In the comments to yesterday’s Provocateurism, 5 thread, nishi writes:
[…] this thread is also about the [R]epublican war on science. [Liberal Fascism] contains a labored attempt to smear the left and science as propagators and promotors of “eugenicsâ€Â.
Like I told Manzi, it seems the right is fighting […] a doomed rearguard action against the combined forces of technological advances, academe, and cultural evolution.
Like Aldo said, judeo-xian ethics is a pretty frail bulwark against scientific progress.
I think [Jim] Manzi’s account [in NR] of how the right has alienated many scientists is accurate:
Conservatism has often had a hard time with science. One obvious reason is that many scientific findings can create technological changes, which in turn can upend traditional social arrangements. Conservatives value these arrangements, and so resist the findings. Through history, some of this resistance has been foolish (opposition to the smallpox inoculation in the 18th century), and some of it laudable (resistance to forced sterilization of anyone judged to be a “probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring†in the early 20th century).
My question is, how will conservatives deal with the age of designer evolution?
Tecnology like this: nanomedicine, superbiology, biological anti-senescense, cybernetics, cloning, lifehacking, neurochemical augmentation, free market eugenics, designer babies, etc, etc.
You can’t seem to handle plain old darwinian evolution.
— then, in a follow-up comment, she bolsters her point with a quote from Camile Paglia, along with this rather fraught quote from Dr. James Watson: “Should Hitler harm us for the next 200 years by saying that we cannot do genetics?”
My response(s), first to the Watson quote, and what nishi implies by introducing it into the discussion without commentary:
With all due respect to Dr Watson, nishi, who said “we” can’t “do genetics”? Seriously. Provide names. You have well over 500 comments in this thread to choose from, plus all the bioluddites you routinely rail against that make up Bush’s band of medievalist leech farmers and faith healers.
Show me that person or persons — with citations — and I will condemn them along with you.
But of course, these people, even if they exist (and some likely do, of course) are not at all representative of the current group with whom you are debating. So long as we’re talking about Liberal Fascism, and sci fi as a kind of cultural canary in a coal mine, why not deal with Wells himself: The Time Machine, eg.; or vivesection, a precursor to genetic engineering, in The Island of Dr Moreau, etc.?
Our civic system is built around the mechanism of checks and balances. You seem to want Science (capitalized to reflect your idea of those fields existing under the scientific umbrella as somehow transcendent and unimpeachable, like a godhead) to be left completely to its own devices — as if science was not something that is practiced by humans, who have been proven fallable, and whose hubris, be it social engineering schemes, economic schemes, or political schemes, has proven disastrous at times throughout history, particularly when change comes rapidly, and when it is built upon nothing but pure theory. Communism, for instance, has killed over 100 million people, all in an effort to perfect the common weal.
You have often railed against the second wave feminists, who use “social science” commingled with politicized “hard science” to affect curricula development and change, to the point where boys are now less likely to grow up and attend college, the competitive impulse has been dangerously undermined (if not forcibly castrated), and the ways boys learn, given a difference in both traditional socialization (which, importantly, was built upon certain physiological truisms about the sex) and verifiable physiological differences between the sexes, has been rendered largely ineffective — all in the name of some progressively asserted notion of “egalitarianism” that seeks equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity (all while ironically bracketing the effects of that outcome on the subjects it is striving to “save”).
This is science acting as social engineer — with “experts” and “professionals” inside the academy leading the charge. The problem is, the academy has become corrupted, “science” has become politicized and opportunistic (grant money for “diversity”? Sure, we can come up with some program for that!) — and you wonder how anyone here can question the BRIGHT LIGHT OF SCIENCE THAT SHALL BRING US THAT PROGRESSIVE UTOPIA YOU SO EVIDENTLY CRAVE!
Your problem, nishi, is that you don’t recognize that this has all been tried before. Which is the reason for introducing eugenics into this discussion. It is not to smear current progressives with the taint of racism: as I said elsewhere, I think “racialism” would have been the more appropriate term for Jonah to use, simply because it is better in keeping with the zeitgeist he is describing, and it carries less of a value judgment. (Though, don’t get me wrong: there were plenty of racists happy to engage in scientific racialism); instead, it is to highlight a certain kind of thinking that animates the progressive ideology — one that is totalitarian and fascist, terms that progressives were at one point quite comfortable with, given that such moments of political evolution — of “progress” — signaled an end to messy classical liberalism, and a rise of the elite leader, the technocrat, and the social scientist to fix the “problems” created by the chaos of democracy.
That many progressives now run from those labels, given the subsequent disrepute they’ve come under as a result of their excesses during earlier periods in history — opting instead to call themselves “liberals” in a semantic coup that has further problematized any understanding of the political ideology that underlies it (particularly on the progressive end of the “liberal” spectrum, which, as I’ve pointed out, is almost by definition based around illiberal principles and, by political extension, illiberal programs) — is just so much obfuscation. Meanwhile, the project continues apace — albeit, thanks to our Constitution (ever under seige) and American exceptionalism, it manifests itself in the guise of a velvet revolution. Hence, the happy face on the cover of Jonah’s book. Does this mean I believe judeo-Christian ethics alone are the only (or even preferable) bulwark against progressive imperatives?
No. As I wrote earlier in response to that very question, I believe the only way to beat back what is now so insinuated in our very thinking is to reclaim language, specifically, to reclaim what it is we think we are doing when we interpret.
There is no “war on science” happening here, among readers of this site. There may be a mistrust of scientism  and AGW-worship as dictated policy despite a decided lack of concrete evidence has the effect of creating skeptics  but there are plenty of people here who are very much dedicated to science and the scientific method, me chief among them.
There is also no Republican war on academics being fought here. There is, however, a classical liberal rejection of much of what passes for “education” inside the current academy, which is decidedly homogeneous in the Humanities and Social Sciences, and which has shrugged off its mission of promoting intellectualism and the free exchange of ideas in an attempt at becoming a self-perpetuating echo chamber and protector of the (political and politicized) status quo, something that the “radicals” of the sixties and early seventies fought hard to attain. If you get a chance, watch E. C. Maloney’s Indoctrinate U. Or ask me to regale you with stories from my own time in the academy.
In the culture wars, I have fought adamantly against social conservativism, because many of the solutions to “problems†promoted by social conservatives smack of nannystatism just as surely as do smoking bans, Twinkie taxes, et al. “Decency” statutes for TV, Schiavo’s Law, banning Kid Rock from the conservative big tent… all mistakes, in my opinion.
Again, I always put individual freedom first  which is why I remain reluctantly pro-choice, despite my desire to see restrictions placed on abortion that keep in line with advances in science.
Do I think aborting an 8-month, fully-formed fetus is barbaric? Of course. That Obama doesn’t (or rather, that he is unwilling to take that stand legislatively) is reprehensible, so far as I’m concerned. Partial birth abortion, once the fetus is viable and can be put up for adoption or turned over to a willing father, is inexcusable. Surely it is no more “invasive†at that point to have the child than it is to have it removed and it’s brains sucked out.
You can continue to caricature the positions of the commenters here, many of whom  though religious  are about as far away from screaming fundies as you are. Similarly, you can continue advancing your cause of enforced dogmatism, and promoting an academic ethos that mystifies alternative ideas rather than taking the time to teach them properly, which would have the net effect of doing precisely what you’d like to see happen: separating science from philosophy. I have noted that I believe IDT is bogus science. But as a metaphysical question regarding first causes, it is perfectly “reasonable” — and requires no more a leap of faith than does pure materialism.
I advocated teaching about the field of IDT in science classes because I think it creates the perfect opportunity to show how IDT and evolution (again, who here disputes that on religious grounds? — me, I’m a Dawkins guy) can live together comfortably. It also provides the opportunity for object lessons in Scientific Method, defining “theory” as it pertains to science (rather than its less specific and more colloquial usage), and illustrating where metaphysics and science break — with science unconcerned with questions that are, by their very nature, unaswerable.
But you’d rather impose your will than “humor†the godbotherers, I guess. Because you know what’s best. That, my friend, is arrogance and hubris. And it is precisely what puts some people off science to begin with — and it is, though not exclusive to “progressivism,” part of the historical baggage modern progressivism totes around like fresh pairs of undies.
Your assumption is that people can’t learn. Or maybe it’s just certain people can’t learn, or that teaching them takes too long when you can simply decree. Human history, however, favors the gradual, considered change, and human freedom favors the classical liberal model.
And that is what this entire conversation is about.
Discuss at you leisure.
Please don’t tell me the nuggie will only submit to the courts on this eventuality. Because challenging her on purpose only ever returns dead air.
Nishi also provided this quote:
Unless we have a totalitarian world order, someone will design an improved human somewhere.
–Stephen Hawking
The whole point of Jeff G.’s Provocateurism series of posts is that (at the risk of reductionism) history suggests that a totalitarian world order is a risk inherent to the Progressive Left, (which Nishi is supporting in the current Presidential race), not libertarians or paleo-conservatives.
I had a young neighbor stop by on his bike… he must be all of 15 years old. He was going on and on about how he had “discovered” Led Zeppelin a week before while going through his parents’ record collection. He thought they rocked and lamented how lame today’s version of the real thing is… but his epiphany happened to me many, many years ago. But to Led Zep was new and shiny. Nonetheless, I let him go on about how Black Dog was really ground-breaking stuff and how “Stairway to Heaven” was their best song. I didn’t do much except for to listen and wonder at his wonder… as I witnessed his mind expand… not unlike what I experienced many, many years ago. But as I look back on it, there came a day that I realized “Stairway to Heaven” was perhaps the most obvious song to glom onto, however it was far and away not the best track they ever laid down. Not even close. I submit Nishi has recently discovered Led Zeppelin… and that she is interested to argue with us about the merits of “Stairway to Heaven”. Little does she know we have lstened to the entire catalog of Zeppelin many, many times over… and have had to listen to “Stairway” no fewer than 3,000,000 times because some fucker who just discovered it always insists on calling in and requesting it. Even so, we can objectively state that Stairway is NOT their best track… but still they insist on playing it at their barbecue.
Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate.
Perche? Non ci sono offerti speciali oggi?
offerte Stupid italian plurals.
Or, you know, don’t discuss. Ballgame on at 1 here anyway.
You can continue to caricature the positions of the commenters here, many of whom  though religious  are about as far away from screaming fundies as you are.
I am a devout Mormon, I believe that God organized matter to create this universe we live in, AND I also think that the scientific method, when practiced scrupulously, is a marvelous tool for the discovery of scientific truth. I am not a scientist myself, but I admire the scientific method for its integrity and its ability to sort fact from supposition.
Again, when it is practiced scrupulously. The AGW debacle is based on some self-interested scientists using the appearance of science to promote junk science as a cover for the biggest power grab in human history. I mean, read this and tell me that science is being practiced.
The scientific method is marvelous, but what we call “science” is only as good as its practitioners. If they falsify data, fudge stats, refuse to subject their data and methods to public scrutiny, engage in dubious data-collecting methods, and subject their alleged data to bad analytical technique, then what you have is crap, despite the credentials of the cretin who performed the study.
Furthermore, science cannot speak to ethics; it can only speak to what stuff is made of, how forces interact, chains of cause and effect. It’s when scientists think that their scientific discoveries naturally translate into ethics that we get in trouble. That’s what got eugenics into trouble: they though that Darwin set them free to do as the saw best, and they ended up doing horrible things instead.
I used to wonder how the Germans, with their advanced culture and education, could have fallen for Nazism, but now I realize that it was because of their advancements that they fell: they got so pleased with themselves that they lost all perspective and humility, and look what happened.
The most important knowledge that anyone can have is a realistic evaluation of what we can and cannot do. Humility is NOT antithetical to good science; on the contrary, it’s essential to it, because you can’t conduct a good method if you’re too smug to admit when you’ve made a mistake.
Nishi lacks humility and the understanding of the perils of hubris. May she not have to learn the hard way.
Rats. Foiled by the close tag again.
And that is why I keep pointing to history, to note the missteps, to note the cruelty that has often been practiced by those who ‘know what is best’. When I do that I am not saying it will happen again, I am saying it can happen again – if care is not taken.
Mel Brooks said it best in “Blazing Saddles”:
“Son, you’re on your own…”
Wow. What a reward, reading Jeff’s Dutch Uncle treatment of Ninny. What a woodshed treatment!
It is a shame it likely will only encourage more of her illogical, feminist hysteria which, in the bad old days, might have been ameliorated with a complete hysterectomy. You know, separate the person from the organs that cause it all?
Heh.
I also challenged Nishi yesterday to consider some the legal issues that will ensue as ever greater (material or capital) value comes to the aborted fetus.
She seemed to imply that those questions will already be answered as they come up because Science Fiction has already caused people (and, evidently, the courts) to consider and draw conclusions about them.
History has told us many times that forewarned is not always fore-armed.
OK – dicentra rocks
despite being a devout Mormon. I am no more loved for being a practicing Catholic. At the risk of promoting the self, Nishi refuses to consider my actual position on this topic, which she could find here if she actually gave a crap about anyone else’s opinion… especially if it didnt concur with her collegiafied mindmap.“Down by the seaside” remains great. I used to like “Hot Dog” a lot too.
As far as this argument goes, I essentially agree with JG’s point. Perhaps this Nishi, who seems to have very straw-man’ish views of the right, or of the posters here, has some marginal utility here after all.
Obama’s inability to speak out against late-term abortion makes him a left wing cartoon character in my book, yet another example of his inability to stand-up to his back-benchers.
Or, you know, don’t discuss. Ballgame on at 1 here anyway.
Jeff, it’s pretty hard to discuss when you sum it up/cover all the basis so well. Until someone comes and refutes any of your points … well, I’m left to offer up which Led Zepplin song is best.
I’m kinda partial to the “Immigrant Song” although my favorite is “Hey Hey What Can I Do” – but only, perhaps, because my favorite College band (The Love Cowboys) used to do an AWESOME version of it. Quicker and funky. It rocked. They also did an awesome cover of Red HOt Chili Pepper’s “Backwoods.” That was when RHCP’s rocked and still wore socks on their penises.
The Geezer and the nuggie in the squared circle. Forget the ball game, Jeff, this could be epic.
I say we should all take a pledge: Hereafter, we will all ignore the nishbot. We’ve humored her a long time now, we’ve bloodied our heads against her obtuseness, and what’s worse, the discussions didn’t attract any good opponents with good arguments.
So despite the fact that I do like to discuss what Jonah said, making it All About Nishi and her lower-case arguments, I hereby pledge to not respond to her in the future.
Any more takers?
“Hey Hey What Can I Do†was the flip side of “Immigrant Song.”
In the comments to the very first post in this series I was taking the position that we do need an enforced code or system of ethics for genetic science (a bulwark in Jonah Goldberg’s language) in order to prevent a recurrence of the horrors of the 20th Century. I understood Nishi to be arguing that we don’t need such a code. She corrected me:
it isn’t that i think we don’t need a bulwark, i just maintain we already have a builtin universal one for homosapiens sapiens, and laws built by government should be built from that.
the problem with the judeoxian moral set is that it seems inflexible and unable to adapt to modern technologies.
it is luddist and reactionary (and unrealistic) to universally reject bioengineering and eugenics.
If she returns I would like her to expand upon what she means by a built-in universal bulwark within homo sapiens. Does she mean the human conscience? The whole history of our world would seem to prove that the human conscience is inadequate to prevent scientific abuses from occurring. If we are to begin dabbling in human DNA the stakes will be much higher, and we will need stronger safegaurds than relying upon the conscience of scientists.
She does allude to laws built upon the built-in bulwark within homosapiens. We cannot ground these laws upon vague references to built-in somethings in homosapiens any more than we could (IMHO) ground them in Christian religion.
We must articulate those First Principles upon which there is near-universal agreement among people of various faiths and atheists alike, and legislate an ethical code for genetic science based upon those principles.
Hayek’s The Counter-Revolution of Science traced the appropriation, misuse and redefinition of scientific terminology by the Hegelian historicists (pick any flavor you wish) into what he referred to as ‘scientistic’ terminology. His treatment of the subject is as good as Mises Socialism, and about as widely ignored.
I don’t regard the twit as emblematic of anything except the fact that a person may be trained and indoctrinated without ever having been educated. There is a question of utility involved though. Having recognized that you are engaging someone without discernible scruples, is the “value” derived from pointing out their dishonesty large enough to warrant the expenditure of the effort? I would submit that it is, but only in a case where the subject is representative of a group. I can’t see that obtaining in the instance at hand. Caricature? Sure. Representative? I don’t believe so.
Three quotes down from the one Karl posted;
Modell: You know what word I’m not comfortable with? Nuance. It’s not a real word. Like gesture. Gesture’s a real word. With gesture you know where you stand. But nuance? I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong.
I’m in. But then, as far as ignoring her, I’ve been doing that all along. It still amazes me that she can command such attention to the point where Jeff comes off the bench (as it were) and devote lengthy posts to grind her ggrrrlll texts to a fine dust. I’ve seen more than one commenter over the years at PW yearn to get a single acknowledgement from our host. Crazy.
Very well put, Jeff. As a geologist and a Christain, I would say that the percieved disagreement between science and traditional Chritstian thinking has been highly sensationalized on purpose. While there exist fundimental disagreements between the two, modern science and the scientific method are rooted in the Christian based belief of an orderly universe. Historically speaking, it was the Christian concept that “God, being a God of order created things according to his nature. Therefore, if we can study and understand the order and function of his creation, we would better understand the creator.”
Sure, I know that many believe in science for science’s sake. Likewise, I work with scientist that abjectly refuse to discuss anything that could be remotely considered metaphysical, or at least not ontologically verifiable (like conceptual physics, just joking.) While I consider that to be short sighted in regards to the scientific method, because what are discoveries if not the non-ontologically verifiable things of the past, I have no problem with it, nor do I think most Christians do.
I think the problem lies exactly where you pointed it to be. The problem is not the discovery or exploration of science but the application of science and the unintended effects of that application. I believe that this is for two primary reasons. The first is in response to moderns scientists, academics and the media tendency to target Christians in thier criticism and social engineering. For proof of that, do a google news search for “Jews against cloning” or “Hindu’s against Stem cell research” or “Muslims against Darwinism.” Contrast that with a search of any of those themes related to the Christain faith. The dates and frequency make the point for me. We understand that we don’t have the same PC protections of other groups because we are the western status quo. Good, bad or indifferent; that’s just how it is. However, we also recognize that those who use science to promote a social agenda must do so by eroding the moral foundation laid by judeo-christain belief systems.
The second reason is what I would consider moral reductionism. Scientist are now able to map systems in increasingly reduced systems of study. I consider this to be key to understanding because understanding DNA, atomic reations and the like.likewise, they are important steps in both discovery and application. However, the ability to reduce the scope of study regarding life or energy or mass doesn’t decrease the moral obligations of experimentation on a scientist. That very point is being illustrated in Iran’s centerfuges even as we speak. On the contrary, scientist can not allow the moral impilcations of application to simply be the burden of financiers and engineers. Responsible science happens when you answer all the available questions your data allows before you experiment and then throughly following up with strong documentation and analysis afterwords. I think Christians, and any reasonable person for that matter, have a proble with modern sciences media-like drive to be “first, instead of right.” The uninteded consequences, which fill sci-fi novels in fiction, are something any logical person should fear should an age of pop-science take over the moral reigns of where science should take us.
Sadly, the movie “idiocracy” might not be far off, we could deteriorate as a society because all of the best minds in genetics are too busy working on erection enhancement and hair growth applications.
ccs
#22: And the way that it is said by Reiser is the voice I hear whenever I am italicizing nuance in a guest post.
Hmmmm.
@ Jeff G.
I love science.
But *science* as it is practiced does not have an intrinsic ethical or moral standard other than those that govern the pursuit of said science and the treatment of fact.
This is the same science practiced by Unit 721 in Manchuria. By eugenics advocates here in the USA.
Science doesn’t have a morality. Which is why society needs to have a restraining hand.
Hmmmm.
Can I point out:
“My question is, how will conservatives deal with the age of designer evolution?”
Is mutually exclusive of:
“You can’t seem to handle plain old darwinian evolution.”
Darwin is about natural processes not artificial ones.
The truly annoying thing about the phrase “Republican war on science” is that it ignores the left’s war on science. The ludicrous “organic” fetish, the opposition to GM foods, AGW, the constant campaigns against economic development couched in scientific claims — those are primarily from the left.
Neither side has a monopoly on virtue in this case.
Aldo
How do these go together?
First:
“…We must articulate those First Principles upon which there is near-universal agreement among people of various faiths and atheists alike, and legislate an ethical code for genetic science based upon those principles.”
Second:
“…The whole history of our world would seem to prove that the human conscience is inadequate to prevent scientific abuses from occurring. …”
Isn’t the first proposition subject to the failures of the second? If not, what saves the first proposition from this failure?
Let teh politicians oversee the geneticists?
What could possibly go wrong?
Actually, Enoch-Root, I would submit a counter-example to explain Nishi.
Whilst at university, a friend of mine worked in a record store at the edge of campus. Bored with rap and “alternative,” we dug the single for “Under Pressure” out of the stacks and turned it on. With the space of the opening riff, one thirteen year old mush-head popped off with “Man, someone is ripping off Vanilla Ice ALREADY!” At this point, the college aged shoppers descended on this young man like pit-bulls on a crippled cat.
THAT is what Nishi is doing — telling us someone is ripping off Vanilla Ice already.
I had to point this out to a large-L Libertarian years ago after he’d written about latter-day Luddites in a newsletter. I tagged radical environmentalism and academia as the sources of leftist Luddism.
Plus ça change, as they say in Baja Belgium.
I too have long since stopped reading the autobot’s comments, as well as those of others who have demonstrated an inability to reason well enough for my taste. Every now and then I might note their presence somehow, but otherwise, meh. However, I am not so sure that a collective decision to resort to shunning is a good idea either; it sounds too cliquey, as if all the cool kids are supposed to do it. I doubt it was intended that way, but it isn’t stretching too far to make it sound that way. I agree that the autobot is a distraction and an annoyance, but that opinion is not universal, and since our host has continued to deem it worthy of engagement, I bow to his obviously larger well of patience.
That many progressives now run from those labels, given the subsequent disrepute they’ve come under as a result of their excesses during earlier periods in history  opting instead to call themselves “liberals†in a semantic coup that has further problematized any understanding of the political ideology that underlies it (particularly on the progressive end of the “liberal†spectrum, which, as I’ve pointed out, is almost by definition based around illiberal principles and, by political extension, illiberal programs)  is just so much obfuscation. Meanwhile, the project continues apace  albeit, thanks to our Constitution (ever under seige) and American exceptionalism, it manifests itself in the guise of a velvet revolution. Hence, the happy face on the cover of Jonah’s book. Does this mean I believe judeo-Christian ethics alone are the only (or even preferable) bulwark against progressive imperatives?
No. As I wrote earlier in response to that very question, I believe the only way to beat back what is now so insinuated in our very thinking is to reclaim language, specifically, to reclaim what it is we think we are doing when we interpret.
This is the most important theme (IMO) of your series of posts. The scientific issues, while providing the Provacateurism are tangential examples that Goldberg has cited of historical progressive imperatives. The deeper we go in debating the science, and then branching off further into debates over abortion and fathers’ rights, the more the central theme recedes into the distance.
Jeff, you believe that the Maginot Line against the Progressive Blitzkrieg must be linguistic. In Post #5 of your series, though, the excerpt from Goldberg touched on another line of Progressive attack that also must be met somehow: the “trick” of convincing generation after generation of Prog cultural conformists that they are somehow questioning authority and expressing their rebellious individualism by regurgitating the Prog Platitutes that pervade our culture.
The young prog wakes up in the morning and reads the prog platitudes in the LAT or the NYT. He drives to school listening to the platitudes reinforced by taxpayer subsidized NPR. At school his teachers and professors spoon-feed prog revisionist history to him. He goes to the movies to watch “Recount”. He comes home to hear the platitudes reinforced by CNN or MSNBC or ABC. Then he gets on the internet and is shocked to hear rightwingers questioning known facts. He goes into battle to defend the Congressional majority Democrats and mainstream darling-of-the-zeitgeist O!, and then goes to bed feeling satisfied that he is edgy and counterclture for standing up to The Man at some right-wing blog.
I remember a couple years ago Kos was pushing some new label combining “Democrat” and “Libertarian.” So-called libertarian Mona was lapping it up until I quoted the definition that Kos provided in his DKos diary post. Then she changed the subject. Kos actually defined his new libertarianism in terms of the government micro-managing every aspect of our lives. The deinition left no private, non-governmental sphere of life at all. It was, in short, totalitarian.
This is what you mean (if I may presume) when you write about linguistic coups, ans also what Goldberg means by luring people into Liberal Fascism with the trick of convincing them that they are getting more freedom.
response to #27:
I think she was rhetorically asking how fundies could possibly cope with designer evolution if they cannot even accept Darwinian evolution.
@ #26
Minor point; Unit 731.
AKA: “Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department of the Kwantung Army”
General Ishii Shiro, Cdr.
#29 Isn’t the first proposition subject to the failures of the second? If not, what saves the first proposition from this failure?
Yes
Nothing
I’m arguing for a code of ethics that is not based on religion, but I acknowledge rthat I code of ethics, even when enforced by law, is not infallible. The only thing that would be infallible, as Hawkins suggested, is a world totalitarian system.
Now I have to go to lunch.
Aldo: “I think she was rhetorically asking how fundies could possibly cope with designer evolution if they cannot even accept Darwinian evolution.”
It is not as if the Progressive Left has accepted Darwinian evolution, Aldo. Oh, they pay it lip-service since, in the abstract, it undercuts religion, but in the concrete, they give it little credence, curtailing the dominant species to the benefit of weaker, less adaptive ones.
the Maginot Line against the Progressive Blitzkrieg
Ouch.
I appreciate the forthright honestly of your answers, yes & nothing, aldo, but as to the suggestion of a “world totalitarian system” as potentially “infallible” it seems to me that it, too, would be subject to the very same source of failure. Or do I simply misunderstand what that “world totalitarian system” consists in, how it came about, etc.?
#29 Isn’t the first proposition subject to the failures of the second? If not, what saves the first proposition from this failure?
I’m arguing for a code of ethics that is not based on religion, but I acknowledge that A code of ethics, even when enforced by law, is not infallible. The only thing that would be infallible, as Hawkins suggested, is a world totalitarian system.
Now I have to go to lunch.
Aldo: “I’m arguing for a code of ethics that is not based on religion, but I acknowledge that A code of ethics, even when enforced by law, is not infallible. The only thing that would be infallible, as Hawkins suggested, is a world totalitarian system.”
Anything run by human beings is fallible, Aldo. A “world totalitarian system” would be so bureaucracy-plagued as that *anything* could fall through the cracks.
Kelly,
My take is that Nishi is “Jen” to Jeff as Li mu Bai of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. You can’t help but watch for the outcome.
If you get a chance, watch E. C. Maloney’s Indoctrinate U. Or ask me to regale you with stories from my own time in the academy.
I’ve seen IND-U as thought it well done. I’d be interested in hearing some of your experiences Jeff.
Yes, but.
The “artificial” processes in question are distorted, if not determined, by sexual-selective pressures, themselves distorted by group psychopathies that are sexually selected (“Government is show business for ugly people”), etc.
Individual behavior is hard to explain, but this is Darwins all the way down.
(A pseudo-ironic look at the selective functions beneath the bare institutional interests in the “just-so stories” “argument” against evolutionary psychology would be cute.)
world totalitarian system
The U.N. being our sci-fi test-drive into the future.
The fact that Jeff bothers to answer nishi directly tells me he/she is pretty smart. So maybe I’ll pay closer attention.
I was watching a program about Issac Newton last night and was struck by his deep devotion to both science and religion. Made me wonder whether someone closing their mind to religion loses a key to understanding the universe. Calculus, optics, gravity…eugenics?
OT: Did anyone take the time to note that PW passed the 10,000,000 visit mark?
Congrats, Jeff!
Dicentra, #18. I pledge to ignore Ninny hereafter, since I had already done that to avoid wasting time.
We, after all, should encourage desirable behavior, and mindless cut/paste and frothy repetition of currently fashionable academic dialectical materialistic politicosexual drivel is certainly undesirable. It increases needlessly Ninny’s carbon footprint since if she typed nothing she would breathe far less frequently.
BJTexs,
Jeff noted it at the time in another thread; he must have been watching.
Just came across this review of LF from Claremont, and I noticed this startling resemblance to my Nazi-esque, moronic conclusions. Seems there are many little ‘conservative’ Hitlers running around, misrepresenting history and drawing false parallels in the service of, uh, well…evil:
[My emphasis]
I’m sure steve would have the reviewer use fewer words, but what can we say? Sometimes even we conservatives like to go buck wild with the verbiage.
****
That’s it for me for a while. Now that Dan’s back and thor has given up his boycott of the site, I shall recede into the background so as not to muddle the chemistry of the new and improved pw.
Yay! 10 Million Flabbers Gasted! 10 Million Smitten Gobs!
What I want to know is, is it really progressive to go from clubbing the baby’s head bloody to sucking the brain out of the baby head? The only thing different between the olden times and the new agey times is the science however have we really made such advanced progress?
Now what’s gonna happen to the over-populated old people the progressives are going to try to get rid of?
Will they do what was done in the olden times and just leave them by the side of the road to rot away or are they going to scientifically devise some new-fangled way to doing what was done before humanity got a little morality into its’ system?
Fuck you, thor.
Congratulations on the 10 million mark Jeff!
Syn, you really should read a little history before scrawling utter, silly generalities.
I still maintain that nishi is a psychotic narcissist and her nips are trying to jump off right about now.
Jeff’s entire post is a response to Nishi, so it seems a little weird for the commenters to collectively decide not to respond to Nishi.
The Gobs are smitten, are they? Then they shall be smacked!
Can’t have any Smittening going on. Leads to Bolshevism, you know.
Gee Geezer; history is rife with barbaric inhumanity so what was it that brought morality?
Certainly not science, nor wealth, nor progressive idealism since all of these things produced Hitlers, Soros and Sangers.
Is this a little more specific for you?
“That’s it for me for a while. Now that Dan’s back and thor has given up his boycott of the site, I shall recede into the background so as not to muddle the chemistry of the new and improved pw.”
Fuck that! Nobody, and I am willing to bet JD’s house ;), believes that sentiment for one moment. And congrats on the 10,000,000 mark, Jeff. No offense to Karl or Dan, but you are the reason for those 10,000,000.
#40 as to the suggestion of a “world totalitarian system†as potentially “infallible†it seems to me that it, too, would be subject to the very same source of failure. Or do I simply misunderstand what that “world totalitarian system†consists in, how it came about, etc.?
It is a hypothetical, thought-experiment type of construct intended to make the point that if we allow the freedom to do scientific research at all there will always be the potential for abuse.
A North Korea style totalitarian system could probably prevent genetic research from occurring at all, but I don’t think any of us want that. At the other polarity, I don’t think that it is a good idea to rely on scientists’ gut feelings about right or wrong. I am suggesting a middle way: a written code of ethics, based on consensus First Principles, and enforced by scientific institutions.
Of course this would not be infallible.
Because we have responded to nisji/matoko many times, Aldo. And she refuses to respond to any question or any argument with anything more than a base insult. Usually she ignores the question or argument and continues saying what she said before.
Next to that, she has about a half-dozen subjects she goes on at length about, and no matter how many times people here have shown her where her facts are wrong she continues to make the same arguments based on the same flawed facts. For example, in the earlier thread did you see where she continued to deny that the Nazis practiced eugenics? When that simple fact is acknowledged in the sources from that time and by historians afterwards.
Seriously – why should anyone continue to discuss anything with nishi/matoko? She is a dishonest debater and not worth further efort.
Aldo would like to see scientific ethics developed without religion. Why does this have to be so? Our founders were able to take the ethos of their (for the most part) Judeo/Christianity and marry it with The Enlightenment and Greek Philosphy and Greek and Roman political structures to design what operates today as the good old U.S. of A.
If we reach an agreement that science left to its devices without ethics allows human beings to (inevitably) screw the pooch then it also makes sense to have a substantive debate on scientific ethics that encompasses the length and breadth of moral teachings a philosophical thinkings. Nishi, on the other hand, doen’t believe in ethics of any kind and would rather science engineer the human condition without restraint.
Um, no.
My ongoing objection to nishi’s “bothering” was the idea that we should “truct” her and her like minded “tweakers” to build a better world. Sorry, matoko, you haven’t demonstrated real, human compassion in sufficient quantity to want me to give you the keys to future human development without some guidelines. The mind numbing arrogance of “it’s inevitable” and everyone who raised a small concern is a “theocon” or a “luddite” makes me even more sure that those of her ilk shouldn’t be allowed to stay home alone without supervision.
Religions have managed to co-exist with science in this day and age for the most part. The idea that anyone of faith questions the ethics of [fill in the blank] is automatically “at war with science” is laughable and dangerous. Those disagreements are good and strong, the very fabric of protection against the sort of mischief that purveyors of things like eugenics and AGW may perform.
Obstreperous Infidel,
and I am willing to bet JD’s house ;),
You best be damn sure about that. Better Half may be small, but she will open up a can of whoop-ass-fu on you the likes of which this world has never seen if you are wrong.
Jeff’s entire post is a response to Nishi, so it seems a little weird for the commenters to collectively decide not to respond to Nishi.
Didn’t you just say in the prior thread that if she annoys people, it is their fault and they should just not respond to her?
She completely annoyed me and I laid off of several threads just to avoid having to be annoyed.
Personally, I think the nishit should be called out on every single lie, every single time. Her feces flinging should not go unanswered.
Let’s face it – we love to hate commenters like Nishi. Her comments are what get the threads flying. W/o her inane comments as a catalyst, these threads would top out at 30-40 comments and we would not even scratch the surface of the debate.
So, appreciate her for the role she seems to play here, to stir up passion and get people commenting.
In other words, what fun is it to argue with someone you agree with? It’s much more interesting to argue with someone on the other side.
Unfortunately, she isn’t the best at it, and does not really argue honestly, but you take what you can get.
Indeed, it even led Jeff to write a lengthy comment and then use that comment to start a new post.
It’s the spice in the pot.
JD – I’m that damned sure. I’m married to a scrapper, too, and take your words very sincerely.
Aldo – the problem with nishi is she is either a world class liar or she’s being what she has claimed to be: A griefer. Meaning she’s just being a pain in the ass. I certainly don’t doubt her intellectual bona fides, but she has some obvious personality issues. The web was made for her. One of her bigger inconsistencies is at one point she said that she would not abort a fetus after around 5 or 6 mos (when, according to her, the substrate responsible for consciousness is developed), since then it seems that her position has changed to abort, abort, abort mommy’s extra appendage until birth (I guess the fetus is ALWAYS just part of the woman’s body?), when the fetus is a baby and thus granted constitutional rights. I may be wrong, but that seems like a big jump. But, maybe not for a greifer.
or griefer!
Although Jeff’s logic and conclusions are correct, he has a problem with the way he conveys them……
He uses words.
I, on the other hand, use interpretive dance. Sure, I get beat up a lot, but think of the nuance.
Aldo – the problem with nishi is she is either a world class liar or she’s being what she has claimed to be: A griefer.
I have seen very few admitted liberals on any conservative site who comments and does not lie with abandon to make their points. I think the sad truth is we have reached a point where each side of the aisle believes vastly different things as to what basic facts are.
Look, for instance, at Liberal Fascism, which started this. It is a well researched book – the historical facts of which are accurate (that does not mean the analysis and conclusions drawn therefrom are accurate). However, the left will not admit the historical accuracy of these facts. And, to some extent, I don’t think they are “lying” as I think they actual believe the alternate reality they are being sold at lefty sites.
So, an honest liberal that accepts basic facts and argues from there is very, very hard to come by in my experience.
jwest: Try not wearing the pink tutu and ballet slippers. :-)
He uses words.
I, on the other hand, use interpretive dance.
Vitamin Water all over the keyboard and monitor. Thanks !
#68.. Exactly what I was thinking GB..
A gaze into my crystal ball to see PW comment threads once all the “undesireable lurkers” and Liberal shit-stirrers have been silenced;
Regular #1: Wow.. Really good post , Jeff. I agree totally.
Regular #2: Ya.. Spot on. Couldn’t have said it better.
Regular #3: I’m with you guys. Brilliant!
Regular #4: What they said..
Regular #1: ….
Regular #2: ….
Regular #3: ….
Regular #4: ….
Regular #1: Ahem… So.. What?.. Anyone seen any good movies lately, or..?
Vitamin Water all over the keyboard and monitor. Thanks !
Is there no end to the product placements in your comments JD?
I couldn’t disagree more with comment #77
Somewhere, Thersites sips a frozen rum drink and concocts what he imagines to be a devastatingly witty strawman-dismantler.
Aldo would like to see scientific ethics developed without religion. Why does this have to be so?
Buy-in. I want scientists to be held to a code of ethics, possibly enforced by the state, at a minimum enforced on an institutional level. Many if not most scientists are atheists. Some are Buddhists, some are Hindus etc. Will they buy into an ethical code based on Judeo-Christian religion?
Some commenters seem to be saying: Our system was originally based on Judeo-Christian tradition, so non-Christians will just have to accept it. In that case, you are depending on being able to enforce the code against people who have not bought into its founding premises. I think it would be much more effective to simply leave the God part out of it, and get the scientific community to agree to some First Principles, arrived at according to whatever value systems they each bring to the table, and proceed from there. Then we are not relying purely on enforcement. Scientists who understand and agree to the terms of the ethical deal might actually allow themselves to be guided by the code in their moral decision-making.
Nishi, on the other hand, doen’t believe in ethics of any kind and would rather science engineer the human condition without restraint.
see comment #20
Didn’t you just say in the prior thread that if she annoys people, it is their fault and they should just not respond to her?
I didn’t say that it is your fault if she annoys you. I know that she is abrasive. I think it would be wise to continue to participate in the discussions without acknowledging her if she makes you angry, but I am not the type to tell anyone else what to do. There was a call for us to collectively ignore her. I personally decline to accept that invitation, because Nishi does not bother me. Furthermore, I was pointing out the irony of calling for Nishi to be collectively ignored in the comments to a post where the host is specifically responding to her.
I can disagree more with #77, and do.
@ #61 I am suggesting a middle way: …enforced by scientific institutions.
That’s a deal breaker for me, Aldo.
Ado: “#61 I am suggesting a middle way: …enforced by scientific institutions.”
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I don’t believe anyone here has ever suggested that scientists first swear fealty to the Lord before they’re allowed to experiment. I could be wrong, though; I’d happily admit to that if there was evidence to be pointed to.
You seem to be suggesting that Judeo-Christian ethics is somehow tainted because of its lineage. As for me: I actually don’t care whether scientists are religious or not. I also don’t happen to care all that much whether their ethics and mine overlap. What I do care about is that scientists in the US, like every other citizen, are answerable to the law. Whether the law springs from Judeo-Christian ethics or from some other code is also immaterial, because in order for it to have become law, it would have to be acceptable to a large-ish cross-section of Congress, who in turn are elected by a large-ish cross-section of the voting public.
None taken. It’s an empirical fact. Jeff is also the reason I’m guesting; I don’t volunteer for just anyone.
Me to, Aldo. Self-regulation is historically a bad idea.
The moral and ethical code will likely be based on judeo-christian principles because that is what our culture’s moral and ethical code is based on. As for those scientists who are atheists or of a different religion, well they are going to have to swallow hard and go along with it because the state will punish them if they do.
Besides, I thought we were talking about scientists, really smart guys and gals. Having some say “Nope. The ethical code is based on judeo-christian principles and I’m an atheist so I am going to ignore the code and do what I want,” is strong evidence right there that they do not have the judgment to be a scientist. In fact, someone like that is best kept far away from powerful things, such as fiddling around in someone else’s DNA.
I think it would be wise to continue to participate in the discussions without acknowledging her if she makes you angry, but I am not the type to tell anyone else what to do. There was a call for us to collectively ignore her. I personally decline to accept that invitation, because Nishi does not bother me. Furthermore, I was pointing out the irony of calling for Nishi to be collectively ignored in the comments to a post where the host is specifically responding to her.
Right. And I’m pointing out the irony of you complaining about people calling to ignore her when you’ve just suggested people ignore her.
Anyway, “A Call to Ignore” sounds like a good name for a bad novel.
I suppose we could let scientists torture small animals, provided they promise it doesn’t bother their consciences.
I suppose I’m just being silly.
I can disagree more with #77, and do.
You know what kelly? You’re absolutely right. Brilliant!
I’m not intuitively opposed to having the code enforced by the state. I was hedging because I suspect that a convincing libertarian case could be made against it, and I didn’t want to have to think the issue through that far before finishing the sentence. Obviously, the institution in which the lab is physically located, and under whose auspices it is run would be in the best position for enforcing such a code anyway. The threat of losing a job should be deterrent enough for most individual scientists. There might need to be some state-level oversight to prevent the possibility of institution-wide abuse.
As far as I can tell, regardless of shame or guilt culture dynamics, the moral frame of reference is better as an extrinsic metric. Otherwise, don’t your enforcement mechanisms ultimately just incentivize one towards more effective rationalization?
BRD
alppucino – I would respond, but I am on the way to Purgatory to give my Hogan irons a workout.
Anyway, “A Call to Ignore†sounds like a good name for a bad novel.
And then of course “A Ball to Ignore” would be the porno version of that bad novel.
………just ignore me
Ok, to clarify, I meant to state that Judeo-Christian or ideologically determined ethics would be extrinsic, in that they are revealed or stated or asserted. The intrinsic ones are the more amporhous self-esteem or whatever half-baked humanist nonsense one can stomach.
alppucino – I would respond, but I am on the way to Purgatory to give my Hogan irons a workout.
What – you’re not driving anything?
You know what? I like cheese. My current favorite is Jalepeno cheddar. Mmmmm.
“….W/o her inane comments as a catalyst, these threads would top out at 30-40 comments and we would not even scratch the surface of the debate.”
– “….and at times I have wondered if, in fact, the host was bedeviling us in a very provocative way, “priming the pump” as it were, push buttons and import a certain desired direction to our musings. Then again, its probably just a slight case of indigestion.”
– Since science can never answer to origins, spiritual faith will always ultimately hold sway. so the answer to that issue is self-evident, and unavoidable.
– As to the entire scope of moral and legal issues, we simply watch everyone like a hawk, and if they do anything we don’t like, we just kick the crap out of them. Conflict settled, and all even before I’ve had lunch.
– JD’s house is saved.
– I’m good.
Saab 9.3 Aero turbo
Aldo: I’m not suggesting that “God” be brought into the process, just that the moral tenets that have been developed through Judeo/Chritianity, which frame a significant amount of our current nation-state, be part of the discussion. I would never suggest a “religious” test for scientific experimentation but excluding the “tenets’ seems to be arbitrary and wrong headed.
Dealbreaker for me too, I’m afraid.
Let’s face it – we love to hate commenters like Nishi. Her comments are what get the threads flying. W/o her inane comments as a catalyst, these threads would top out at 30-40 comments and we would not even scratch the surface of the debate.
But do we manage to refine our arguments very well with such an opponent? Would we not be better off with someone who has read LF and totally disagrees with it and yet can articulate something coherent in response?
Maybe we’d have to invite a guest opponent instead of having to rely on whomever stumbles upon us or the random moron who boasts that he can make mincemeat of Jeff’s argument, then proceeds to preen like a wet pigeon instead. But we’d have to make sure that the opponent had the patience and the chops to go head-to-head with Jeff and his minions. Good luck with that.
Furthermore, Jeff may have directed his remarks at nishi, but really she’s a rhetorical stand-in for the whole Progg movement insofar as it thinks that we can be Saved By Science and its practitioners. (The implied reader, IOW.)
As for the linguistic question that Jeff poses, it has to do in part with the social/governmental contract that we can make only with language, because that’s only tool we have.
The whole concept of ratifying and voting and having a Constitution is based on the idea that words mean what the utterer meant them to mean, and we agree to abide by the conditions set down by what we all understand the words to mean at the time that we make the agreement.
It’s partly because of the fallibility of human memory that we need to write things down first, then after doing our best to clarify what is meant by the words, agree to abide by the words. It’s why we have written contracts, to prevent convenient lapses of memory. “You said you’d do X!” “No, you just remember wrong.”
Wresting the locus of meaning from the utterer and awarding it to the interpreter is an act of tyranny that undermines the social contract seven ways ’til Tuesday. Orwell was not exaggerating when he described the abuse of language as a tool of oppression.
What we’re seeing now with the “Living Constitution” and judicial activism is the undermining of the social contract. We write down something and vote to abide by it, then later the Proggs come along and decide that really we agreed on something else.
It is psychologically very wearying to have to fight the insistence that X means Y, that 1 + 1 = 3.141eleventy, or that we are better off letting philosopher kings birth statutes that we didn’t agree to.
Government that rules without the consent of the governed is not legitimate, according to the Declaration of Independence. What the Proggs are doing is morphing the consensual government into a government that we don’t recognize, but it is done without physically going back and rewriting the texts, thus preserving the illusion of consent.
Saab 9.3 Aero turbo
with the Landau roof?
BTW, where’s feets? On vacation or bleeding out in a bathtub? (Forgive me if that turns out to be inappropriate.)
“…only with language, because that’s only tool we have.”
– Liquor is quicker.
#77: I can agree more with comment #77, and do.
– Yeh, now that you mention it. Feets made a single appearence the other day, said something cryptic when I mentioned “bunnies for feets”, and *poofed*. Whats up with that?
I don’t believe anyone here has ever suggested that scientists first swear fealty to the Lord before they’re allowed to experiment. I could be wrong, though; I’d happily admit to that if there was evidence to be pointed to.
the references I am making go back to this quote from Jonah Goldberg at the first post in the series:
Since all of us (even Nishi I believe) have agreed on the need for an ethical code, the next step is to decide upon what authority that code should be based. Some commenters are basically asserting that it will be based on the authority of the state. They seem to mean that our representatives will draw up some legislation defining what is or is not legal, and that legislation will have as much authority, and from the same sources, as the state itself. For this to work, Congress would have to keep abreast of the cutting edge of genetic science and anticipate scenarios that most lay people could not conceive.
I was thinking more along the lines of a true ethical code, rather than a strictly legal one, that would be the foundation supporting specific institutional rules and government laws, but also be broad enough to provide moral guidance in areas where the rules have yet to be defined.
I think it would be a mistake to tell scientists that this ethical code is based on religious dogma, the bible, the Ten Commandments, the Koran, or cultural tradition. I suggested earlier that we tell scientists that the code is based on respect for human autonomy, and the principle that human beings are ends in themselves and not to be used as the means toward other ends. I think that we could get near-unanimous buy-in from the scientific community for such a First Principle, and a code of ethics derived from it would be have a chance to provide meaningful moral guidance independent of whether or not it is backed up by belief in God or fear of the power of the state.
And now I have to get some work done, so I may not be able to participate much more in the thread. Have a good day everyone!
hes travellin
Aldo, here is your code.
Did you see what Mr. B said?
My take is that Nishi is “Jen†to Jeff as Li mu Bai of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. You can’t help but watch for the outcome.
what does Jeff see in me?
if im Jen, and Jeff is Li Mu-Bai, then the PW commetariat is Yu Shu-lien….like her, they just dont get it!
Jen is a criminal and trained by Mu-Bai’s worst enemy.
Why does Mu-Bai want her as a student?
I think it would be a mistake to tell scientists that this ethical code is based on religious dogma
Step one, tell whopper.
Check.
For all the talk about “Judeo-Christian” ethics, and whether it’s adequate or not for science, is there any evidence it actually exists?
Hippocratic Oath isn’t Judeo-Christian.
Animal rights activists don’t seem particularly Judeo-Christian.
Old religious traditions don’t really address issues such as cloning.
And Jews don’t agree with Christians all that much.
That essay looks interesting Nishi. I will read it at home tonight and get back to you on it next time I see you here.
Jeff IS teh Master, and i would love to write like him…gorgeous soundvision prosepoems, stuffed with literary tags and rich with cultural references.
and….is PW really the Green Destiny?
nah, PW is the wuxia (swords and sorcery) of the blogverse.
at least when Jeff is writing it is.
Jeff, you said–perception is reality– therefore the republican war on science is a reality.
why try to deny it? its dah truf, ruth.
is there any evidence it actually exists?
I think I saw them listed on e-Bay a couple of weeks ago.
Step one, tell whopper.
That is a direct quote from Jonah Goldberg, excerpted by Jeff G. in his first Provocateurism post:
Meanwhile, conservative religious and political dogma  under relentless attack from the left  may be the single greatest bulwark against eugenic schemes.
How do you figure that I’m telling a whopper?
ty Aldo.
thanx for stickin up for me.
toujours le preax chevalier?
btw, i linked that natural ethics thingy on the last provacateur thread….along with the Killers quote.
i said, “the theocons dip a toe in.”
no one clicked it.
;)
“…the devil’s water it aint so sweet…you dont have to drink right now.
but you can dip your feet.â€Â
From nishi’s link:
Sorry, that scares the crap out of me right there! Who is this “we” and how do they get to determine who the genetically and bioengineered uber children of the future are selected? Who sets the criteria and the limits, if any? Some amorphous scientific “bulwark” of ethical panelists who propose to improve humanity for … what? What sort of unintended consequences (well reviewed in nishi’s precious science fiction) do we discover or who gets to manipulate the “enhancements” for either their own selfish good or “the good of all humanity, or at least those deemed worthy?”
This has a disturbingly “Stepford Wives” kind of ring to it. Nishi’s stance is to say “trust us, it’ll all be fine!” Of course, nishi’s souless reaction will be something along the lines of “theocons” and “luddites” getting out of the way of the inevitable master (enhanced) race.
Fascism indeed, of the scientific sort.
“…Since all of us (even Nishi I believe) have agreed on the need for an ethical code…”
– As a practicing scientist myself, I have acceded to the bulk of your comments, Jeff’s outline, and all of the other commentators whose POV essentially echo yours.
– Thats all fine as far as it goes. the issue I see is much bigger than even just the (complex enough) questions of morality/ethics. As complex as that area is, at least for many if not all in society, the bigger issue, and one I’m not sure theres a practical answer for, is the mechanics. Not so much “can” we do something, but “should” we do it because of the potential dangers.
– Make no mistake about it. We will come to forks in the road, as we do in all scientific endeavors. and the girl or the tiger will seem tame in comparison. Science has always faced a similar quandary at certain points in our history. That first atomic detonation though, was also the first time we poised ready to act in a way where the survival of the planet hung in the balance, depending on the results.
– Eugenics, for better or worse, just from its very nature, will tend to force those sorts of moments on us over and over. Maybe I’m not saying this well, I just simply see a far larger issue than ethics, and ethics is going to be difficult enough to deal with, because you can bet your Zygotes that every scoundrel with two bad ideas to rub together will try to get in on the act. The sex toy scenario is just one of many. There is just to much money to be made to always effectively avoid bad situations gone amok.
– What do you do when the experiments reach deadly terrirtory on a daily basis.
Always the knight, but not always the white knight.
See ya later!
That belief has a certain…faith-based aspect to it. I don’t think it’s supported in fact. Nishi has repeatedly voiced outrage at the merest suggestion of any constraints on Scientific Progress.
In other words, a code without any way to enforce it. We’ve all seen the relish with which the AMA, for instance, casts out the noncompliant, the unethical, and the outright feckless, have we not?
No, we haven’t. Rhetorical questions shouldn’t be answered. I reserve the right to answer my own, though.
Also: I think he means that they’ll be discussion of ethics related to religion but we won’t tell them it comes from religion. That’s the whopper.
Or I’m wrong and he just insulted you. Hand grenades at 20 paces.
You can’t help but watch for the outcome.
hehe, Mr. B, do you think i will get him killed?
Is that what it means? When he’s answered me directly I always figured it just means I’m pretty.
have u seen CTHD mcgeehee?
CTHD link
– One of the bed rock purposes for which the AMA was established in the first place was the oversight, and enforcement, of Ethical practices in medicine, which, throughout its history, it has taken great pains to avoid at all costs.
Nishi has repeatedly voiced outrage at the merest suggestion of any constraints on Scientific Progress.
no slart, my argument is that we have an intrinsic moral code.
otherwise all atheists would be amoral.
we dont need no stinkin judeoxian ethics.
;)
– Resistance is futile.You will be absorbed.
I think it would be a mistake to tell scientists that this ethical code is based on religious dogma
So we’ll tell scientists it’s based on Seashells & Balloon-Fences, instead.
We’ve told a whopper.
discussion of ethics related to religion but we won’t tell them it comes from religion
no, Aldo means (i think) if the ethics come from natural law then they will be relevent to everyone, and not just jews and xians.
dicentra reminds me the most of Yu shu Lien come to think of it.
no slart, my argument is that we have an intrinsic moral code.
otherwise all atheists would be amoral.
The moral code the FDLS practices? The moral code sex tourists practice? The moral code the Taliban practices?
Even atheism is an act of faith.
Sorry, that scares the crap out of me right there! Who is this “we†and how do they get to determine who the genetically and bioengineered uber children of the future are selected? Who sets the criteria and the limits, if any? Some amorphous scientific “bulwark†of ethical panelists who propose to improve humanity for … what? What sort of unintended consequences (well reviewed in nishi’s precious science fiction) do we discover or who gets to manipulate the “enhancements†for either their own selfish good or “the good of all humanity, or at least those deemed worthy?
Me too. Today’s society has certain inequalities in a biological sense in that the rich can enhance their God given attributes to a level the poor cannot. But that is all superficial. That Hollywood wives get big perky boobs and shiny-straight-perfect teeth … well, it honestly does all even out in the end. Age is the great equalizer that expensive Hollywood treatments can’t overcome. Not to mention, that some people Can and are born with perfect boobs (raising my hand) and perfect teeth (no comment.)
But, to take the step where the rich can have designer babies with who knows what kinds of improvements? It is the step toward a truly unequal society (not like the BS unequal complaints you hear today). One strata of society that doesn’t get Cancer and has heightened IQ.. and who knows what else. That is when the poor (and the middle class) truly do become slaves.
i wish feets was here, he would get a kick out this i think.
“One strata of society that doesn’t get Cancer and has heightened IQ”….and is free of disease and lives to be 300 years old (aubrey de grey).
how to prevent that?
the rich will just purchase it from other countries.
that would be the purpose of my Hawking quote.
wouldn’t it be better to use good old ‘merican ingenuity to make it cheap enough for everyone that wanted it?
“….atheists would be amoral.
– Atheists don;t deal in morality. They’re gamblers that have decided to back the horse called “nothing”. “a” (anti) “Theist” (self belief). So they are against the idea of self. They don’t believe they themselves exist.
– I wonder who they think is doing their thinking for them.
“….shut up Jim, and let me finish my waffles…”
Not to mention, that some people Can and are born with perfect boobs (raising my hand)
also raising my hand.
and they don’t become slaves Carin….they become a subspecies. :(
if the ethics come from natural law then they will be relevent to everyone
Not to me, they won’t.
American atheists, like everyone else in America, grew up surrounded by a shared culture which helped form their values. The individual threads in this culture cannot be traced individually, and most of the cultural elements are found in a number of original sources, but most of the legal and ethical threads can be traced back to Greek logic and Judeo-Christian religion, via Western Europe. So your atheist, although he may have inherited none of the religion, has grown up naturally accepting many of the values of a culture which originally came from religious faith. Just as you can’t separate the religious influences from the non religious influences in an individuals values, you can’t separate them within a culture.
In other news, the front page of the Washington Post this morning has an article about new European restrictions on chemicals. If the manufacturers can’t prove that the chemicals are harmless, they can’t be used. Will we see outrage from the scientifically literate?
hahaha!
zomg!
feets can be Dark Cloud!
;)
Nishi believes that the will of a select group of people can do a better job of running the country / world than can the will of the people as a whole. This statement is true only if you are a member of the select group. This belief is the root of the totalitarian delusion, and it has wormed its way into the minds of tyrants both religious and secular. It is the fundamental flaw of fascism and communism.
naw..im just a pragmatist.
like Jefferson.
;)
Sure. I have my own intrinsic moral code, and therefore should not have to answer to any legal authority. Trust me.
Will we see outrage from the scientifically literate?
– Don’t know, but it will sure as hell put a crimp in neighborhood sales figures.
Is it my imagination or does Nishi seem unusually friendly & social today?
I mean;
Smiling ;)
Laughing – hahahahaha
Using familiar first names..
Not showing her ASP** today…
=)
BTW, I am not implying that atheists have intrinsically evil ethics. I’m just saying that even if some group of people have, in general, widely acceptable codes of ethics, there are always outliers. The law is there for people whose ethics doesn’t constrain them as much as we’d like them to constrain themselves.
Of course, in a nishiesque, sci-fi future, everyone is nice and has above average intelligence, so they don’t need no steenking laws.
And of course, there are the inevitable few who are morally bankrupt. Do we need to name names, again?
Slart, they’ll need laws to keep order among the subspecies.
Not showing her ASP** today…
– Not showing her Asp** would undoubtedly be a relief to all of us, but in fact, manic highs are one of the signitures of the condition.
haha, im tickled by mr. b’s CTHD analogy.
;)
dicentra and the PW commetariat–> Yu shu Lien
Jeff–> Li mu Bai
me –> Jen
happyfeets –> Dark Cloud
Aldo –> Sir Te
Jhoward –> Tsai
Carin –> May
hahaha
– Of course nishi’s professed condition, if true, would put her squarely in the undesirables grouping. Apparently that inconvenient trVth doesn’t seem to effect her “just shoot me” thinking.
It is a lying amoral unethical twit.
Carin – Any linky proof of that assertion? ;-)
– JD, I think it was Pablo that layed out a bit of her bio the other day. Not sure it was him, but the commenter said he’d known her on the net for 5 years or so, and shes been banned from multiple chat/blog sites for her antics. Basically she’s the stereotypical lonely lone-wolf that craves attention, and uses the net as her personal therapist.
Now, Carin; you know you can’t just make a claim like that without providing some evidence. That goes for you too, alp.
– Guess that answers that question – *chuckle*
i started in 2004, when i was still in grad school.
pablo imagined me i guess
i get banned and deleted a lot…i often dont really unnerstand what it was i said.
must be the auspergers
;)
still, i dont see how u guyz get off callin me a liar when u never click my linkage.
how do u know im lying?
like, chicago boyz banned me for sayin Expelled was the caroon version of LF.
not even any profanity.
?
gerard van der leun banned me and deleted my comment just for askin for some hard data on eurabia.
go figure.
;)
and althouse, zomg!, she not only deleted my comments, but actually edited one!
and not for profanity, she changed what i said.
ekshually, that althouse thing was because of Jeff..she attack one of his humor posts on the pajamafia.
i blame Jeff for me gettin banned at althouse.
;)
on topic:
I advocated teaching about the field of IDT in science classes because I think it creates the perfect opportunity to show how IDT and evolution (again, who here disputes that on religious grounds?  me, I’m a Dawkins guy) can live together comfortably.
no, absolutely not. because you are giving the DI a win, and they will force scools to buy their execrable textbook. it is just like giving in to the terrorists or jews exchanging prisoners for kidnapped soldiers.
if you breach the wall between church and state all kinds of horrors will creep into science class.
the next time the DI will want IDT taught as science.
AND the main reason is that IDT is crapology and we just dont need to waste tiime on it.
so no, zero tolerance for IDT in any guise in the science classroom.
and a WHOLE lot of the ppl here say….”well, i dont believe in IDT, BUT theresalltheseholesinevotheoryandwhataboutthelifespark(serr8d)andthefossilrecord?”
they caveat it with a bunch crap, because they are ashamed to say they believe in IDT.
because it makes them look Stoopid.
– Another signiture is long conversations with ones self.
Just a couple of things, first on self-regulation. Am I misremembering this or back in the 80’s when in vitro fertilization was just taking off were we not promised that the embryos (now, according to Michael Fox, masses of cells) would be treated with the dignity and respect due all human life? When exactly did the embryos become masses of cells? When we talk about slippery slopes and ethics in science this is a good thing to keep in mind. Cue the monologue at the end of “Nights in White Satin†not because it is pertinent, but because I like it.
Which in a way brings me to Jeff’s reluctant Pro Choice stance. In a post high-lighting the mushy headed logic of another, the logic here seems equally as mushy headed. Viability is tacking a legal term on an ethical problem. Viability is hard to define. Can a ventilator be used? What about when the baby is so premature that life long defects to eyesight, lungs, brain or other body systems are likely to develop. And if the Fetus is viable at day X what about the day before day X? Is the Fetus some how less human on that day?
Viability sounds nice , caring, thoughtful, but through linguistic ju-jitsu avoids the central issue. While fetus some worth some degree of humanity human, it also says it is OK to take that human life if some arbitrary condition is not met. I’m not sure how internally consistent that line of reasoning is.
It is a feel good remedy and allows the questionable result you want while still allowing you to feel good about yourself. I condone possible murder, but I am most definitely not a Barbarian. If only they could make the suction tube larger so the whole thing could fit inside instead of just the brains, now that would be some civilized type progress by gum.
As referred to in an earlier post, free love(sex) is a bribe, and not a very honest one. Reproductive freedom comes from no forced marriage, enforced rape laws and a woman’s right to say no. Here is the individual freedom, the freedom to engage or not engage in sex. Pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex, and abortion will always be about avoiding that consequence no matter how much lipstick you put on this pig. I do not see how you ‘can hold up the principle of individual freedom when if a late term baby is delivered premature, this human could develop lifelong health problems. The fetus involuntarily pays for another’s freedom. I do not think this is the way a free society is supposed to work.
Hence I think your reluctance is understandable. Watch our son grow a few more years. Kids are what opened my eyes.
sorry, watch your son grow. I have never had sex with that man.
abadman,
“…While fetus some worth some degree of humanity human…”
Care try that one again?
again sorry,
while granting the fetus some worth, some degree of humanity,…
– The egg, once fertilized, should immediately be afforded a bill of rights. Whether or not “it” comes to term is immaterial, since the rights accrue only if theres a “resulting” successful birth which produces a person. In all cases where the fetus is transfered, or used for some other purpose, the rights remain in force. The rights of the fetus, as defined as “fertilized egg”, in vitro or otherwise, can only be exceeded by the birthing mother, and only then should her health or life be placed in serious and determinate danger by the continuance of pregnancy.
– Sounds good, but problems abound.
What, as opposed to the horrors that already infest science class (AGW hysteria, for example)? As opposed to the horrors that infest the rest of the public education system? If you want horrors out of science class, the way to do it is concentrate on the gaps in the rules that allow anyone to politicize education, not spend all your energy tilting at one particular example.
– Its an interesting canard that seemingly terrorist defendents in Gitmo have more and better defined rights than an American fetus.
big bang hunter,
Agreed, I am not anti-abortion. A dogmatic pro-life stance to me is just as indefensible as most pro choice stances are. I do not believe at our current level of scientific development society can function without abortion of some sort. I would just like the moral cost acknowledged. Then maybe some sanity can be brought into the discussion.
Returning for a brief moment to the nature of culture and ethics:
Ironically enough, seen from the individual level in terms of diversity and variation, culture is like race, except even more so. What you see as a monolithic whole is likely to actually be a combination of different original sources. Just because someone looks “white” doesn’t mean they don’t have a couple of African or Native American ancestors in their family tree. Likewise, an individual’s “culture”, although it looks American, can have a myriad of different roots. Yet you can’t truly say that anyone is culturally pure, as those threads disappear together after generations.
Why is this relavent? Nishi’s proclaims herself a proponent of the one drop rule with respect to conservative politics; anyone that is culturally one drop Christian is disqualified from having a say on politics. (Oddly enough, that rule doesn’t apply to Democrats).
good, civilus, just add to it. two wrongs dont make a right.
we simply don’t have time for IDT crapology.
our kids need to learn science basics so they can be nanotechnologists, biologists, geneticists, chemists, physicists.
if you want kids to learn about god, have them do it in church, philosophy class, or parochial school and bible college.
it. does. not. belong. in. public. school. science. class.
stuff like this is why.
It is possible that ‘culture’ is an obfuscatory concept, obscuring more than it clarifies. Most of all, perhaps, when it is transported from the time and place in which it was conceived pastward, to be used ruthlessly on unsuspecting deadmen who had never heard of such a thing and did not conceive either themselves or their world in its terms.
At some point — drinking age 18, voting age 21, age of consent (depending on the state, 13-18) we have to make legal distinctions.
My reluctant pro-choice stance has more to do with balancing the rights of women to control their bodies with the rights of what are viable human beings. Science will eventually catch up on the viability question making the abortion question moot to my way of thinking. For now, though, I’m as at ease as I possible could be negotiating the two positions, by appealing to the concept of viability.
To answer your questions, viability is not undermined by what MAY transpire because of premature birth. It is simply this: can the baby be kept alive and grow to term outside the womb.
You can call that mushy-headed, or point to some kind of inconsistency in my thinking, but I never said the problem was easily solved, and from an ethical standpoint, where the two “sides” can’t come to terms on when the life is the life of a child, my viability compromise works for me.
nishi- could you please give me a quick list of people on this blog that would like to see ID taught as science in public schools?
You have often railed against the second wave feminists, who use “social science†commingled with politicized “hard science†to affect curricula development and change, to the point where boys are now less likely to grow up and attend college
but Jeff, this is cultural evolution. aggro is no longer a selective fitness benefit– in modern society it just lands one in prison. it isnt so much that the feministas are trying to make boys into girls, evolution of culture is making boys into girls. granted, affirmative action hasnt had the intended effect on gender. instead of raising up the wimmyns, the mens have been dragged down to their level.
Science will eventually catch up on the viability question making the abortion question moot to my way of thinking. For now, though, I’m as at ease as I possible could be negotiating the two positions, by appealing to the concept of viability.
I agree completely with the second sentence.
The first sentence is really fascinating, because it makes sense. Yet I think if we would have asked 1950’s people if easily accessible birth control pills (science!) would lead to fewer or more abortions and unwanted pregnancies, they’d have answered “fewer”.
maybee, cut the weasel word crap.
you are embarassed to state u believe in IDT crapology, but from Jeff on down you all endorse “strengths and weaknesses of ToE” being taught.
Nishi
Have you read Sarah Hrdy, particularly, The Woman Who Never Evolved?
aggro is no longer a selective fitness benefit– in modern society it just lands one in prison.
That’s why I think violent video games are a benefit to society, not a detriment.
actually Jeff believes, IDT should be offered as the contra-example of the scientific method i guess.
but whatever for?
it is a waste of time. teach it in homeschool, parochial school, or bible college.
it doesnt belong in public education science classes.
#183 no.
#185 i agree, we are bred for war.
i wrote something about that.
– nishi, you can howl and hand wave, and argue til the cows come how. The only real weakness of ToE is it has not been proven in its fundamental tenet. What you and I as scientists or mathematicians, or whatever your scientific discipline may be, think and believe “just has to be the truth” because all of our training tells us its so, doesn’t natter. Provable causation is the only proof. everything else is supposition. That nishi, is a fact.
maybee, cut the weasel word crap.
you are embarassed to state u believe in IDT crapology, but from Jeff on down you all endorse “strengths and weaknesses of ToE†being taught.
Ha!
I hope your white knight is watching.
No, I stated explicitly that ID should only be taught in world religion classes.
I believe in God, and said that anyone that believes in God has to believe he is capable of creating the earth.
I believe the ToE is a good foundation to teach HS students.
I would be furious if IDT was taught as science to my kids.
I would vote against any school board member that tried to get DI textbooks into our schools (which isn’t going to happen in my district anyway).
Can you list anyone on this board, Nishi, that wants ID taught as science?
Anyone on this board that is at all interested in the DI?
Why are you addressing your brainless tripe to me?
as reguards viability, scientists believe that at 6 mos development there is sufficient neural substrate to support consciousness and REM sleep.
but like a abadman said, what about 1 day before 6 months? 2 days?
it is simply ludicrous to talk about “ensoulment” of a fertilized oocyte, or a 16-cell cleavage stage or a blastual or a nerula.
take a frackin embryology class, morons, or read a book.
^^points upwards to BBH
mcgeehee, u wonder why Jeff tolerates me or even encourages me.
the answer is, im Jen to his Li mu Bai.
maybee, i said none of u will endorse IDT.
but nearly all of you will excuse it into the classroom in some giuse.
you attitude, however is refreshing.
i commend you.
;)
– You avoid even having to make those sorts of distinctions nishi, by simply adopting a specifically defined bill of rights for a fertilized egg, something like I outlined.
– You’re bloviating either because you’re afraid such rights would limit what you could do, or you don’t believe in “spirit”.
– Either way, why should society afford you rights you are so ready to deny a fetus?
but like a abadman said, what about 1 day before 6 months? 2 days?
it is simply ludicrous to talk about “ensoulment†of a fertilized oocyte, or a 16-cell cleavage stage or a blastual or a nerula.
take a frackin embryology class, morons, or read a book.
Get pregnant and have a baby, coward.
“My reluctant pro-choice stance has more to do with balancing the rights of women to control their bodies with the rights of what are viable human beings.â€Â
How does this equation work? The woman loses a few months of control over her body from her whole life and the baby loses all of its whole life.
On this we will just have to agree to disagree
#184 judenhassdave
Starship Troopers
wow….great retro quote from my commenter Jonson.
“You cannot go against nature
Because when you do
Go against nature
It’s part of nature too”
–Love and Rockets
100
datadave: “I submitted a most sophomoric conservative educator’s link about the Progressive era and only a small link at the bottom related to the ‘eugenics’ fad of the era. If a progressive has the same race and species of a Nazi that certainly doesn’t make the progressive and Nazi the same.”
One wonders — can the forced and, in some cases, state-sponsored sterilization of undesirables be considered a fad? Goldfish swallowing was a fad. Flagpole sitting was a fad. State sponsored castration would seem to be something a little more serious than a “fad.”
As for Progressives and Nazis, same arguments — look at how much better the state would be if not for (insert undesirable group here) — with different enforcement methods. Where the Progressive settled for sterilization of those whom they felt they could do without, the Nazis were a little more direct in their technique — rather than patiently wait for their undesirables to die out, the Nazis executed their undesirables for a more immediate results.
datadave: “If most educated Americans and a good many Germans of the same era thought ‘eugenics’ was a great idea (as the simple scientific thought behind it seemed ‘nice’ at the time) still that doesn’t make the Progressive a “Fascistâ€Â. ”
No, it was their embrace of state sponsorship and an expansion of state control over the lives of the citizenry that makes them similar. Also, for the record, not even Jonah Goldberg says Progressive = Fascist. Similar is not the same.
datadave: “But having been an American Right winger I can vouch for the tendency of the Right to beat it’s chest and say “See that Hitler had a socialist name on his party…so He’s A Socialistâ€Â.”
There is more to it that simply naming the “National Socialist Workers Party.” The rhetoric and positions of the party were socialist, but not internationalist, which is the biggest differentiation between communism and fascism. Mussolini’s break with international socialism came about the time of the First World War, after long being a darling of the left and editor of one of the most influencial periodicals of the time and focused primarily on Mussolini’s placing Italy above the international movement. Hitler was more of his own man, but as one who aped Mussolini, he contributed less to the notion of Fascism.
datadave: “Of course I didn’t know about the many socialists he and minions killed prior to Kristalnacht.”
Ah, but when two entities — political predators — are fighting over the same pool of manpower, especially in a time of political uncertainty, as gripped Germany in that era, violence was not merely inevitable, but de rigeur. The communists outside Germany considered Hitler to be a fellow traveler, with even the communists in occupied countries remaining quiet until after Hitler initiate Aktion: Barbarossa.
If one takes the time to research, the leftist / socialist roots of the Nazi party are apparent — even their early medals retained the hammer and sickle motif.
MayBee – She cannot list anyone because they do not exist in the real world, those proponents only exist in her mind.
I would fear for the world if all scientists were amoral eugenecists like nishit.
There is not an honest, or intelligent bone in her body.
but nearly all of you will excuse it into the classroom in some giuse.
you attitude, however is refreshing.
i commend you.
You have no basis on which to say the first statement.
My attitude is the same as it has been for the past months you’ve been telling me I’m a theocon. Your listening to it this time is refreshing.
And your evidence for this statement is…what, exactly?
I’d allow it, as an example of not-science. Sort of a coloring-in of the background to get better contrast.
No, really. Of course you’re going to interpret that as cutting ID some slack; you are wired up so you can’t do otherwise.
abadman
I also claim the reluctant pro-choice stance. It comes down to making a discrimination on how much morality is in the province of the law. Adultery is immoral, but not criminal. I believe that “first refusal” must remain with the adult woman even as I know that the vast majority of induced abortions at that stage, made for convenience, are immoral.
And the pramatic side is a complete criminalization of induced abortions is unenforceable. And the draconian methods one might have to employ to enforce a complete ban on induced abortions, with the resulting real harm to live breathing humans, makes bad law (which in and of itself does not promote voluntary compliance).
Convenience abortions must be opposed by persuasion.
“it is simply ludicrous to talk about “ensoulment†of a fertilized oocyte, or a 16-cell”
– No, it is not. A very large number of people, through the teachings of their faith, believe God is in all things.
– Calling it ludicrous, and calling them morons, is precisely why you should be absolutely supervised. Your words show a total lack of understanding and perspective, coupled with an arrogant intolerance of opposing ideas, and a crippling narrow minded world view.
– To which I would say, who the fuck are you that you think you can make such claims. Nobody. You are one individual with a POV, no better or worse than anyone else’s, thats what you are, and thats all you are.
Any worldview is a obfuscatory concept in that it straitjackets the way you look at things. Looking at “Cultures” is no more right than looking at “Tribes” or “Memes” or any paradigm, and certainly does not present a perfect picture of individual or group behavior. But that being said, once you acknowledge the limitations of the chosen paradigm, you can still use it to look at the world and gain some insight. I used the idea of cultures because it presented a way of looking at things that exposed flaws in Nishi’s skewed arguments.
Only had time to skim, but I saw enough to notice Nishi is going for the perception that Jeffs attention has made her the Queen of the Ball.
Regardless, I only wanted to address this, in the post:
. Does this mean I believe judeo-Christian ethics alone are the only (or even preferable) bulwark against progressive imperatives?
No.
Nishi tries to keep up in #128:
we dont need no stinkin judeoxian ethics.
Well, coincidently, I came across some quotes from our founding fathers (and other notables)that perhaps you need to rethink your answer.
If yo have 3 minutes, watch this video.
– nishi, you have a big fat chip on your shoulder, apparently as a result of a personal tragedy, but nothing all that different than any number of us have suffered in our own lives.
– Personal tragedy does not buy you a get out of jail card when you go around totally disrespecting other peoples beliefs and POV’s.
– What it will get you is branded as a petty minded bigot, hopelessly immature and not worth discussing things with.
– If your narcissistic attitude even allows you a tiny bit of prospective, you might what to consider that, otherwise you may find yourself very alone with your prejudiced, narrow minded ideas.
Civilis
Surely you don’t think I disagree with you? My point was merely to the effect that the ‘insight’ you gain using a conceept like culture will not be insight into how, say, the Romans for example, saw themselves. Y’know, intentionality. As to arguing with Nishi, good luck with that.
Darleen,
As I stated a in a subsequent post I am not anti abortion, and find a dogmatic Pro Life stance indefensible, for many of the reasons you have pointed out. My point is making this an individual rights argument is a set up for failure because the fetus will almost always have the least say and stand to lose the most in an abortion.
This site dwells at length on the meanings of things, words and actions. The first step in persuasion is to try to establish the knowledge, the meaning that abortion, in most cases, is at is core an immoral act with a cost to society. We don’t kill adulterers any more we kill their unborn children. I am not sure this is progress.
While easy form a legal standpoint, I do not see viability as a reasonable line to draw in the sand for abortions. Saying many things that are immoral are not illegal is a rather specious argument. We’re talking taking human life vs. breaking wedding vows. I believe that abortions should be allowed in pregnancy to a certain point, because the cost to society of banning all abortions will outweigh the “immorality tax “if you will that abortions place on society. I see abortions more as a hard necessity for a functional society than some conflict of god given rights. A regulated legal act that is morally wrong, but tolerated because we are weak and are incapable of any better answers at present. The rights thing just allows us to feel better about ourselves.
I fear that future generations will look back on terms like hard necessity with the same revulsion we now look at the “Final Solution†or leaving infants out in the cold to die.
I just feel this ties in with the whole science and ethics thing of the post, and an attempt to have an adult conversation away from the nitster.
Sdferr, I think we’re agreeing with each other. I tend to take myself too seriously at any rate. Arguing with Nishi lets me vent some frustrations. As Nishi hates Christians, I hate wannabe tyrants of the mind. Nishi at least is worth arguing with in these threads set aside to allow us to smack down her arguments like flies. Idiots like Datadave are never worth arguing with.
It really comes down to this – are humans merely cattle to be bred as their betters decide, or are they special, with certain inalienable rights, that amongst which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
I fall on the side of the Declaration of Independence. Matoko does not; she wishes to control people’s lives, and to usurp even more control over their lives. Not just to say who should be permitted to wed to keep cosanguinity at a distance, but to say who should be able to wed at all.
She dismisses ‘should’ over ‘can’; she is more fundamentalist in that than any of her fundamentalist xtianist boogey-men. She is dangerous. I am not a commodity, I am not a cow – but matoko sees no human as nothing more than a tool to be used or a problem to be removed.
Sociopath.
Carin – Any linky proof of that assertion? ;-)
Didn’t I pull a gag with this before? I’d hate to repeat myself. Ya’ll will just have to take my word for it, unless you want to hold a PW blogger bash here in Michigan ;)
There are things that we (here used to denote humans in general rather than to refer to a specific group) believe are immoral that we tolerate others doing, and there are things that we believe are immoral that we believe other people should be prevented from doing. For those things we believe should be made illegal, there will inevitably be some cases where we are overruled. In those cases, we must decide whether we will work within the system to change it, take leave of the system, or actively oppose the system to force it to change. It’s a potentially tough call. We’re lucky we have very few people and issues that call for revolutionary violent change. I’m worried that I see so much rhetoric approaching that level, though.
dd – you are beyond parody.
Matoko is too obssessed with her hobby horse to listen to anyone else. We know what she says, and what she will do if given her way – she will cut a path of ruin through any other humans to reach her goal. Those other humans? They are just tiles on the game-board, they have no life, no desires, no rights. Just tools or problems.
Of course, Data(less)dave ignores the fact that even after Hitler’s takeover the Nazi party domestic platform (aside from the racial BS) was pretty much boilerplate socialist policies very much like those of the progressives in the West. He also ignores that the Soviets under Stalin and the Chinese under Mao were pretty nationalistic by any objective standard. And he ignores the level of cooperation that the Soviets and the Nazis had at occasional times when they were not fighting each other. And he ignores the fact that progressives have been militaristic and jingoistic since the very beginning. You might almost say he’s ignorant.
Wasn’t Datadave banned in an earlier thread?
There’s some weapons-grade weird there.
He was Civilis, but he hasn’t taken the hint; or he uses multiple ISPs to get in here so he can spew what he would never dare say to another’s face.
He’s like the guy who waits til he gets in his car so he can swear at the other drivers, making them the proxy for his real target.
Few have been banned here – Timmy, Actus, Monkeiboy – datadave fits in well with that unillustious company. Teh stoopid and long winded to boot.
“next thing, nishi, they’ll try to find out where you work and try to get you fired.”
– Thats you projecting what your side would do datadumb. Slashed tires, Ambushed party headquarters with fire arms, physical attacks on campaign workers, shout downs and podium takeovers, pies thrown, all your people dickhead, all your people, and their “tolerance.”
– We don’t do those sorts of things, under the crapola cover of “activism”. We really do practice tolerance unlike your gaggle of nut cases.
– You must be a total Leftist synchophant to try to pass off that sort of bullshit lie in here.
It’s interesting – it’s like DD’s manifesting another personality, almost. Still uninformed and lame, but a different personality nonetheless. The hostility is new.
As fucking annoying as Nishit is… and as old and tired the treads she rides on… I don’t wish her to shut her pie hole altogether… what I wish is that she showed a bit of prudence is all. And that she had any form of self-introspection. Oh, and also I wish she would stop trying to piss off daddy.
But, that said, I must confess that she has some entertainment value. That goes for datashit too. It’s just datacrap normally doesnt throw 58 comments into a 60 comment thread (like her fucktardness).
I guess that’s my vote for keeping them on the island. Not that this is a Democracy er whatever… but for what it’s worth. Would the Kos-sacks offer the same luxury to a right-minded Nishit? No, they wouldn’t. And maybe for that reason alone, we should tolerate her.
Good God – I feel like I imagine I would if I just left the polling station having voted for the Obamessiah. .. Somehow, dirty. Like all heebee-jeebie an’ all.
Oh. And I am serious about wishing she would stay on her meds. Would make it easier for her to author something at least structurally viable.
– Could be just another poser using the nick. Its odd, but in spite of their bravado, the Proggs seem to need to attack opposing ideas, ala the Marx handbook, to quiet their own doubts. Something like a pig oinking to check if its still alive.
where’s thor?
I’m here dude. In these threads I don’t have much to add to so I just occasionally skim ’em. I’m a less-reluctant pro-choice person than Jeff, but read his post up there and that’s basically what I’d say if I said anything at all.
You’re doing well and holding your own against the disrespectors of thoughtful views. I’ll pummel some heads later. Peace.
– thor, you do realize you’re becoming almost respectful and amiable. What happened, meds change?
Actually, only monkeyboy was banned, from that list. Timmah! was told to leave and not come back, though he did anyway several times. Actus just disappeared, thank God for small favors. There may have been a few more, but i don’t recall them. For that matter, I don’t think Jeff ever banned Dr. Demento…aside from the legal proceedings.
You’ve really got to be a world class asshole for Jeff to throw you out and ban your IP.
Civilis,
That was sort of my point, obviously poorly made, it is hard to legislate morality. Abortion laws and arguments may be grounded in morality issues, but in the end, I agree they are about what we will tolerate.
Still, I saw comparing adultery and abortion as an attempt to minimize abortion. Would anyone make the same argument using adultery and rape? I don’t think so. Yet on a scale of one to ten, I think death rates a little higher than even rape.
I don’t think I have advocated violence of any sort nor have I sunk to any profanity laced screeds. Do I think abortion is state sanctioned murder, yea I do. Do I think, out side of argument and persuasion I can do much to change things? Not so much. Nor do I think it would work that well for society in its present state; we would have a tough time without abortion whether I like it or not. As far as change, I usually try to concentrate on the three feet around me the few times I try to make the world better place. Violent revolutionary change requires too much effort.
If you don’t know the history, dd, then you would be best keeping your comments general. I won’t reiterate everything for your benefit – go look it up yourself.
Pablo – I thought they all had been banned; my mistake. It seems two could take a hint.
abadman – It is easy to legislate morality; the difficulty is enforcing the legislation.
Just a quibble.
– I like to think actus got deported to a Kibbutz in Tel Aviv, shanghied by a 6’4″ Domminitrix, and now spends his waking hours hanging by his nutsac from her ceiling or acting as her TV hammock beneath her 7 inch stiletto platforms.
and Jeff? there is no republican war on science?
google it.
Dan the faux celt linked Gerson. oh, praps it was just to bait me.
but perception is reality, dude.
if everyone percieves a republican war on science theres a republican war on science.
why does that bother you?
Matoko does not; she wishes to control people’s lives
NO I DO NOT.
i want to control my own life.
i want you to have your own little antique genome reservation and let us go about the bidness of science.
you don’t have to participate.
in fact, i wish you wouldn’t.
why not just be honest?
conservatism is anti-change. technology is change.
datadave: “Hitler took over an existing party not affiliated w/him in the least, the “nazi†said ’socialist’ party (as socialism was so new and ‘faddish’ at the time) was picking a name they thought would be popular.”
Actually, “nazi” was not the name of the party, it was, iirc, a Barvarian slur that more or less stuck to the party, if were going to be pedantic.
datadave: “At the time, Hitler was also funded as an agent of the German army as a counter insurgent disrupter of leftist parties. After he’d outfoxed, out-talked and willfully strong-armed control of said party, he found he was really, really good on the stump and took off with it. But his militarist, jingoist, i.e. Rightwing, ideas never left him from even before the war.”
Where did you get the silly notion that militarism and jingoism are exclusively right-wing affectations, dd? Never seen a Mayday parade or listened to a Castro stem-winder?
datadave: “So to say that the left and right were in bed together during the 30s prior to WW2 would be ignoring the crisis in Spain where a good number of Americans went usually to defend the “leftist†Republicans against the fascist Franco who was backed by both Mussolini and Hitler.”
And yet the Soviets aided the Germans in re-arming, including training in air combat and armored tactics. Then there was that little deal to split Poland and allow the Russians to occupy the Baltic states. The relationship between the Russians and the Germans and the workings of the Nazi party are a little more complex than that black and white charicature.
I mean, hey, there is a reason Papa Joe Kennedy didn’t get to be the first Catholic president… well, technically, there were several reasons, but standing tall among those reasons was his unfortunate approving comments of the little Austrian paper-hanger.
Datadave, you were banned. Please take the hint and stop posting comments.
now I wonder how we’d license the IDT teachers that jeffo would like to put in the classrooms?
pathological liar, that densedavey whose knows one or two good Jews (the kind that renounce their Jewishness)
That was sort of my point, obviously poorly made, it is hard to legislate morality
Not really. We legislate morality all the time – murder, theft, fraud. Law falls into two realms – utilitarian (traffic laws, building codes) and moral (aforementioned crimes against individuals).
The rub is deciding WHOSE morality and HOW MUCH of it to write into statutes … and who does the writing and who does the enforcing.
actually I do work for a living
Those long days conning the local TANF office out of a check and food stamps.
– Actually I’m sure most would be happy not to participate. We’ll be more than happy to let you volunteer.
– Say an environmentally sealed 6 layer stasis bubble, placed on the moon. If you should happen to have an “oops” moment while madly laboring over your genetic engineering, you will have as long as you can survive to work on the fix. Small animals will be staged at all six levels, and if they should expire, different levels of containment/decontamination will be enforced as you move outward through each successive bubble. If the renegade Rhino-virus or bio-agent should make it all the way to the six level, then we will drop commemorative plagues for you and all your
inmatesfellow scientists, and then nuke the sire from orbit…..just to be sure.Speaking of Papist: I’m sure I have mentioned that no institution on earth has done more to advance/preserve science than the brilliant Catholic Horde of learned monks and priests (not to mention the lay faithful)…
Anyone care to challenge?
Now when you don’t embrace the primacy of what you believe in, I think you can fairly be referred to as invincibly ignorant.
Sorry, needed a “ban” plug-in. Now we should be rid of data. I don’t mind differences of opinion. “Jeffy” and the like, though? It’s just disrespectful to the guy holding the open house. So fuck that dude.
BBH, that is just sillie.
Free market eugenics is happening right now. what didnt’ you understand about that Hawking quote?
designer eugenics will happen, and people will buy the product.
you can attempt to legislate Goldberg’s fragile bulwark, judeoxian morality, but the tsunami of technology will just whelm it.
when people can buy enhanced germplasm for their offspring…..they will.
when people can buy biological anti-senescense treatments, they will buy those treatments.
it is free market eugenics.
Jeff says– There is no “war on science†happening here, among readers of this site.
the treatment of eugenics alone here is ample evidence of the local PW war on science.
and you won’t be able to do a damned thing about it.
“…and you won’t be able to do a damned thing about it.”
– And may you never live to regret those words.
datadave: “A red, a blue, a pink, whatever, the Ism’s aren’t that much apart nor the religions.”
politics I’ll grant — you ultimately come down to two sorts — those who think they have the right to control people and those who don’t… almost everything else is pretty much china patterns. As for religions, eh — if you think there is much in common between a Jain and a Sikh, or a Buddhist and Wahabist, I think you haven’t really been paying too much attention.
I prefer my nieces and nephews at this point — I have the right and priviledge of handing them back to their parents.
#239,
I’m sure I have mentioned that no institution on earth has done more to advance/preserve science than the brilliant Catholic Horde of learned monks and priests (not to mention the lay faithful)…
yeah, riiight. Averroes did some preserving too, of the greeks in particular, and wasnt he a muslim?
it used to be science was part of religion, until we got good at it.
like,
…and still it moves.. — Galileo
nishi —
Your continued ability to miss every point offered you belies your purported IQ. Concentrate.
Until I can figure out why the new ban feature isn’t working, I’ll just ax datadave’s posts by hand.
If he wants to flatter himself that his banning has anything to do with my inability “to compete” with what he obviously believes is his prodigious intellect, so be it. I’ll take the shot. All the while knowing that datadave is to intellectualism what Michael Moore is to the Bowflex TreadClimber.
– So dave. Is this it. Is this the highlight of your day. The sum total of your miserable little life. Spending your hours annoying others on web sites. Talk about losers.
You pissed on one of the few communities that would have you, datadave! My advice? Head over to Caric’s site with the others who’ve been banned and curse my name. It’s liberating!
Nishi: “the treatment of eugenics alone here is ample evidence of the local PW war on science.”
How, pray tell, is pointing out past abuses and cautionary tales a “war” on eugenics, let alone science in toto? Eugenics has a less than sterling reputation as a direct result of excesses performed in its name. To complain about what has gone before makes about as much sense as pissing into the wind.
nishi: “and you won’t be able to do a damned thing about it.”
Spoken like someone entirely too full of themselves and lacking in sufficient imagination / paranoia.
I wonder if nishi has ever read Heinlein’s methuselah’s children
– Read it. He may have bumped into her in a mall, and used her as a model for one of the characters.
To crib from Susan Sontag and the NYT (h/t Jonah Goldberg / NRO):
“”I would contend that what they illustrate is a truth that we should have understood a very long time ago: that Communism is Fascism – successful Fascism, if you will. What we have called Fascism is, rather, the form of tyranny that can be overthrown – that has, largely, failed. ‘Facism With a Human Face’
”I repeat: not only is Fascism (and overt military rule) the probable destiny of all Communist societies – especially when their populations are moved to revolt – but Communism is in itself a variant, the most successful variant, of Fascism. Fascism with a human face.””
– ….and gets to wear jodpirs with silver side stripes, black jack boots, and carry one of those really cool tricked out riding crops, and an Oberlunent 1st class standard issue 9mm eagle crested lugar pistol…….
i have read methuselah’s children.
i reccommend morgan’s Altered Carbon for more modern treatment of the longlived.
they are even called meths.
Your continued ability to miss every point offered you belies your purported IQ.
what? we disagree on ID in the classroom…..u think it can be useful, i think it will just introduce useless time-wasting misinformation.
i agree in part with the feminization of culture you postulate.
the bioluddite council is damaging….don’t take my word for it…read pinker, read reynolds.
you are teh Master, but i fail to see where i am missing the point.
is disagreement missing the point.
A sword by itself rules nothing.
It only comes alive in skilled hands.
– Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon –
BBH: “- ….and gets to wear jodpirs with silver side stripes, black jack boots, and carry one of those really cool tricked out riding crops, and an Oberlunent 1st class standard issue 9mm eagle crested lugar pistol…….”
Leastwise when its not wearing mud brown gear, highlighted in red, a cavalry sabre and one of those old Nagant revolvers.
Plus ca change, plus ca meme cho.
Nishi: “A sword by itself rules nothing.
It only comes alive in skilled hands.
– Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon ”
What kind of fool brings a knife to a gunfight?
My sword by itself is a limp noodle.
It only comes alive in your skilled hands.
– Crouching Twat, Hidden Penis –
New? Well yes, in a way it is. Improved? Your latest posts have all but set comment records and probably visit records.
I think that we could stand more of Jeff Goldstein.
it is jodphurs, and those are only for little kids.
ill wear my john-field-belgium britches an carry my epee from fencing class tyvm
also, le plus ca change, le plus c’est la meme chose.
nishi
your continued failure to get the simplist of points about people go to demonstrate your ingrained sociopathy.
– Ah…..when challenged it turns out shes a fake…. she can spell….the mask slips another notch…
– Ok….you bring your epee, and I’ll bring my BAR, and we’ll have it out at 25 yards…(I’ll also have a medevac team standing by with a shop vacuum to suck up your remains off the ground….)
– dar
Foisted perception is surreality, dude.
nishi-san – non mur et mentalement – la defectuosite n’est aucune maniere de passer par la vie – comprenez ?
– translation: nishi – immature and mentally ill is no way to go through life – understand?
– I’m pretty sure just about every regular on here has told her that at one time or another – it appears shes incapable of learning.
A steely shaft tells me nothing,
unless it means you’re happy to see me.
– twitching crouch, dragging weenie –
she is, erm, dumb. the extent of her knowledge of Western Civilization begins roughly around the Year of Our Lord 1983.
like,
…and still it moves..  Galileo
Do tell ’bout my fellow Papist Gelileo. Do tell. :) Suck it.
“but perception is reality, dude”
The first few times this was said I assumed that the person saying it was being intentionally obtuse, simply to push a few buttons. Now I’m beginning to believe that this appeal to stupidity is honestly meant.
“Facts don’t cease to exist because they are ignored.”
mcgeehee, u wonder why Jeff tolerates me or even encourages me.
the answer is, im Jen to his Li mu Bai.
nishi, I think you mean “Larry ‘Bud’ Mellman to his Letterman”.
but perception is reality, dude.
if everyone percieves a republican war on science theres a republican war on science.
Do you know what the general perception of you is on this board, nishfong? You misunderstanding of that statement only adds to that perception, by the way.
I was speaking more about the nature of protesters for various causes. Anti-abortion protesters tend to be the only protesters on the right that even lean to minor civil disobedience, although a few have resorted to murder and real terrorism. No one here seems to be even at that level; I doubt anyone posting here is beyond the “I think it’s immoral, but I’ll work within the system to change it” level. Yet civil disobediance and outright vandalism have become the SOP of the vocal left (anti-war, anti-globalization, anti-GM foods, anti-animal testing, anti-corporate…)
as reguards viability, scientists believe that at 6 mos development there is sufficient neural substrate to support consciousness and REM sleep.
but like a abadman said, what about 1 day before 6 months? 2 days?
it is simply ludicrous to talk about “ensoulment†of a fertilized oocyte, or a 16-cell cleavage stage or a blastual or a nerula.
take a frackin embryology class, morons, or read a book.
But there is something magically scientific about the instant the little head pops out of the womb and starts breathing?
“Comment by nishizonoshinji on 6/12 @ 3:22 pm #
Jeff IS teh Master, and i would love to write like him…”
Try learning English.
“Comment by Darleen on 6/12 @ 9:46 pm #
I wonder if nishi has ever read Heinlein’s methuselah’s children”
If she did, she didn’t understand it.
Who brought this “ensoulment” business into the discussion, and why is she arguing against it?
She perceives that to be an issue, Pablo.
And she’s arguing with herself about it. Gotcha.
I am thinking of getting little stickers printed up, “I argue with hallucinations to hand out to proggs like nishfong and Caric.
“I argue with hallucinations” should have been
I misinterpreted this as an indictment of traditional morality using an imlpication of hypocrisy. Thouhg imperfect, Christianity’s comsistent teaching about the dignity of life resulted in early Christian rescue of “exposed” babies (usually girls or birth defective).
If I misinterpreted, my apologies.
Nish –
no slart, my argument is that we have an intrinsic moral code.
otherwise all atheists would be amoral.
Where’s the proof of that? In the western world, almost all aetheists were raised by people teaching them a judeo/christian moral code from birth. Even if the person is a second generation atheist, their parents were raised being taught a judeo/christian moral code from birth. Thus, atheists internalize the judeo/christian moral code from their parents and society and passed it on to their children who then internalized the same moral system.
there is no proof in nature that a human born and reared completely in the wild would have an “internal moral code” that you or I would be comfortable with. Look, for instance, at muslim societies and honor killings, etc. If all humans had the same intrinsic “internal moral code” we wouldn’t have such vast differences in what is considered “moral” across cultures. Or, look at inner-city drug/gang violence. If people all had “intrinsic moral values” the value of human life would be held higher by those perpetrating such crimes. Liberals always blame such inner-city violence and lack of moral vaues on “poverty”. Well, if “poverty” can reduce people to such savagery, how can we also claim that people have intrinsic moral values. It seems that the state of nature is disagreeing right there.
Atheists like to pretend the world would be just dandy, and everyone would have wonderful moral values without religion, and pretend they came by whatever moral values they have through rational thought, but that is nonesense. The moral values of society developed over time, and the moral values of the west developed through judeo/christian beliefs.
In a state of nature, man would have no compunction about killing some other human to obtain what that human has. Nor a compunction about stealing what that other human has.
Thus, many atheists live in a society created by judeo/christian values, that has given them freedom, rule of law, education, etc., but mock it at every turn and seek to overthrow the very institutions that created the society they live in. Now, there are plenty of atheists who don’t believe in God, but respect the religions that created the moral values and the society they live in, but secular liberal atheists are not those types.
As to a war on science, there is a war on the abuse of science by political activists, there is a war on shoddy science being sold as real science, there is a war over what to do with scientific discoveries. There is no war on “science”. The only thing that conservatives have ever argued for in terms of limiting scientific study or exploration is fetal stem cells. Other than that, claiming that conservatives are seeking to “end” science or some other nonesense is idiotic.
Science is the process of testing and studying to come up with answers. What we – liberals and conservatives argue over is what to do with those results. That is not a “war on science.” That is politics. the fact that you don’t understand the difference speaks volumes.
MlR
The first few times this was said I assumed that the person saying it was being intentionally obtuse,
Jeff said it.
GB
just google “republican war on science”…..519,000 hits
i doubledogdare you.
why pretend? conservatism IS resistant to change, and scientific innovation is change.
I just had a thought.
Could nishinazi be totally delusional, and thinks of herself as a Protector?
At least it’d be more original than thinking of yourself as Napoleon. Or Josephine.
Great banana
Maybe try thinking of morality as you might think of a language. You are born without either and must learn them from the world around you. Each comes packed with history and theory and change ongoing. Yet there are many other similar things in the world (particular moral codes and languages that are not the same as you are learning. Yet both you and the Chinaman (or X human) have the capacity, the inborn nature to learn this language thing or moral code thing, a capacity quite independent of the substantive relational content of your particular moral code or language. How’s that work for you so far? I think nishi is pointing to that inborn thing rather than the language. Or I will in her place.
“Reality? That’s where the pizza delivery guy comes from!”
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.
-Philip K. Dick”
Sdferr,
Yes, fine. That is exactly my point. We have the capacity to LEARN a moral code. But it has to be taught from somewhere. Absent that teaching, what moral code would people come up with? WE don’t know.
Nishi seems to be claiming that it would be a “good” moral code. I suspect meaning such things as no murder, no stealing, no rape, etc. Well, where is the proof that a blank slate would come up with that moral code. Indeed, the different moral codes around the world seem to establish that man would not come to that particular moral code.
Which is exactly my point.
“Reality is for those without the strength of character to handle drugs.”
“Okay, who stopped the payment on my reality check?”
So now google hits is some measure of veracity, nishit? Just because there is a group of people that share your delusions does not make it reality. This perception is reality thing is one of the most laughable positions around, but explains why you feel the need to make up history, use random definitions of words, and be otherwise mendoucheous.
“Conservatives are the chief defenders of a capitalist, free-market system, and the capitalist, free-market system is perhaps the most profoundly unconservative social force in human history.”
-Jonah Goldberg
Thus, nishinazi is, once again, wrong.
Show of hands of those surprised.
That’s your proof? That you can google it and get a bunch of hits? Honestly, if you think google hits have any deeper meaning. Google “foot fetish” and you get 10,500,000 hits. WOW, I guess those foot fanciers are taking over the world.
Sdferr,
In other words, an atheist today can “come up with” a moral code that you and I might find agreeable, but most of the stuff in that moral code is most likely to be derived from the history of judeo/christian religious thought even if the atheist doesn’t know it or admit it.
Without that judeo/christian history, we have no idea what the moral values of the west would be today. Perhaps we would stone homosexuals and engage in honor killings?
just google “republican war on scienceâ€Â…..519,000 hits
i doubledogdare you.
“alien contact”…2,310,000 hits
“alien possession”…540,00
“democrat war on science”…856,000
“alien abduction”…2,010,000
“nishfong making intelligent point…2
“no slart, my argument is that we have an intrinsic moral code.”
Ah, the ultimate idiocy.
No, nishi, human beings are wild animals who have to be tamed. THAT is what culture does.
“Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level.”
-Robert A. Heinlein
Great Banana
What counts as a ‘blank slate”? I will contend that all human beings eveywhere at all times have moral codes. From your point of view some are better and some are worse. What assures me that your yardstick is the only yardstick by which to measure?
‘Good’ is a very difficult thing to get a handle on. In a general sense, the entire series of Platonic dialogs seek to put a finger on the ‘good’, more seriously than most, and yet uncertainty is the only thing sure to follow.
Shouting ‘English, English is the language for me!’ will not get us to an understanding of human morality, sorry.
why pretend? conservatism IS resistant to change, and scientific innovation is change.
Conservatism is against change for the sake of change. Yes. But, I do not know one conservative who is simply against “change” as an idea. Or resistant to progress. Honestly, some of the libs I know are the most stuck in their old ways. Funny that.
Nishi: “it is jodphurs, and those are only for little kids.
ill wear my john-field-belgium britches an carry my epee from fencing class tyvm”
*shrug*
A) You’re still bringing a knife (hell, an over-sized length of wire) to a gun-fight. For someone who has pretensions about keeping up with technology, you’re a remarkable luddite on some fronts.
B) Even if I was feeling nice, you’d lose — I prefer rapier and off-hand dagger — you learned a sport, I learned a fighting style. I’ll take those odds any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Nishi: “also, le plus ca change, le plus c’est la meme chose.”
When you can consistently spell properly in English, I’ll take your criticism of my French seriously.
Every time nishit types, Jefferson and Plato weap.
I will contend that all human beings eveywhere at all times have moral codes. From your point of view some are better and some are worse. What assures me that your yardstick is the only yardstick by which to measure?
I guess you have to qualify the word “Moral.” I would say that many human being everywhere have at all times had “codes.” Whether they were moral or not is a matter of interpretation. The presence of a code doesn’t mean it’s moral.
Perhaps the yardstick to use would be whether or not a person would want to live under such a code. If only the men choose to go (and the women say thank you very much, but I’d rather keep my clitoris and freedom) then perhaps I’d have to say the code ain’t so hot.
conservatism IS resistant to change, and scientific innovation is change.
Resistant to change, not opposed to change. Scientific innovation can lead to change, it is not change in itself. I work within the guidelines of ASTM, a fairly scientifical bunch, and they are about as resistant to change as anyone can be. Caution and restraint aren’t unscientific, nishfong. Reckless abandon can be.
From your point of view some are better and some are worse.
And you don’t believe that? All are equal in your book?
Yes, I am shouting “enlish, engish” by pointing out that the moral code we have in the west today evolved through religion. I did not say it cannot be improved upon in some way, or can’t evolve still further.
I mearly point out that the idea that people aren’t born with a moral code. Which was Nishi’s point. You came by and said, “well yeah, but people can be taught a moral code”. to which I replied “exactly”, and where do the teachers get their moral code from?
And you seem to reply “nanner, nanner”.
Not sure of your point.
Nishi: ” my argument is that we have an intrinsic moral code.
otherwise all atheists would be amoral.”
Let’s toss a few examples on the desk, so to speak….
Lenin… Stalin… Mao… Kim il Sung… Kim Jong Il…
Carin
Isn’t this – “I guess you have to qualify the word ‘Moral.'” – precisely the question at hand? If I am seeking an answer to this question, put this way ‘what is human morality?’ and you offer ‘human morality is not female genital mutilation’ how much further along am I in answering the question?
Presumably George Jefferson, because Thomas Jefferson was quite clear on his idea of an ideal government.
Great B
“Not sure of your point.”
Then that is my fault. Please excuse me. I will try again to gather my thoughts, or objections if you prefer. Please too, let me leave off with any argument Nishi has been making since among other reasons I have not followed her arguments closely and cannot claim them as my own.
What is Moral –
Yes, that is the question. And, the easy answer is it is what society says it is. In our society, that has been developed by judeo/christian religion generally.
Morality is generally what people accept as being “right” and “fair” and “just”. And of course, those concepts are all defined by society.
so, ultimately, unless you believe in a higher power who gives us such laws, a la the 10 commandments, then you must accept that those things are what any given society/culture has declared them to be.
the “blank” slate person or philosopher is going to start (knowingly or unknowingly) from the bias that what his society defines as “just” or “moral” is the closest thing to correct and work from there – bringing all of the biases, presumptions, etc that that person learned from birth.
just
There’s no shortage of stupidity on the internets. Britney Spears gets 107 million hits. Stupid people will talk about stupid things, and they’ll do it over and over, day in and day out. Kind of like you do, come to think of it. Maybe there’s some kind of connection.
They have a much lower tolerance for idiocy. Can’t say as I blame them.
Great B, et al
Perhaps the problem is that for the sake of the question I have, not ‘how do I behave?’ or ‘how should I act in this decision?’ or ‘how will I be moral in this instance?’ but to repeat ‘what is human morality?’, I am willing to leave off my personal reaction, my personal moral judgements, if only temporarily, and try to look at humanity as a whole, neither rejecting nor accepting any particular social arrangement as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. For the sake of the question. Not for the sake of deciding a monetary transaction or some other such particular moral decision, but for the sake of he question. So, in that limited sense and for that limited purpose, yes, “All are equal in your book?” applies. Just like a ‘language’, ok?
Oh, yeah: “liberal fascism” gets close to 700k hits. Must be real; Google says so.
Thus, in Nishi’s case, she scoffs at religion and claims to have her own internal moral code that she came up with “rationally”. Which is nonesense. Her moral code came from what she learned from her parents, her community, etc., which in turn was informed – if she grew up in the west – by the judeo/christian religions. Her biases and presumptions that she used to “create” her own moral code (I’m not sure what that is, but will make some assumptions) like “all humans are equal, you shouldn’t murder, you should rape, you shouldn’t steal” all stem from the judeo/christian religious tradition that she detests so much.
No, great banana, nishi wover her moral code by hand from thread she spun herself, using a spinning wheel of her own design and plant fibers from a lifeform she designed from scratch. It’s all new, you see.
great banana: “Thus, in Nishi’s case, she scoffs at religion and claims to have her own internal moral code that she came up with “rationallyâ€Â. Which is nonesense. Her moral code came from what she learned from her parents, her community, etc., which in turn was informed – if she grew up in the west – by the judeo/christian religions. Her biases and presumptions that she used to “create†her own moral code (I’m not sure what that is, but will make some assumptions) like “all humans are equal, you shouldn’t murder, you should rape, you shouldn’t steal†all stem from the judeo/christian religious tradition that she detests so much.”
That’s the problem with “self-made” individuals — they become far too impressed with their creator…
wover = wover her
Great B
In answer to 313, which I’m guessing was typed before you saw 311, please, just for me, no Nishi this or Nishi that, please, I’m begging here.
Sdferr,
So, in that limited sense and for that limited purpose, yes, “All are equal in your book?†applies. Just like a ‘language’, ok?
Well, if one believes that there is no ultimate truth, that ends up being fine. All morals are relative and all societies are equal, whether a slaveholding society or a free society.
When that is the belief (and, I’m not saying that is your belief) then there can be no claim of “human rights abuses” by say American against the Chinese b/c w/in the Chinese society, what they are doing is fine.
the problem comes when different cultures attempt to live togeher, a la the U.S. If we are unwilling to condemn another culture’s moral judgments, do we allow muslims to stone homosexuals to death in detroit as part of multi-culturalism?
One might say, but there is a difference between morality and law. While this is true, most criminal laws stem from society’s understanding of morality. Thus, laws that would penalize honor killings stem from a moral judgment. Laws against prostitution stem from a moral judgment.
Isn’t this – “I guess you have to qualify the word ‘Moral.’†– precisely the question at hand? If I am seeking an answer to this question, put this way ‘what is human morality?’ and you offer ‘human morality is not female genital mutilation’ how much further along am I in answering the question?
I offer that morality is a human construct. An invention. Informed by Confucius and Hammurabi and Christ (if you are religious) – which doesn’t make it invalid if you are not Christian.
To throw it all away because you dislike religion (when the religious version of morality has imbued everything along the way) is just ridiculous and arrogant.
Sdferr,
I’m addressing several things at once here – including Nishi. 313 wasn’t aimed at you.
If you google nishit idiot there are over 4800 hits.
And, in case I wasn’t clear – I don’t believe that man has an intrinsic moral code that he would develop if he were a blank slate uninformed by existing society. It’s an invention, if you are not religious, and a pretty darn good one.
by the way, #313 should read “shouldn’t rape”.
Great B
I don’t disagree with your suggestions in 318, by and large (more thinking might be required to make that a categorical statement), but may I pull this one phrase out to examine? Namely, “…society’s understanding of morality…”.
Carin
I for one, do not fall into the category of those who “…dislike religion…”. I would not suggest that we, any of us, throw it all away, if for no other reason than that would simply be impossible, again, imo.
Continuing with my metaphor of choice, I guess, how does society understand English? Or alternatively, French, or Greek, or pick ’em. Does society, to be picky about it, ‘understand’ anything?
Who wants to dig Saddam up and tell him?
Does society, to be picky about it, ‘understand’ anything?
What is reality?
I believe that society “understands” morality to the extent a society establishes a moral code and expects people to follow it. So, if a society, say a village of people, believe killing is wrong, and someone in that village kills someone else, the villagers may condemn the killing, shun the killer, or take some other action to enforce their “understanding” of morality.
pfft, Carin, the noble savage concept is risible, and has been scientifically debunked.
read Pinker, The Blank Slate.
religions all evolved from basic tribal socialization on the EEA. socialization was a profound selective advantage. the underlying mores are all based on things you dont do to your consanguinous kin, ie rape, murder, stealing, etc.
religions and governments evolved on top of the underlying substate of kinship mores and taboos, and extended benefit to a wider memetic tribe.
now, if you believe that a supernatural being gave moses or brigham young tablets with social mores carved into them, well, ok then.
i am never going to be able to convince you that homosapiens sapiens has basic moral tendencies.
The stuff that doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.
pablo, do you agree or disagree with Manzi?
True. Because it’s an out-and-out falsehood. You’ve mustered no evidence to support the contention; you’ve only asserted it.
i am never going to be able to convince you that homosapiens sapiens has basic moral tendencies.
Especially since you just disproved the argument yourself. If we had basic moral tendencies, how could they be a profound selective advantage? Language and clothing are also profound selective advantages, and fairly universal, but are hardly innate.
Nishfong, did you happen to notice that the anti-evolution candidates Manzi is talking about ALL LOST THE FUCKING ELECTION?
ow, if you believe that a supernatural being gave moses or brigham young tablets with social mores carved into them, well, ok then.i am never going to be able to convince you that homosapiens sapiens has basic moral tendencies.
See, it’s when you write things like this that cause people to accuse you of arguing with the voices in your head.
If humanity has “basic moral tendenicies” than there must be an absolute morality which informs that “basic moral tendency”. Where does that morality come from if there is no God?
I.e., if there is no God, how can there be good and evil? Good and evil would merely be societal constructs that can be disregarded by the rational man. Or changed. thus, right now we consider genocie evil. but, without an absolute morality, that could be changed to where we believe genocide is fine (obviously as long as it is someone else’s race being killed).
Now, if you want to argue that in a state of nature humans will naturally herd together into a tribe for mutual protection, and that within that tribe a social construct will develop whereby I won’t initiate violence against you if you don’t initiate violence against me, then I would agree. but, that is a social contract for mutual protection, not morality.
and you offer ‘human morality is not female genital mutilation’
FGM is actually a good example of cultural evolution.
Initially it was practiced as a puberty rite of passage by sub-saharan african tribes, but it is also practiced by primitive tribes in south america, so it must have arisen independently. it is, btw, the exact analog of circumsion if just the prepuce is removed. Islam simply incorporated the practice since the shayyks could not stamp it out.
Some christian converts in SSA still practice FGM and blood sacrifice.
B Moe, Manzi is talking about why the republican party is percieved as anti-science.
“What is reality?”
Is this a serious question? Or is it rhetorical slight-of-hand? Or is it something else?
It can be a serious question and can lead down a very long path of inquiry. I think that is a good thing, some do not.
It can be rhetorical too, and that does not make it a bad thing, far from it. But does it lead to understanding when rhetorical? It depends on the intent.
However a given campaign ends, the mere fact of such a debate tends to create a perception of conservatives as out of touch with contemporary America
Nishidiot, the fact that humanity disagrees on FGM is evidence against your belief in “inherent morality”.
Do you still believe genetics determines academic success?
am
Foronce, you’re correct. No one who was even glancingly familiar with history…strike that…even glancingly familiar with the present could say that with a straight face. You are either deeply ignorant, or a liar. I can’t think of any other alternatives.
Even assuming that the majority of hom sap have some strong moral compass guiding them, there’s enough minority to do really bad things.
And all that simply ignores the question of whether the moral majority (non-capitalized, of course) should take up arms and effect justice, sans any guiding legal doctrines. Of what use is law if there are no lawbreakers, after all?
but FGM was just likely a way of increasing the bride price.
it was not immoral just as circumsion was not immoral.
Is patriotism moral?
Perception is not reality. Your perception may be different than mine or Manzis, and we can’t all be right. I think Manzi overstates the case wrt both the size of the constituency and the perception of the GOP.
Foronce, you’re correct.
I should have clarified that. You’re literally correct: you’re not going to convince me that homos sapiens has basic moral tendencies, because it’s not true, and because even if it were true 80% of the time, that other 20% is out there wreaking havoc.
Nishi,
So, Manzi believes there is a perception that conservatives are “anti-science”. And, many leftists share that perception.
that does not make it true and is not an argument.
Manzi is talking about why the republican party is percieved as anti-science.
If the Republican Party is perceived as anti-science because the anti-science candidates got rejected, then perhaps you need to recalibrate your perceiver.
to be able to convince you that homosapiens sapiens has basic moral tendencies
Self-serving codes are not the same as morality. I don’t rape your sister- you don’t rape my sister kinda stuff.
But how many developed that old “intrinsic” right that man is free? You can’t own another man?
That was a pretty sophisticated bit of morality that took a rather long time to develop, don’t you think? Although now we see it as one of our more basic “rights.” But, slavery is one of the most immoral acts. Morality, as viewed by Western society, took a rather long time to develop. Whether it was informed, or not, by God is irrelevant to me.
One doesn’t have to believe that Jesus was the son of God to appreciate his teaching and realize that it resulted (eventually) in a moral code that is beneficial?
And I don’t really give a fuck. Because you’re not arguing with the Republican party; you’re arguing with a group of individuals. Yeah, I get it — the presence of a given constituency, which is vocal but not at all successful, lets the press, political opponents, and morons like you paint an entire group of people as “anti-science”.
For crissake, I consider many on the left to be anti-science because of their AGW fanaticism, their “organic” fetishism, and their willingness to buy into all sorts of idiotic economic garbage.
You may want to look into the history of nuclear power in the US, nishi. From which side of the political spectrum was it opposed? Which side of the political spectrum believes all sorts of easily-disproven lies about depleted uranium?
Does that make either side “anti-science”? No. It means you have to be a mature individual and work things out on a case-by-case basis — which side of the political spectrum has a better chance to put its anti-science agenda into law? Which fights are worth the effort?
Much more damage has been done — and is threatened to be done — by the anti-science agenda on the left. You’ve admitted as much in re AGW, yet you still come here and argue against positions we’ve only taken in your imagination.
Jeff says perception is reality.
I think Manzi overstates the case wrt both the size of the constituency and the perception of the GOP.
i don’t.
the GOP is percieved as the anti-science party.
google “republican war on science”.
whether that perception is “fair” or “overstated” is immaterial.
It’s a passive-voice perceiver, B Moe.
See, if you have a passive-voice perceiver, you don’t have to defend the claim. After all, it’s not necessarily true that nishi has that perception. Nishi is, in old digi-speak, tri-stated.
If you can take that vantage point, you can say stupid things over and over and over again, while being able to deceive yourself that you’re not being stupid. After all, it’s some unspecified others that’s doing the perceiving.
Manzi is talking about why the republican party is percieved as anti-science.
If the Republican Party is perceived as anti-science because the anti-science candidates got rejected, then perhaps you need to recalibrate your perceiver.
Oh, but where would the fun be in that? It’s the strongest argument those pushing for government funding of scientific research have.
Odd choice of positions to take, though: spokesmodel for the intellectually deficient.
“google “republican war on scienceâ€Â.”
You’ve been bitchslapped about that several times already.
Are you a masochist or something?
Or a monomaniacal Protector?
Yes, it is immoral, by my standards. It impairs basic functions — which circumcision doesn’t — and it does not provide any medical benefit — which circumcision arguably does.
The existence of slavery and rape also argues against your “inherent morality” argument.
As I understand your argument, you believe that since every culture has a moral code, there’s something inherent in humanity that gives us a moral code, therefore there’s no reason to actually have a moral code. That’s nonsense. If it’s not your argument, then you’d better explain it. Try to use English, complete sentences, and cogent thoughts.
Jeff says perception is reality.
Jeff has also said you have no idea what that means. Repeatedly.
google “republican war on scienceâ€Â.
Google “democrat war on science”. It has twice as many hits. So what?
whether that perception is “fair†or “overstated†is immaterial.
Only if you are a two-digit moron trying to rationalize your desire to vote for the cute one.
/sigh
the athenians and spartans had functional societies without jesus.
so did the romans, the chinese, the japanese, and many, many other human societies.
Because lies, well, who cares?
After all, every Muslim in the world is a terrorist. Perception is reality, right? Whether that perception is “fair” or “overstated” is immaterial.
Who said they didn’t?
Seriously? Who?
Liberals are crazy = 435000 hits
scientists are stupid= 565000 hits
okfine, i give up.
the repubs love science and Goldbergs bulwark will hold against free market eugenics.
good luck with that.
;)
You never even tried. Assertion is not argument.
Fair may be immaterial. Overstated is not. If trhe perception exists only in the minds of a handful of whackjob, say, the size if the group of strict anti-evolutionists, then it really doesn’t matter at all.
Remember the Drew Carey episode where the Rocky Horror crowd got into a dance off with the Priscilla, Queen of the Desert crew? In the grand scheme of things, it’s a lot like that. The vast majority of people really don’t give a shit. The only people who do are the true believers on both sides, of which you’re one and I’m not. Which is why this has gotten pretty boring.
“#Comment by nishizonoshinji on 6/13 @ 8:22 am #”
And the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a moral act.
[/fucknozzle]
Scratch “both sides” and replace with “both ends of the spectrum”.
Muslims are terrorists 636000 hits
Mohammad was a rapist 974000 hits
And Baracky is a muslim. QED.
O! no!
hit. The only people who do are the true believers on both sides, of which you’re one and I’m not. Which is why this has gotten pretty borin
Pablo – but nishi perceives that we are true believers … and perception is reality.
Mohammed pedophile – 482,000
Mohammed paedophile – 86,000
Muhammed paedophile – 452,000
Muhammed pedophile – 405,000
Burak horse – 92,000
The whole Google thing is just a new-ish face on an old logical fallacy: appeal to popularity.
Nishi apparently thinks that if enough people believe it, it must be true.
the underlying mores are all based on things you dont do to your consanguineous kin, ie rape, murder, stealing, etc.
I can’t even agree with that.
Again I’ll point to the Pitcairn Islanders. Raping 12 year olds was just accepted, and there certainly were few degrees of separation in relationships. Islanders knew their daughters, cousins, sisters were being gang-raped at early ages and it was considered “breaking in your girls” right through the 1990’s.
MayBee — and how many stories are there of people stealing from their relatives?
Pablo: “Fair may be immaterial.”
Fair is a playground.
Nish,
I guess the problem here truly stems from you inability to coherenly make an argument based on facts. Instead, you seem to believe dropping snark bombs is an argument. The spartans had a society? really? Before Jesus?
What does that mean? Do you want to go back to their moral code, which was based on a plethora of “gods”?
Nishi: “the athenians and spartans had functional societies without jesus.
so did the romans, the chinese, the japanese, and many, many other human societies.”
And, to expand on the Great Banana’s comment, all had theological systems in place. In fact, for most of the them, there was no “separation of church and state.” Several believed their leaders to be either descended from deities and the rest elevated their leaders to deity-status at some point in their history.
You’d do better if you made points that actually supported your arguments, Nishi.
The Aztecs had a functional society as well. I wouldn’t call child sacrifices “moral” though.
And w/o Paul, John the Baptist, Augustine, Aquinas, or C. S. Lewis, for crying out loud. Simply brilliant, nuggie.
Like I keep saying/asking and you keep ignoring, you have no higher power, do you? There’s no identifiable or evident purpose to any of your majority-rules thesis. You cannot so much as hint at a meaning of life or a superior spiritual state, or even a cause justified by a valid principle. You cannot describe a higher outcome versus a lower one. You have no God, god, or “god”.
Therefore you cram everything you think you don’t approve of into a space you think represents everything you don’t approve of. /sigh indeed.
Define purpose, ethic, principle, moral, or like, come up with something else.
Nishi sez:
“the underlying mores are all based on things you dont do to your consanguineous kin, ie rape, murder, stealing, etc.”
While this can support the argument that there is some sort of inherent evolutionary biological basis to morality, wouldn’t it also suggest that the more genetically distant one is from you, the more acceptable it is to rape, murder, steal, etc.?
That, in and of itself, would suggest that if there is any evolutionary basis for morality, there would be a much, much weaker basis for any sort of universal moral code, which runs counter to the fundamental nature of most societally constructed moral codes.
Thanks,
BRD
“Nishi apparently thinks that if enough people believe it, it must be true.”
Even if she’s the only one.
Actually, to riff on this a second more, if an evolutionarily-derived moral code weakens protections for those less like oneself, wouldn’t that imply a very aggressive eugenics campaign? Would it follow that someone who is born with a sever birth-defect not only has an unwanted trait, but the fact that the trait has manifested means that they are further away genetically?
And extending this observation further, the greater the manifestation, the less close the affected individual is to one’s self, so therefore the greater the birth defect the more OK it becomes to kill them or forcibly sterilize them?
I wrote something like this in response to the Schiavo law — my argument being that government interference on the issue could give Dems cover to block conservative justices (even though plenty of Dems were represented in this legislation).
So there is something to the “perception is reality” thing, naturally. But what nishi misses is that perceptions are fluid and can be changed — and that one of the ways to change those perceptions is to cease parroting the tripe that is helping to form to perception in the first place, to instead counter it with fact and drive that counter meme. For instance, the anti-evolution candidates all lost, meaning that “Republicans” (to use nishi’s overgeneralizations) REJECT anti-evolutionary thinkers COMPLETELY.
More, one could argue that, given the prevailing beliefs of Americans — the majority of whom believe in some sort of higher power (and something likely 90% of whom believe in angels, eg.) — Republicans, given the “perception” of the party as the party of faith, are more attuned to American sensibilities: to wit, the reject anti-evolutionary candidates, and yet still accept and respect people of faith.
Which combination is precisely why you have Democrats attacking on two fronts in order to create perceptions that are, in fact, false: namely, that Republicans are anti-science (a fact debunked by their rejection of anti-evolution candidates), and that Dems themselves are the party of the faithful (a fact they hope to hammer home by turning their conventions into revival meetings).
The Democrats have a vested interest in creating the perception of Republicans that nishi parrots. But that perception can be changed if it isn’t merely looked at fatalistically, or from the vantage point of nishi’s almost deterministic paradigm.
That’s why we have argument, rhetoric, and the like. We have tools to combat falsehoods and change perceptions. If this site has done anything, I hope it has shown people that there are intelligent classical liberals who are able to joke around AND debate difficult questions — even as they are almost uniformly characterized as “wingnuts” who should, like cancer or bacteria, be excised from the body politic.
And just so we’re clear, that last bit was an illusion to Greenwald(s) and Mona, two “conservative libertarians” in the bag for Obama who use the tropes of eugenics in response to those who disagree with them.
Coincidence? Or progressive selection…?
My take, “perception?” is that perception is a filter we apply to reality since all of reality is too overwhelming to our senses and to survive in the world we have to pare it down to some essentials.
If that paring down results in our mental image of the world being in tune with actual reality then we are better able to survive. The give and take of free societies results in perception closer approximating reality.
Imposing a false perception of reality on a society may benefit some for awhile but reality is always there and will break through any lie eventually. Much suffering will happen till that occurs but occur it will.
Bad filters make for bad quality.
Now I have to go to the DMV for some bad quality experience.
Again I’ll point to the Pitcairn Islanders.
b-b-b-but the mutineers, the philoprogenitors, were good ol english xians, werent they?
Again I’ll point…
Stamping your feet and holding your breath works, too.
Oh! And stick out your lower lip, that is so cute when you do that!
“they reject anti-evolutionary candidates,”
no, the electorate rejected those candidates with polls and primaries.
if the republican party rejected them they would never have gotten a platform to run in the first place.
the republican party is percieved as the party of anti-science.
i’d be interested to learn how that perception could be canged.
b-b-b-but the mutineers, the philoprogenitors, were good ol english xians, werent they?
I have no idea if all the mutineers were Christians. The men and women they kidnapped definitely were not.
Even so, it doesn’t matter. The question is whether, when they set up their society, if they created a moral code for which “the underlying mores are all based on things you dont do to your consanguineous kin, ie rape, murder, stealing, etc. ”
They didn’t.
the more genetically distant one is from you, the more acceptable it is to rape, murder, steal, etc.?
yup, that is why warfare.
Of course, many became Christians. (ha ha ha ha)
#388 nor did they set one up based on judeoxian ethics.
perhaps because they were criminal mutineer sociopaths to start with.
What does that say about an intrinsic moral code?
I’d love to comment on this thread, but no time to wade through the reams of illiterate bot-spam.
Nishi: “perhaps because they were criminal mutineer sociopaths to start with.”
“perhaps” is hardly science, now is it…
if the republican party rejected them they would never have gotten a platform to run in the first place.
What the fuck are you talking about?
the more genetically distant one is from you, the more acceptable it is to rape, murder, steal, etc.?
yup, that is why warfare.
Never mind. You fail. That is why nonsense.
“We have tools to combat falsehoods and change perceptions”
Master, please, go right ahead and challenge Pinker and Reynolds on the bioluddite council, because they have informed my perceptions.
Nishi,
So really, according to this evolutionarily derived morality you describe, genocide against sufficiently foreign populations would, if not explicitly encouraged, at least a minor faux pas? Ultimately, all the foreign folks are going to do is compete for resources and space in a limited world, and since I have a stronger obligation to my cosanginous relations, I should protect them and eliminate the threats embodied by non relations?
sure BRD.
that is why we have a defense department.
that is why slavery.
i suppose we have to have to have whole “moral war” debate now.
Nishi,
Well, when it gets down to cases, is it a bad thing to just go off and kill vast carloads of foreign folk?
well, that is whole “moral war” issue.
tribal mores really only apply within-group.
between group morals would have to come from something like the UN.
like…was Gulf II a “moral war”.
religious mores only apply within group….government mores are for citizens.
now, some religions advocate the “brotherhood of man” and TRY to make their within-group the tribe of homosapien sapiens. alternatively, just view them as potential converts to “the TRVTH”, proseptive members.
Your wasting your time, BRD, when she slides this far into ‘tard speak she ain’t coming out for awhile.
Nishi @400,
But aren’t the morals which are the guiding principles to such considerations extrinsicly derived, rather than inherent as a product of evolutionary biology, since you’re essentially overriding obligations to the cosanginous?
BRD
Idiot. Primaries are elections held by the parties to nominate candidates. The party refused those candidates; the party rejected them.
WTF?
Put down the crack pipe, nishi. And FUCKING LEARN ENGLISH!
Hi y’all.
Been turned off politics big time but this discussion interests me as it involves somewhat the reason for the former.
I’ll throw in a few meandering thoughts and see what hits me back…
Policy that is supported by science (i.e. considered rational in light of scientific evidence) and promoted by religion is not necessarily a bad thing. E.g. the policy to contain and then destroy communism; economics, psychology, and Judeo-Christian ethics. Policies to curb CO2 emissions; physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, Gaia.
But science is not policy or religion. The world is what it is what it is.
Conservatism per se has no problem with science.
Conservatism taken dogmatically will come into conflict with science, as far as any and every ideology will and every one is limited in scope (wrong beyond certain limits or under certain conditions).
As for ‘caution’, it is a truism that too much or too little will lead to irrational actions. Scientists are on average much more cautious than the population at large.
So I see no conflict there.
PS, I think you’re all crazy, but I hope you’re well.
Also, Obama losing looks like a good bet, question is how high will he rise.
… in other words, when science, policy, and religion have implications for a given issue they tend to be conflated, and I think that’s happening on both ‘sides’; the accusations levelled against conservatives of being anti-science, and the accusations of conservatives against scientists of being anti-conservative.
Does that make sense?
I think you’re all crazy, but I hope you’re well.
Back at you.
Does that make sense?
I’ll have to get back with you when I have had some time to filter this thread a little better.
Jeff writes;
Similar to undermining a currency. Prices communicate. The processes is subtle. One effect is to destabilize value.
— J.M. Keynes
ok….wow, that was a good comment.
lazar, u be Jen.
;)
[…] that Palin taking time away from the young defective she should have shitcanned (call it “compassionate eugenics“!) cause even more harm to the useless little drain on society that should never have been […]
Sullivan is jumping on the batshit crazy bandwagon and calling for the release of Palin’s med records:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/things-that-mak.html
I hope she brings them out. She shouldn’t have to. Can you imagine this crap? But let her talk about it. She’ll expose these people for the rats they are. And you know what? If it’s true, it still hurts the dems. Most people will see this as an attempt to shield her daughter, and something honorable. Creeps.
How about an engineer’s perspective? Here goes. Every time science uses reverse engineering principles to figure out a new breakthrough, it’s further proof of God. I’m big into DNA computing right now. Basically, what we’re doing is taking the biological organic computing infrastructure, which uses base-four digital encoding in the form of amino acid chains (keep in mind that intentional design is an ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT for any digitally encoded data, by defintion). We’re redefining the world of computing, and learning that God’s computers make our’s look primitive by comparison. We cannot create such computers, of course, we can only use existing DNA and manipulate it around the edges, “reverse engineering” it to fit our uses. In short, we have to admit that God does it better. There are only two kinds of computer experts in DNA computing. Those who believe in intelligent design and admit it, and those who believe in intelligent design and cover it up. But is is not possible to deny intelligent design any more. Our field is the proof that ends the debate.