, but will serve my ends nonetheless if I buy a contract.  Issue us licenses to execute or we victims may just decide to become outlaws ourselves.

Ted Keer

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Peter.

"Ted is an interesting person".

Yes.  He is an eagle amongst peacocks.  He has the capacity to reason.  An superior memory, intuitive, a Renaissance man, not a rote learner or "scholar" interested only in accumulating trivia about a subject rather than original thinking about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 7:44 AM, Brant Gaede said:

Thus I can irritate the hell out of you while anything I say to Greg about Greg is like water off a duck's back.

You can't offend me, Brant. I'm too dumb to get emotionally upset and angrily blame (unjustly accuse) others...

...or am I.  :wink:

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 8:09 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

 People who cannot cope with mathematics are not fully human.

...and neither are government educated secularists who were taught to deny the objective reality of moral law.

You've been imprinted, Bob...  :wink:

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, moralist said:

...and neither are government educated secularists who were taught to deny the objective reality of moral law.

You've been imprinted, Bob...  :wink:

Greg

Moral Law is man-made.   Which is not to say it is unimportant.  There is nothing in physical law that entails or requires any particular human made moral code. Moral law is an artifact.  It is also necessary to make it possible for humans to live together.  Humans made levers to pry up rocks, sharp edges to cut flesh or wood  and moral laws to live together in a reasonably peaceful fashion.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Moral Law is man-made.  

Your secular government taught you that, Bob... and you're stupid enough to believe them.

Please feel free to believe what public employees told you until the objective reality of your own life lets you know otherwise in no uncertain terms...

 

...and it will... upside your head.

Greg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now