Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of theCelestrian
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - theCelestrian

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: April 04, 2007, 10:58:38 PM »
I wasn't being defense, just trying to drive the point home.

Don't be so defensive, I'm just trying to understand.  Morality is then based on reason.  It is therefor reasonable to be moral?  Is this what you are saying?  Reasonable beings would naturally be moral?  We are only moral to the extent that we are reasonable?  Immoral people are unreasonable?  Am I close?

I honestly don't know if morality is based on reason, or if it's a mix of "logical reasoning" and some level of empathy, since most Moralities do require the ability to look beyond yourself, even if it's "self-interest" that drives you.  (Example:  "I want to be free, so in order for me to be free I have to let others be free too...otherwise they might try to oppress me)

I also should caution you that "morality" is not always necessarily "good."  I could have a "fascist morality" (the strong rule the weak), and most would agree that this morality is "immoral" baed upon their own moral standpoints. So technically, this statement:

e are only moral to the extent that we are reasonable?

Is accurate, as without a brain and the ability to reason, I cannot adopt any morality,....even if that morality is an aggressive, "harmful" one to others around me.

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: April 04, 2007, 10:27:08 PM »
So an individual's morality is based on the belief that others are self-aware or conscious

No, morality is based on human beings (or other species) having a brain capable of reasoning and thus "discovering" (but it reality it's "making") morality.  No reasoning/consciousness...no morality.

But if you doubt me, try having a morality/metaphysics discussion with your favorite pet.

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: April 04, 2007, 09:31:49 PM »
Show me a human who is in a persitant vegitative state that has, and can communicate, a morality.

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: April 04, 2007, 07:50:07 PM »
Is this to say you believe morailty to be genetic?

I know this wasn't directed at my, but I'll enter my 2c on this:

I would say that in a way, yes, morality (in all its flavors) in the broadest sense is "genetic" in a very real way.  This is because morality is a result of having a mind capable of reasoning and understanding how one's actions and behaviors affect other rational beings and the environment around them.  That requires a brain with enough complexity in order to happen, which is a direct result of our genes, Gene. ;)

Plants, and Animals are amoral; They have no morality, good or bad.  Their actions are driven soley on instinct.  There are some animals that certaintly might have the conditions necessary to formulate a morality (dolphins, elephants, higher primates), but they do not have the means to communicate this morality to us if it exists.

Therefore, if I don't have a brain, then I can't formulate a morality: either my own "Brandenism" or by adopting one that has been communicated to me by others.  In the broadest, observable and measurable reality of our physical universe, I would make the assertion that morality is merely the consequence of having a brain.

As I said somewhere else:  Our perceptions and existence within our reality is defined through our physicality.

(edit: removed "I" from a sentance for grammtical correctness.)

The Polling Pit / Re: Holding Doors Open
« on: April 02, 2007, 11:29:31 AM »
Because the benefit comes about through irrational means. Your emotions are, by definition, not rational.
I'm saying that the reasons one should be satisfied should be rational.

Well Mobile, I disagree with you.  I guess that makes me irrational, but I'll glady accept my "irrationality" in this case.  Perhaps when I become more like this guy:

Then I might see things more your way.

...I think I'll continue to hold the door open, especially for the ladies.

The Polling Pit / Re: Holding Doors Open
« on: April 02, 2007, 03:13:19 AM »
I do have it on good authority that people you're trying to have sex with respond well to this simple courtesy.

I mean... if all the other reasons I outlined were unsatisfactory and all.

General / Re: The Shrine is Dumb.
« on: April 01, 2007, 12:22:03 AM »
Notice that the avatar changed...

We'll she's a guerilla, Lindsey.  Don't you understand that she's here to enlighten our simple minds and make us think?  It's obvious our reactions to everything is "younger"...as are our ideas, so she's here to rile us up and get us to question our young (read the implication: immature) minds and ideas.

I'm so glad that she decided to grace us with her astounding intellect and show us what a bunch of simpleton sexists we've been.  If only the women who make conscious choice to join the shrine realized that their choice really isn't an expression of their equal free-will, but is merely an affirmation of their continued subjugation, and therefore their choice to voluntarily participate in something they don't have to is completely invalid.


Now I've given you a position you can respond to, guerilla, in case it wasn't clear:

"I don't particularly have a problem with the Shrine because the women who join it do so voluntarily, and as somone who respects the equality of their choices and intellect, who am I to say they shouldn't be able to particpate in a voluntary activity?"

General / Re: The Shrine is Dumb.
« on: April 01, 2007, 12:07:47 AM »
Get people thinking and get people more involved. You are all a feisty bunch

You haven't really riled me, though I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth and engaging in other intellectually dishonest practices such as fabricating a position which I never made.

....like I said, a little hard for me to take your ideas seriously or even come close to considering them "equal."

I don't smoke.

hahahahahaha..... re-read my post again and see if you can get it right the next time.

(edit: here's a hint.... it has something to do with what your debating practices)

The Polling Pit / Re: Holding Doors Open
« on: March 31, 2007, 07:43:12 PM »
If it's not rational, why do you feel good doing it?

Because when I do it, the emotional satsifaction is gives me is enough of an incentive to spend an extra 5-6 seconds.

Remember.... emotions, me, part of my existence.  Not everything I do is logically rational, nor do I seek to have every behavior justified through rationality.  I am however, an organic biological being where emotions and the interplay of neurochemicals that trigger than are intrinsic to my existence.  In other words, my existence is defined in large part by the consequence of my physicality.

Back to holding doors open:

- I like it (a motivator)
- I do it  (an action)
- I recieve a positive response from the person (a reward)
- I get a sense of satisfaction from being "well mannered" (a reward)

How is this chain of events irrational if I recieve a benefit that I am aiming for when I voluntarily engage in an activitiy?  Are you saying that your valueset on what one should be satisfied doing is better than mine for my life?

(EDIT: changed "and" to "an")

General / Re: The Shrine is Dumb.
« on: March 31, 2007, 12:21:33 PM »
My avatar should be of some ugly fat chick, I see...that way the hatred of the shrine would be justified in your eyes

Hahahahaha.... wow. Way to twist what I said completely out of context and go right into the gender-wars baiting. 

You seem to have added a lot connotation which I niether typed nor implied.  I said it was interesting because your avatar commands attention, and is using some of the same methodologies that you seem to be criticizing....something you yourself have admitted to purposefully doing.

But because it's of an somewhat okay looking woman--well, that makes no Sense! She should be proud of the shrine, she should be IN the shrine!

You're inserting words into my mouth, which is niether fair nor intellectually honest.

Wrong. The Shrine is STILL subjugating women to "women" status. Not equal. And in the universe of IDEAS, we are all equal. In my mind, my ideas are EQUAL with yours...not better, not female. Equal.

When did I ever say they weren't?  It makes it very hard to exchange ideas with you on an equal footing when you seem very content to insert and project the points you'd like to respond to in my mouth.

So far, I haven't even given you my position on whether or not the Shrine is A) dumb, or B) should exist, yet here you have completely spun a position for me based upon my questioning of your use of a picture....of a woman in a bra.... smoking a cigarette.

...that's a really nasty habit you might want to consider evaluating, particularly if you want me to consider your ideas equal.

(EDIT: changed "seems" to "seem")

General / Re: The Shrine is Dumb.
« on: March 31, 2007, 12:03:50 PM »
My avatar could be anything. So what? I can get any pic out on the internet and use any pic to represent me. What exactly is wrong with the one I have?

Indeed.  There's nothing wrong with your avatar, I just find it interesting you're arguing for the shrine to go away, which I'm assuming is because you think it's sexist, and yet you're using an avatar that commands quite a bit of attention using some typical imagery that's, "using sex to sell".... a woman in a bra, smoking a cigarette.... I'm sure you could open any magazine ad and see this same visual language to sell a product.

I just interpret this as you using it to sell your point.  "I'm a woman, I'm sexy and the Shrine still sucks."

...did I get the implied message wrong?

Free Talk Live is really good. Could be better. Last night was really boring and uninteresting.

Can't please everyone all the time, sometimes show segments lag for me too, but others are really interesting.

(EDIT: just fixed a bunch of grammatical errors and typos....a bit late over here in Japan)

General / Re: The Shrine is Dumb.
« on: March 31, 2007, 11:51:24 AM »
A) Your avatar is a woman in a bra smoking a cigarette
B) Maybe, but Michael Savage instantly refutes this point.
C) Then it wouldn't be "Free Talk Live", it would be "Free Talk Live So Long as it's Politics and Liberty Issues"

The Polling Pit / Re: Holding Doors Open
« on: March 31, 2007, 11:46:35 AM »
I hold doors open for people, and always for women.  In Japan it's very wierd for them because if anyone holds a door open, it's generally women holding it open for men.  The reaction I recieve is always one of pleasant surprise.

I frankly don't care if it's rational or not.  It's the manners I was raised with, and I feel good doing it.  I don't need any other reason.  It helps grease social interactions with other human beings who also have emotional responses to many situations, and in that regard is very useful.  I could make that argument that this usefulness makes this a rational behavior, particularly if I am trying to achieve a level of rapport with an individual.

It's amazing what a random act of kindness that doesn't cost you anything can do.

(EDIT: changed "how" to "who")

The Polling Pit / Re: Do you think them bankers are out to get you?
« on: March 16, 2007, 11:53:14 PM »
O'Donnell Out Of The Closet... As A 9/11 Truther

Rosie is a loser.

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: March 13, 2007, 10:10:25 PM »
Ah, but my "Christianity" is an integral part of my "anarchy".  In the past I stated on air that I wanted help in choosing a name for a "Christian Anarchist" church...

All right, and again there's nothing wrong with this.  For the purposes of this discussion, my "anarchy" doesn't require religion/faith to make it work.  So then the only place to go from here would be "whose anarchy is more sensible," which is something I think either of us would have a hard time to "prove."  Sounds a bit "relativistic," but that's the entire nature of morality, which is "fork in the road" where our discussion has lead to.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 32 queries.