Open Talk of Eugenics

[J.T]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZwoEGcPm2U

Complete Video: http://fora.tv/2011/03/31/Unnatural_Selection_Artificial_Life_and_Designer_B abies

[Dilloduck]

Uh oh---is science giving us a little glimpse of secular morality ?
It sucks when even nature can't get it right.

[revelarts]

Who is this guy called "Society" scientist say they are trying to please.

the kids have to keep up with Mr Society's Children
and Mr Society can't ever afford to help any body.
And Mr Society never gets Sick or Old some how?

Here's a Scientist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnV4RnWcmWo) that has studied psychopaths. He's found that there's a portion of serial killers brain that's turned off. And that many killers have certain specific genes that are the same.

I guess these are the ones we should kill off or "NOT CHOOSE"

but wait a minute He also found that HE, the scientist, had a serial killers brain and the "bad" Genes.
RUH ROH SHAGGY!

He says the only difference, scientifically, he can sense from his history is that he was Showered with love and affection as a child.

And somehow he turned out to be a Peaceful productive Scientist professor, tax payer, high IQ and everything we are told make you more valuable than the average old poor crippled dummy for "society".

So how are we going to pre-choose people if LOVE is a magic cure all for a Serial Killer brain and "bad" Warrior Genes.

Seems to me scientist don't know enough to help choose JACK SQUAT and those that think they do should stop trying to experiment with society. Arrogant murderous douche bags.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnV4RnWcmWo

[J.T]

Uh oh---is science giving us a little glimpse of secular morality ?

Really? You really wanna go with that line of argument?

Should we go over Leviticus and Deuteronomy?

[Dilloduck]

Sure---It's always a hoot to science define right and wrong. They're so wishy washy about it.

[Gunny]

Sure---It's always a hoot to science define right and wrong. They're so wishy washy about it.

No shortage of anti-religious types to try and do it though. Some sound as bad as any tent revival preachers. One in particular refuses to see his own hypocrisy in his ongoing effort to convince someone his religion of scientific theory is better than anyone else's religion.

[J.T]

Sure---It's always a hoot to science define right and wrong.
Firstly, I'm having difficulty deciphering just what the hell string of words is supposed to mean. Was that supposed to be a sentence?

Secondly, science cannot rule on matters of morality or ethics. Science can make clear the matter in question (for instance, biology shows us that human life begins at conception at that a woman's child is not not 'her body'). Science can examine the brain can, in theory, tell explain the experience of morality and even the moral ethic. However, the physical sciences are incapable of passing moral judgement until 'right' and 'wrong' can be detected as charges, spins on particles, or otherwise material things to be measured in accordance with the scientific method. Moral and Ethical judgement fall to philosophy, not science.

Thirdly, I haven't heard anyone try to claim science could pass moral judgement in a good 70 years- and that was the [Social] Darwinists who advocated their own philosophy of capitalism, predation, exploitation, and the equation of might with moral rightness.

It's also worth noting that, as compulsory rather than liberal (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Liberal_eugenics) eugenicists, they were advocates of a more authoritarian state and the concentration of huge sums of power in the hands of the wealthy elites. Their thinking evolved from the 'Divine Right' of kings and the rightful social order and caste system and the concept of a 'Chosen' or superior race (both concepts inherited primarily from the judeo-christian tradition).

Their intellectual and physical progeny continue their work to this day. Bill Gates speaks of depopulation, American fascists (whose last attempt (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Business_Plot) at an open coup was foiled by Smedley Butler (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Smedley_Butler)) continue to drive for the unification of State and monied (corporate) power, Planned parenthood continues to advocate means of reducing the population among the Lower Tenth (especially Negroes), the National Education Association and other government-schooling organizations continue to strive to replace the parents and program the youth to accept the coming order as they outlined in their own internal documents in the past, the IMF, World Bank, Vatican Bank, and other institutions continue to use their wealth and their control over the world's military might (through the purchasing of key [s]elected officials to hold sway over those nations with great material resources so the masses remain poor while a few elites become fabulously rich, and the media continues to play its role on providing the circuses to keep the masses contented and obedient.


In our dreams... people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions [intellectual and character education] fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk.
-General Education Board, Occasional Letter Number One, 1906

[Gunny]

Firstly, I'm having difficulty deciphering just what the hell string of words is supposed to mean. Was that supposed to be a sentence?

Secondly, science cannot rule on matters of morality or ethics. Science can make clear the matter in question (for instance, biology shows us that human life begins at conception at that a woman's child is not not 'her body'). Science can examine the brain can, in theory, tell explain the exoerience of morality and even the moral ethic. However, the physical sciences are incapable of passing moral judgement until 'right' and 'wrong' can be detected as charges, spins on particles, or otherwise material things to be measured in accordance with the scientific method. Moral and Ethical judgement fall to philosophy, not science.

Interesting. Who exactly attempted to drag Judaism into the fray? All dillo did was comment on that.

[revelarts]

Uh oh---is science giving us a little glimpse of secular morality ?
It sucks when even nature can't get it right.


Really? You really wanna go with that line of argument?

Should we go over Leviticus and Deuteronomy?


Sounds Like the old "I know you are but what am I?" argument.
Doesn't give the secular "science only" based position any more substance.



Firstly, I'm having difficulty deciphering just what the hell string of words is supposed to mean. Was that supposed to be a sentence?

Secondly, science cannot rule on matters of morality or ethics. Science can make clear the matter in question (for instance, biology shows us that human life begins at conception at that a woman's child is not not 'her body'). Science can examine the brain can, in theory, tell explain the experience of morality and even the moral ethic. However, the physical sciences are incapable of passing moral judgement until 'right' and 'wrong' can be detected as charges, spins on particles, or otherwise material things to be measured in accordance with the scientific method. Moral and Ethical judgement fall to philosophy, not science.

Thirdly, I haven't heard anyone try to claim science could pass moral judgement in a good 70 years- and that was the [Social] Darwinists who advocated their own philosophy of capitalism, predation, exploitation, and the equation of might with moral rightness.

It's also worth noting that, as compulsory rather than liberal (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Liberal_eugenics) eugenicists, they were advocates of a more authoritarian state and the concentration of huge sums of power in the hands of the wealthy elites. Their thinking evolved from the 'Divine Right' of kings and the rightful social order and caste system and the concept of a 'Chosen' or superior race (both concepts inherited primarily from the judeo-christian tradition)....


I think you give a pretty good assessment. Thanks. But you say that you haven't heard of "might makes right" idea (based clearly on the "science" of evolution BTW not Judeo Christian spurious divine Right of Kings). promoted for 70 years but then you point to it's progeny today. So it's still around. And many people in the sciences do ,almost by default, end up in that position though they may put up moral breaks at various points. many stop at Eugenics. Others , as you've pointed out again, while they understand that Biologically a fetus is Human DON'T based their moral decision on that COMPLETELY provable fact of science but Appeal to some other Population theories and finally "scientific" Evolutionary based EUGENICS type concepts. Often mixed with nebulous social planning theories.
I appreciate you position on Abortion. However many people who reject the Judeo Christian Brand of Morality do not 1st go to the Philosophy to determine theire morals. their Base is the SCIENCE of the Day. and the bedrock for today's science is Evolution, which declares "survival of the fittest" is LAW. And I've yet to hear a modern Philosopher do much more than ASSERT that we must or SHOULD go beyond this supposed obvious LAW of NATURE when we come to moral questions.
I suppose, as you say, that Science is looking for the Moral Gene or Particles. However at this point there's no such thing only theories as to Why human APPEAR to have Moral leanings.
But at this point it's still an open question (for other it's just not there) and Science doesn't give a definitive answer so people , ungrounded by Judeo-Christian Morals feel free to explore their own. From various forms of pragmatism to the idea that morals are completely ridiculous. (since we can't explain it in an evolutionary scientific context.)
So DDuck's question is a decent one.
Put another way, Where do morals come from? Philosophers have argued for centuries over it. But the current secular society doesn't want to believe anything if it doesn't have a scientific (evolutionary) base, but morals don't have a clear place. So modern folks are left in limbo with no clear direction how to CHOOSE or DISCOVER a clear standard for morality.

But it's not really a hoot though is it?

Judges 17:6
In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Zechariah 7:10-12
10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.’

11 “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and covered their ears. 12 They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the LORD Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets.

[J.T]

But you say that you haven't heard of "might makes right" idea... promoted for 70 years
No, I said 'I haven't heard anyone try to claim science could pass moral judgement in a good 70 years'.


(based clearly on the "science" of evolution BTW not Judeo Christian spurious divine Right of Kings).

Wait, so god's power over the universe making him the rightful ruler over mankind was based on a scientific understanding of biology and procreation that would not be put forth for another three thousand years?


And many people in the sciences do ,almost by default, end up in that position

What position, exactly?

while they understand that Biologically a fetus is Human DON'T based their moral decision on that COMPLETELY provable fact of science
So, it's a human being. So what? That means nothing other than it is human. Whether killing a human being is morally aberrant or justifiable is a moral and an ethical question, not one of physics or biology. Hence it is subject to the realm of philosophy, not of the physical sciences.



However many people who reject the Judeo Christian Brand of Morality do not 1st go to the Philosophy to determine theire morals. their Base is the SCIENCE of the Day
No, they don't. Because that would be impossible. There is no scientific test that can measure the 'moral' or 'immoral' spin on a particle representing a given action. Science can clarify the matter at hand, but moral and ethical judgement will always be based on morality [read: the moral instinct], ethics, and philosophy. Thermodynamics cannot explain gravity. Biological evolution cannot explain star formation. And no known science can measure morality or pass moral judgement. Whenever someone passes moral judgement they do so based on their own moral-ethical complex (formed by the moral instinct, personal experience, the greater social ethic of the collective acting in turn upon the individual, and their own psychology and philosophy)- regardless of how else they might dress it up.


. and the bedrock for today's science is Evolution, which declares "survival of the fittest" is LAW
Not quite. It's much more complex than that. What is 'fit' can suddenly become rather unfit for survival if the environment changes. Just look at elephants. Their tusks were once an asset in the fight for mates. However, they made them more attractive to a new predator (humans) and those with the largest tusks were killed. Now we see a reduction average tusk size and a growing number of male elephants with no tusks to speak of because those with the genetics for large tusks are being removed from the population and those with smaller tusks are able to produce more offspring during their longer lifespans.


. And I've yet to hear a modern Philosopher do much more than ASSERT that we must or SHOULD go beyond this supposed obvious LAW of NATURE when we come to moral questions.

.... I'm sure you've heard of Hume's Guillotine already.


I suppose, as you say, that Science is looking for the Moral Gene or Particles.
Not that I've ever heard of. The closest I'm aware of would be evolutionary psychology, which seeks to explain the emergence of the moral instinct through a sociobilogical approach. I'm not aware of anyone whose ever proposed moral values can be detected as physical manifestations within the material universe or anything of the sort.


people , ungrounded by Judeo-Christian Morals feel free to explore their own. From various forms of pragmatism to the idea that morals are completely ridiculous.
All matters of philosophy.


(since we can't explain it in an evolutionary scientific context.)
See the above. The basic premise of the field is that the same mechanism that tells salmon to swim upstream or babies to suckle at a teat can also play a role in why animals would have basic (if sometimes conflicting) instincts surrounding the killing of members of the ingroup and of the outgroup. Salmon show us that behavior can have a genetic basis insomuch as DNA instructs the body in the formation of the brain and the brain is what gives rise to the mind, experience, and the behavior of conscious agents. This is why we can predict much of the behavior of a dog, bear, cougar, or whale, simply by knowing that is it a dog, bear, cougar, or whale.



Put another way, Where do morals come from?

Where do any instincts come from?

So modern folks are left in limbo with no clear direction how to CHOOSE or DISCOVER a clear standard for morality.


Really? I just follow my conscience, and it works for me- and at the end of the day, does it matter whether it's the product of millions of years of evolution acting upon brain structure development, some bizarre particle changing its spin based on the presence of SIN particles and RIGHTEOUSNESS particles in the local environment, the changing wight of my heart (which will be weighed against a magical feather upon my death), or just about anything else? At the end of the day I don't have to live with mutation, selection, physics, or Immanuel Kant. At the end of the day, I have to live with my conscience.

So at the end of the day, I think I'll just continue to use my own conscience as my moral compass. Maybe you're lost with nothing to guide you. I have my conscience- and that's all I really need.

That book you're quoting also advocates genocide and says that a young girl who is raped should be forced to marry her rapist and serve him sexually as a 'good wife' for the rest of her life. You really want to say we should use that book- written by unknown hands thousands of years ago to serve as a system of social control- as a legitimate and final source of morality and ethics?

[revelarts]

No, I said 'I haven't heard anyone try to claim science could pass moral judgement in a good 70 years'.


Wait, so god's power over the universe making him the rightful ruler over mankind was based on a scientific understanding of biology and procreation that would not be put forth for another three thousand years?



What position, exactly?

So, it's a human being. So what? That means nothing other than it is human. Whether killing a human being is morally aberrant or justifiable is a moral and an ethical question, not one of physics or biology. Hence it is subject to the realm of philosophy, not of the physical sciences.



No, they don't. Because that would be impossible. There is no scientific test that can measure the 'moral' or 'immoral' spin on a particle representing a given action. Science can clarify the matter at hand, but moral and ethical judgement will always be based on morality [read: the moral instinct], ethics, and philosophy. Thermodynamics cannot explain gravity. Biological evolution cannot explain star formation. And no known science can measure morality or pass moral judgement. Whenever someone passes moral judgement they do so based on their own moral-ethical complex (formed by the moral instinct, personal experience, the greater social ethic of the collective acting in turn upon the individual, and their own psychology and philosophy)- regardless of how else they might dress it up.
Not quite. It's much more complex than that. What is 'fit' can suddenly become rather unfit for survival if the environment changes. Just look at elephants. Their tusks were once an asset in the fight for mates. However, they made them more attractive to a new predator (humans) and those with the largest tusks were killed. Now we see a reduction average tusk size and a growing number of male elephants with no tusks to speak of because those with the genetics for large tusks are being removed from the population and those with smaller tusks are able to produce more offspring during their longer lifespans.


.... I'm sure you've heard of Hume's Guillotine already.
Not that I've ever heard of. The closest I'm aware of would be evolutionary psychology, which seeks to explain the emergence of the moral instinct through a sociobilogical approach. I'm not aware of anyone whose ever proposed moral values can be detected as physical manifestations within the material universe or anything of the sort.

All matters of philosophy.

See the above. The basic premise of the field is that the same mechanism that tells salmon to swim upstream or babies to suckle at a teat can also play a role in why animals would have basic (if sometimes conflicting) instincts surrounding the killing of members of the ingroup and of the outgroup. Salmon show us that behavior can have a genetic basis insomuch as DNA instructs the body in the formation of the brain and the brain is what gives rise to the mind, experience, and the behavior of conscious agents. This is why we can predict much of the behavior of a dog, bear, cougar, or whale, simply by knowing that is it a dog, bear, cougar, or whale.

Really? I just follow my conscience, and it works for me- and at the end of the day, does it matter whether it's the product of millions of years of evolution acting upon brain structure development, some bizarre particle changing its spin based on the presence of SIN particles and RIGHTEOUSNESS particles in the local environment, the changing wight of my heart (which will be weighed against a magical feather upon my death), or just about anything else? At the end of the day I don't have to live with mutation, selection, physics, or Immanuel Kant. At the end of the day, I have to live with my conscience.

So at the end of the day, I think I'll just continue to use my own conscience as my moral compass. Maybe you're lost with nothing to guide you. I have my conscience- and that's all I really need.



You start by saying Science has nothing to do with it . Then by the end your saying that Evolution has created instinct and mind. And Behaviour has a genitic bases. So I'm confused.
Do morals have a genetic bases, or only "animals" actions, or does the conscience transcend genetics. If Conscience transcend genetics and scientific. What philosophy or logic do you align yourself with or is it as the verse I quote says. "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes."




That book you're quoting also advocates genocide and says that a young girl who is raped should be forced to marry her rapist and serve him sexually as a 'good wife' for the rest of her life. You really want to say we should use that book- written by unknown hands thousands of years ago to serve as a system of social control- as a legitimate and final source of morality and ethics?

Yes,
My conscience tells me it the right thing to do.

[J.T]

You start by saying Science has nothing to do with it . Then by the end your saying that Evolution has created instinct and mind. And Behaviour has a genitic bases. So I'm confused.
What's so confusing about it? The brain evolves. The mind emerges from the electrochemical processes of the brain. Genetics (along with environmental factors) guide the development of the brain. While the exact mechanism is currently unknown to us, instincts are species-wide and, in some cases, species-specific, which means they must be tied to DNA- that which determines species in the first place. Hence, they are subject to evolution, as their underlying cause is subject to evolution.

This can explain the moral instinct like any other instinctual behavior or species-wide driving force involving the brain and mind. This doesn't mean the moral instinct reflects any 'true' or objectionable measurement or determination moral right or wrong. It can explain why we evolved to experience certain moral instincts (species which have an instinct to kill their own young would likely be less fit than those with instincts to protect their young), but doesn't mean it's right.

In matters of morality, science has only the power to describe. Prescription is wholly outside the realm of the material universe and, therefore, of the physical sciences. The power of moral prescription belongs not to science but to philosophy.


Do morals have a genetic bases

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

http://www.amazon.com/Sociobiology-New-Synthesis-Twenty-Fifth-Anniversary/dp/0674002350


does the conscience transcend genetics

The mind is emergent from the brain. The structures of the brain are inseparably tied to the emergence of the mind. However, the mind's every operation does not appear prescribed by genetics, nor reflected in the epigenome or even brain structures. Some things, such as the formation of memory, are reflected in tiny changes in the physical brain. Others, however, appear to be reflected only in electrochemical processes. How, exactly, the mind comes into existence and how it operates are as yet not fully understood, though we are learning what structures appear necessary for this to occur. This is the biggest question facing neurobiology today. As physics seeks to unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, neurobiology seeks to explain the mind.





That book you're quoting also advocates genocide and says that a young girl who is raped should be forced to marry her rapist and serve him sexually as a 'good wife' for the rest of her life.
My conscience tells me it the right thing to do.

There is nothing left to be said on the morality of your morality once you give the stamp of approval to genocide and forcing rape victims into sexual slavery.

[revelarts]

What's so confusing about it? The brain evolves. The mind emerges from the electrochemical processes of the brain. Genetics (along with environmental factors) guide the development of the brain. While the exact mechanism is currently unknown to us, instincts are species-wide and, in some cases, species-specific, which means they must be tied to DNA- that which determines species in the first place. Hence, they are subject to evolution, as their underlying cause is subject to evolution.

This can explain the moral instinct like any other instinctual behavior or species-wide driving force involving the brain and mind. This doesn't mean the moral instinct reflects any 'true' or objectionable measurement or determination moral right or wrong. It can explain why we evolved to experience certain moral instincts (species which have an instinct to kill their own young would likely be less fit than those with instincts to protect their young), but doesn't mean it's right.

In matters of morality, science has only the power to describe. Prescription is wholly outside the realm of the material universe and, therefore, of the physical sciences. The power of moral prescription belongs not to science but to philosophy.


https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

http://www.amazon.com/Sociobiology-New-Synthesis-Twenty-Fifth-Anniversary/dp/0674002350



The mind is emergent from the brain. The structures of the brain are inseparably tied to the emergence of the mind. However, the mind's every operation does not appear prescribed by genetics, nor reflected in the epigenome or even brain structures. Some things, such as the formation of memory, are reflected in tiny changes in the physical brain. Others, however, appear to be reflected only in electrochemical processes. How, exactly, the mind comes into existence and how it operates are as yet not fully understood, though we are learning what structures appear necessary for this to occur. This is the biggest question facing neurobiology today. As physics seeks to unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, neurobiology seeks to explain the mind.

Parts of this answer are great! thanks. But I think you missed the jist of my questions. but you have parse the nature vs philosophy bit to a degree that most people don't. many scientist and others do allow for the idea that "instinct" can and does prescribe what morality is. At least to some degree. And you mentioned that Philosophy isn't really your guide but you conscious, which you describe as an unknown factor.

If there's no fixed philosophical moral standard and conscious is your FINAL guide it sounds like your using philosophy as a tool to question the possible limits or a basis of morality rather than setting any standards.



There is nothing left to be said on the morality of your morality once you give the stamp of approval to genocide and forcing rape victims into sexual slavery.
Of course I think you misrepresent the Bible's overall moral character by selective partial examples but here's my real real question based on your answer.
You say your Conscious is your guide for morals but when i say conscious is my guide for my choice/compulsion of a moral standard you rail against it's mispreceived problems.


Why should your Conscious driven choice trump my Conscious driven choice. if a man's conscious the "FINAL" and best arbiter?

[J.T]

If there's no fixed philosophical moral standard and conscious is your FINAL guide it sounds like your using philosophy as a tool to question the possible limits or a basis of morality rather than setting any standards.

Keep in mind that one's conscience is not fixed. A child will steal what it wants without a second thought and soldiers are trained with the very intention of overcoming the moral compulsion to not kill another human being. A study some 50 years ago found that most soldiers would not even fire their weapon in combat, and that most of those who did would intentionally miss. After this was learned, the military set out to find a way to overcome this moral conflict. A child can be reared in such a way as to have no qualms about slaughter and theft (the media likes to call this 'desensitization') or in such a way as to find even the idea of crushing an insect morally abhorrent (as with certain Jainist sekts in the past). So we see that instinct is merely the foundation of personal morality, while the influence and impact of the social ethic (itself a reflection of the personal morality of the individuals comprising the social collective, subject to the compromise and pragmatism of the social contract) and philosophy. These changes in personal morality then reflect back in the development of one's personal philosophy (as what philosophies to which one is open to honest consideration) and one's position in matters of the social contract and common ethic. It is because they are all so entwined, each influencing the development of the other, that I refer to them collectively as a complex.



Of course I think you misrepresent the Bible's overall moral character

It's overall character? Simple: Might makes right. YHWH/El's authority is always said to emanate, not from its moral righteousness (you know, rape, genocide, and the slaughter of children), but from its power The Christian heaven is described in their holy books as a theocratic dictatorship where any who question the tyrant face the most terrible punishment imaginable. Commandments to kill all non-Jews are justified on the basis God is strong and therefore whatever he says must be right.

You say your Conscious is your guide for morals but when i say conscious is my guide for my choice/compulsion of a moral standard you rail against it's mispreceived problems.

You never said you conscience was your guide. You said your guide was a book advocating tearing open the bellies of pregnant women. You said only that your conscience said it was right to follow, not your conscience itself, but the genocidal orders written in a book by unknown hands.



That book you're quoting also advocates genocide and says that a young girl who is raped should be forced to marry her rapist and serve him sexually as a 'good wife' for the rest of her life. You really want to say we should use that book- written by unknown hands thousands of years ago to serve as a system of social control- as a legitimate and final source of morality and ethics?
Yes

Can we get a little consistency on your part, please?

[revelarts]

can we get a little less equivaction on your part and answer my question?


and...




Yes,
My conscience tells me it the right thing to do.

A little more Honesty in representing what I said.
Being honest about what other have said doesn't fall outside of your philosophical/instinctual/social contract driven complex does it?

[J.T]

Yes,
My conscience tells me it the right thing to do.


And what question were you answering?


That book you're quoting also advocates genocide and says that a young girl who is raped should be forced to marry her rapist and serve him sexually as a 'good wife' for the rest of her life. You really want to say we should use that book- written by unknown hands thousands of years ago to serve as a system of social control- as a legitimate and final source of morality and ethics?




A little more Honesty in representing what I said.

:rolleyes:


Go to post 10.The first thing I had to do was address your lies before this conversation could even begin.




Being honest about what other have said doesn't fall outside of your philosophical/instinctual/social contract driven complex does it?
Nope. That's why I've been honest in this thread, unlike you.

[revelarts]

lets try this again...

Of course I think you misrepresent the Bible's overall moral character by selective partial examples but here's my real real question based on your answer.
You say your Conscious (evolutionarily derived at least foundationally to human instinct to qualified social ethics to filtered personal philosophy) is your guide for morals but when i say conscious (spiritually Derived and confirmed via personal spiritual experience and clarified via the Holy Scriptures (which would in your view be just another social ethic... philosophy)) is my guide for my choice/compulsion of a moral standard you rail against it's mispreceived problems.



Why should your Conscious driven choice trump my Conscious driven choice. if a man's conscious the "FINAL" and best arbiter?

[J.T]

You say your Conscious
How many times have you read the word in this thread? And you still can't get it right?

No wonder you're so confused; you can't read.


evolutionarily derived at least foundationally to human instinct to qualified social ethics to filtered personal philosophy

Once more- in English this time...

[revelarts]

Ok JT it's fine you don't have to answer the question?

Here's an answer, it may not be one you want to embrace, but the fact is your conscience has no authority and can make no factual claim that it's judgment is of morality is better than mine.
At least based on the system you've described for determining morality.

Nothing in your view of

a foundationally evolutionarily derived
human instinct...
which grew and mixed with qualified social ethics...
then filtered by philosophy...
finally directed by your own personal unknown/unexplainable inner guide...

which would compel me to take your view of morality over my own, or anyone elses for that matter.



Judges 17:6
In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Zechariah 7:10-12
10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.’

11 “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and covered their ears. 12 They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the LORD Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets.

[J.T]

Damn, you're stupid. Here, let me summarize your post for you: J.T is right.

You can't sit there and repeat what I already said and had to explain to your ignorant ass (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31794-Open-Talk-of-Eugenics&p=478028#post478028) and then claim I 'don't want to embrace' what I already had to explain to you. Unless, that is, you're either a fucking retard or a compulsive liar.

What is your obsession with that book? You love raping babies and killing pregnant women and want an excuse to force your neighbor's virgin daughter to serve as your legal sex slave for the rest of her miserable life?


if a man finds a young woman who is [a virgin and] not engaged to be married, and he rapes her, and they are found, then the man that lay with her shall give the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has humbled her. And he may not divorce her in all his days

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does...Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer


Why, other than your desire for child sex slaves, would you be eager to convince people this book is such a great source of ethics and law?

[revelarts]

Damn, you're stupid. Here, let me summarize your post for you: J.T is right.

You can't sit there and repeat what I already said and had to explain to your ignorant ass (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31794-Open-Talk-of-Eugenics&p=478028#post478028) and then claim I 'don't want to embrace' what I already had to explain to you. Unless, that is, you're either a fucking retard or a compulsive liar.

What is your obsession with that book? You love raping babies and killing pregnant women and want an excuse to force your neighbor's virgin daughter to serve as your legal sex slave for the rest of her miserable life?


if a man finds a young woman who is [a virgin and] not engaged to be married, and he rapes her, and they are found, then the man that lay with her shall give the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has humbled her. And he may not divorce her in all his days

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does...Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer


Why, other than your desire for child sex slaves, would you be eager to convince people this book is such a great source of ethics and law?



Um... I'm sorry But,
Why should your conscience driven choice trump my conscience driven choice. if a man's conscience is the "FINAL" and best arbiter?
I still don't see your answer to that in your rant.

[J.T]

Click the link, genius. I've explained this to you already in this thread, Click and go read.

Now... why are you so eager to evade the matter at hand? Why are you so eager to convince people child sex slaves are a good and genocide is okay (you know, like in that book you love so much)?

[Wind Song]

No shortage of anti-religious types to try and do it though. Some sound as bad as any tent revival preachers. One in particular refuses to see his own hypocrisy in his ongoing effort to convince someone his religion of scientific theory is better than anyone else's religion.

No bias in this post, LOL.

If we ever get eugenics, it will be the religious types who ask for it. Eliminate the non-believers and the homos.

"In the United States after World War I, new ideas like the importance of environmental influences and the more complex concept of multi-gene effects in inheritance had slowed scientific justification for eugenics, but this knowledge did not slow pressure for legislation, judicial action, or immigration controls. Such measures were supported by organized religions - Protestant, Jewish, and Catholic - all promoting eugenics at official functions. To support the notion that eugenics was a "...science whose message moved effortlessly from laboratory to church", the American Eugenics Society sponsored a cross-country "eugenics sermon contest" (III. Rosen 2004, p. 4)."
http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/publications/scopenotes/sn28.htm

Historian B. H. Roberts, notes an eugenic attitude regarding polygamy:
It was in the name of a divinely ordered species of eugenics that Latter Day Saints accepted the revelation which included a plurality of wives. Polygamy would have afforded the opportunity of producing from that consecrated fatherhood and motherhood the improved type of man the world needs to reveal the highest possibilities of the race, that the day of the super man might come, and with him come also the redemption and betterment of the race. [20]
http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/2008/11/fatal-inheritance-mormon-eugenics.html

Bible verses were reinterpreted and found to contain what had theretofore been secret eugenics messages. Thus, in one minister's sermon, Noah's flood was God's own eugenics policy for eliminating a human race that had degraded and become inferior. Others insisted that Christ's Parable of the Talents was actually about improving the population: In eugenics exegeses, "Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him," took on a whole new meaning.

While some notable leaders of the broader eugenics movement kept their distance from all things religious, the American Eugenics Society recognized the importance of church leaders in selling eugenics theory to average Americans. Toward this end, the society appointed the Reverend Harry Emerson Fosdick, whose radio program, National Vespers, reached two or three million listeners each week, to its advisory council. Securing the endorsement of Fosdick, one of the nation's most famous preachers, was a major coup for eugenics.

The American Eugenics Society's Committee on Cooperation with Clergymen also sponsored eugenics sermon contests, open to all ministers, priests, rabbis, and theology students. The sermon had to be preached to a regular congregation in a church or synagogue, and the minister had to take up the question, "Religion and Eugenics: Does the church have any responsibility for improving the human stock?" The prizes ranged up to $500, a hefty sum in the mid-1920s.

Many lay popularizers of eugenics also appealed to religious traditions to promote their agenda. The most notable, it seems, was Albert Edward Wiggam, who traveled the lecture circuit promoting eugenics as "the final program for the complete Christianization of mankind." Wiggam even rewrote the Ten Commandments, in which "The Duty of Eugenics" replaced "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The "Duty of Scientific Research" supplanted the proscription against making graven images, while the "Duty of Preferential Reproduction" replaced "Thou shalt not kill."
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2004/NRL08/preaching_eugenics_religious_lea.htm

[fj1200]

If we ever get eugenics, it will be the religious types who ask for it. Eliminate the non-believers and the homos.

You mean because all of the religious leaders that are openly calling for the expansion of abortion rights and all of the secularist leftists that thought Palin should abort Trig for the good of society? :rolleyes:

[J.T]

You mean because all of the religious leaders that are openly calling for the expansion of abortion rights and all of the secularist leftists that thought Palin should abort Trig for the good of society? :rolleyes:


“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better,” Bauer said.


You people just can't see past the false left-right thing, can you?

See... this is why you people need benevolent overseers to take care of things for you. If you can't even figure out something as simple as this matter, how could you ever hope to govern yourselves without the kind and guiding hand of your superiors?




People don't want true liberty and self-determination. People need to given rules to follow. They need something or someone to obey that allows them to tell themselves that they're doing what they're supposed to instead of truly having to decide for themselves what is right and good. That is why they turn to priests to give them the gods' rules or to governments to set laws or to their peers and elders to teach them what is socially acceptable.

Nor can society function without its benevolent dictators. Pure democracy would never allow an interstate system or the development of one plan for the city sewer system. Even representative democracy must be guided by the true shapers and architects of the world. People don't want to vote between 20 candidates for mayor or 3000 presidential candidates or every person's fiscal plan. They need to be told who the authorities are- regardless of whether history shows their given school to be accurate or whether there might be better ideas forwarded from a more obscure thinker. They need to be have the choices narrowed down for them so that they can tend to their daily tasks and choose, in the limited time available to them, from the options presented. Just as a parent must decide what foods to offer a child to choose from based on what is best for both child and parent, the architects of the carnal world must act as parents, teachers, guides, guardians, and benevolent overseers to make human progress and society as we know it possible.

[fj1200]

You people just can't see past the false left-right thing, can you?

You mean when a lefty-atheist bashes his version of a righty-religious position? :rolleyes: I figure you would like his style because you both create your own opposition to argue against.


See... this is why you people need benevolent overseers to take care of things for you. If you can't even figure out something as simple as this matter, how could you ever hope to govern yourselves without the kind and guiding hand of your superiors?

Says that one who can't seem to justify his position beyond the talking point level.

[J.T]

You mean when a lefty-atheist bashes his version of a righty-religious position?
I don't see left and right.

I certainly don't buy the line that the two dominant parties represent such a dichotomy.


The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.
- Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hopehttp://www.debatepolicy.com/image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7


The sum of history is represented in the struggle for power and prosperity between classes and factions. Power does not serve ideology; ideology serves power and interest.

[fj1200]

People don't want true liberty and self-determination. People need to given rules to follow. They need something or someone to obey that allows them to tell themselves...

'This then is the Law of Liberty: you possess all Liberty in your own right,

You know something? You're pretty much a walking contradiction. You express desire for "liberty and self-determination" but yearn for the days of "Socialism," high taxation, protection against foreign producers, etc.

So which is it going to be? Someone who will limit choices in your life and the freedom to make your own decisions?


I don't see left and right.

I certainly don't buy the line that the two dominant parties represent such a dichotomy.

Yes, you're so enlightened. :rolleyes: Most here don't argue left/right, they argue control/freedom. The parties are supposed to represent that and it's unfortunate that they do not to the extent that they should. Now that things have gone farther than they should you get the rise of the Tea Party; certainly goes against your dichotomy doesn't it?


The sum of history is represented in the struggle for power and prosperity between classes and factions. Power does not serve ideology; ideology serves power and interest.

Now you're the one here who is advocating a powerful central government with ever increasing control over everyday life.

[Wind Song]

You mean because all of the religious leaders that are openly calling for the expansion of abortion rights and all of the secularist leftists that thought Palin should abort Trig for the good of society? :rolleyes:
What are you talking about?

[J.T]

Yes, you're so enlightened. :rolleyes: Most here don't argue left/right, they argue control/freedom. The parties are supposed to represent that
One party is supposed to represent control? You mean like a Fascist party sympathetic to the sorts behind the Business Plot?


The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.
- Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hopehttp://www.debatepolicy.com/image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7




Now you're the one here who is advocating a powerful central government with ever increasing control over everyday life.

I've never advocated any such thing. I've prescribed quite the opposite. I have, however, described the reasons for the current Order, its rise, and its continuation- as well as those to come before. The elites are already working to construct the coming Order in accordance with their own interests and inflict their will. If the masses refuse or fail to do likewise, then they will get exactly what they have long been content with.

[fj1200]

What are you talking about?

Thought so.

[fj1200]

One party is supposed to represent control? You mean like a Fascist party sympathetic to the sorts behind the Business Plot?

You're calling Democrats Fascists? Strong stuff, you must have like Jonah Goldberg's book.


I've never advocated any such thing. I've prescribed quite the opposite.

The 50's are not the opposite.

[BoogyMan]

Really? You really wanna go with that line of argument?

Should we go over Leviticus and Deuteronomy?

Man is not under the law presented in Leviticus and Deuteronomy today so go ahead, you will make a fairly silly argument.

[Wind Song]

Plenty of people are in favor of eugenics, as long as it takes care of ridding the world of the human beings they can't stand.

[J.T]

Plenty of people are in favor of eugenics

You would rather not use preventative medicine to ensure your child did not suffer a terrible illness?

Do you deny your children good food, clean water, and proper hygiene?