drugs and prostitution

[rkbabang]

I don't see how that's a problem. That's how it is throughout the animal kingdom - the strongest survive.

 

Please stop with all the evolutionary references.

 

I respect your views on social issues and I agree with most of them. If you don't like people going to hookers, fine, but don't try to rationalize things by fitting them in your self-constructed moral framework, where, if you don't believe in your specific god and your specific values then it's ok to murder your boss, cheat on your wife and inject your baby daughter with heroin. Your line of reasoning on morality is outdated, egocentric and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as several people tried to explain to you in previous threads on similar issues.

 

Besides that, your constant references are a very childish way to end any productive discussion. "You don't agree with me? You must be a barbarian living in the animal kingdom ... ". Right. Some people have a more nuanced view of what's right and what's wrong. They try not to listen to their gut feelings (like those in the animal kingdom ;)).

 

writser, that's the thing. I've thought about this a lot and I think Eric will agree. There is no "true" right and wrong. All of our brains are wired in a certain way and we don't control the original wiring. Our evolutionary instincts are just that. Some people are wired to steal others are wired to sacrifice their lives for a stranger. Neither is better or worse. They are simply different.

 

The bottom line is this: if there is no deity, there is nothing that is moral or immoral. Actions are simply that: actions. We can glam it up and say "well if it causes harm, it's bad." That's arbitrary though. We can say we "reason" and that's why we do certain things. Indeed, even that is arbitrary. One person may "reason" almost anything.

 

I have no problem with anyone who is a deist, theist, agnostic or atheist. I do find it a little puzzling when they aren't logically consistent though. That goes even when a Christian is for the death penalty or an atheist grumbling about social rights.  If life is valuable, then even a person on death row has value. If we really are just stardust, don't expect people to get up in arms about people dying in a foreign country.

 

Morals aside, legislators could take a hypocratic oath to "do no harm".

 

Policies that lead to an increase of human trafficking of sex slaves could be seen as doing harm.

 

Or you could organize society around a first principle such as:

 

"No person or group of people has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; Nor does any person or group of people have the right to delegate the initiation of force to anyone else."*

 

*(Adapted from: Who is a libertarian?)

 

 

[writser]

The bottom line is this: if there is no deity, there is nothing that is moral or immoral.

 

That is your bottom line, not mine.

 

As you pointed out in a previous thread, if only the gods know what is wrong and what is right, well, then you are just as clueless as I am. So you might as well use drugs and cheat on your wife - maybe the gods appreciate that after all! No way to know, right? Even if supernatural beings exist, we, humans, are all clueless regarding morality according to you. We'll only find out when we die. Not much different from the animal kingdom you love to refer to. However, you still won't visit a hooker because you have personal opinions about what is right and what is not. So do I. We still strive to act morally - regardless of what supernatural beings think. Something that you keep dismissing.

 

Anyway, these discussions would be much more fun if a radical muslim showed up arguing, using your line of reasoning, that it's ok to marry 12yr old girls and to stone a woman to death if she's unfaithful. You couldn't claim the moral highground anymore and would be forced to find a better line of reasoning.

[rkbabang]

The bottom line is this: if there is no deity, there is nothing that is moral or immoral.

 

That is your bottom line, not mine.

 

As you pointed out in a previous thread, if only the gods know what is wrong and what is right, well, then you are just as clueless as I am. So you might as well use drugs and cheat on your wife - maybe the gods appreciate that after all! No way to know, right? Even if supernatural beings exist, we, humans, are all clueless regarding morality according to you. We'll only find out when we die. Not much different from the animal kingdom you love to refer to. However, you still won't visit a hooker because you have personal opinions about what is right and what is not. So do I. We still strive to act morally - regardless of what supernatural beings think. Something that you keep dismissing.

 

Anyway, these discussions would be much more fun if a radical muslim showed up arguing, using your line of reasoning, that it's ok to marry 12yr old girls and to stone a woman to death if she's unfaithful. You couldn't claim the moral highground anymore and would be forced to find a better line of reasoning.

 

Sure, he could still claim the moral highground, he'd pullout the old "My god is better than your god" argument. Followed of course with "Nah, nah, na-nah, nah"

[writser]

The ensuing discussion could be fun though. I've always wanted to see an online crusade here :). We've only seen Darwin roundhouse kicking Jesus around so far.

[rkbabang]

The ensuing discussion could be fun though. I've always wanted to see an online crusade here :). We've only seen Darwin roundhouse kicking Jesus around so far.

 

I agree it would be fun to watch. 

 

Slightly related to this topic (religion, Darwin, morality, etc) you might be interested in an article I wrote for the October 28, 2007 edition of The Libertarian Enterprise:  The Market For Genes.  I'd be interested to hear stahleyp's review of it.

 

[Guest]

The bottom line is this: if there is no deity, there is nothing that is moral or immoral.

 

That is your bottom line, not mine.

 

As you pointed out in a previous thread, if only the gods know what is wrong and what is right, well, then you are just as clueless as I am. So you might as well use drugs and cheat on your wife - maybe the gods appreciate that after all! No way to know, right? Even if supernatural beings exist, we, humans, are all clueless regarding morality according to you. We'll only find out when we die. Not much different from the animal kingdom you love to refer to. However, you still won't visit a hooker because you have personal opinions about what is right and what is not. So do I. We still strive to act morally - regardless of what supernatural beings think. Something that you keep dismissing.

 

Anyway, these discussions would be much more fun if a radical muslim showed up arguing, using your line of reasoning, that it's ok to marry 12yr old girls and to stone a woman to death if she's unfaithful. You couldn't claim the moral highground anymore and would be forced to find a better line of reasoning.

 

First, you never told me the "point."

 

Secondly, I never indicated we couldn't strive to act morally. Even when I was agnostic, I acted more moral (by most standards) than most religious people. What I realized though, that if a deity doesn't exist, those standards are bs.

 

I'm simply saying that even if we strive to the "right" thing...that "right" thing isn't really "right."

[Guest]

hahaha

 

Hey, if the Mrs is good with that, who am I to object?  ;D

 

 

The problem with democracy is that the tastes and preferences of the majority are forced upon the minority with guns.

 

(and they think it is funny)

 

I don't see how that's a problem. That's how it is throughout the animal kingdom - the strongest survive.

 

 

The point of civilization is for human beings to try to live together unlike animals.  Progress is being made, albeit rather slowly.

 

Why are we special? Aren't we also just animals.

 

Further, why is that the "point"? What if my desire is to hook up with as many hot ladies that I can - regardless of the consequences of their emotional or physical wellbeing?

 

rk, thanks for the post. I'll read it here over the next couple days.

 

 

[Rabbitisrich]

The bottom line is this: if there is no deity, there is nothing that is moral or immoral.

 

That is your bottom line, not mine.

 

As you pointed out in a previous thread, if only the gods know what is wrong and what is right, well, then you are just as clueless as I am. So you might as well use drugs and cheat on your wife - maybe the gods appreciate that after all! No way to know, right? Even if supernatural beings exist, we, humans, are all clueless regarding morality according to you. We'll only find out when we die. Not much different from the animal kingdom you love to refer to. However, you still won't visit a hooker because you have personal opinions about what is right and what is not. So do I. We still strive to act morally - regardless of what supernatural beings think. Something that you keep dismissing.

 

Anyway, these discussions would be much more fun if a radical muslim showed up arguing, using your line of reasoning, that it's ok to marry 12yr old girls and to stone a woman to death if she's unfaithful. You couldn't claim the moral highground anymore and would be forced to find a better line of reasoning.

 

First, you never told me the "point."

 

Secondly, I never indicated we couldn't strive to act morally. Even when I was agnostic, I acted more moral (by most standards) than most religious people. What I realized though, that if a deity doesn't exist, those standards are bs.

 

I'm simply saying that even if we strive to the "right" thing...that "right" thing isn't really "right."

 

But the search for the point is the point of the earlier arguments. Even if interventionist deities exist, you are limited to you. You are the one framing the "points"/"meanings"/"purposes" in relation to your interpretation of the deities' commandments. All the deities can do is influence your incentives. Deity exists, ergo reference point for "the point of [...]." Deity doesn't exist, but you believe it does, same. Your introspection is biased from the get go by hinging your framework on "THE" purpose of things.

 

 

[meiroy]

 

Your wife wouldn't be a victim?

 

Human trafficking would still occur even if this stuff were legal.

 

 

Your wife wouldn't be a victim of force/violence/aggression, no.  We don't (and shouldn't) lock people up for cheating on their wives.

 

As far as human trafficking goes.  Car sales are legal and stolen car trafficking occurs.  Selling cars is engaging in peaceful free-market commerce, trafficking in stolen cars is not. 

 

Prostitution is simply engaging in peaceful free-market commerce.  Kidnapping and selling human beings against their will is not.

 

In both cases the peaceful free-market activity (voluntary commerce between consenting adults) should be legal, the theft and/or violence should not.

 

Are there any examples of human trafficking where the service is legal?

 

Like what if you kidnapped a psychologist and forced her to see clients, pocketing her fee for yourself?  Things like that just don't happen with legal services AFAIK.

 

Actually, yes, legalizing prostitution doesn't resolve completely human trafficking. In some European countries prostitution is legal but human trafficking is common.

 

[rkbabang]

The point of civilization is for human beings to try to live together unlike animals.  Progress is being made, albeit rather slowly.

 

Why are we special? Aren't we also just animals.

 

Further, why is that the "point"? What if my desire is to hook up with as many hot ladies that I can - regardless of the consequences of their emotional or physical wellbeing?

 

Yes we are animals, but animals who are aware of our own mortality and aware of our own thinking.  If there are other sapient animals who can communicate like we can, think about thinking like we can, and reason like we can, then no we wouldn't be any more special or valuable than they.

 

If it is your desire to hook up with as many hot ladies that you can regardless of the consequences you could certainly do that, but I don't think it would make you happy in the long run, and I think you are intelligent enough to know that, even if you don't understand why. 

 

It is interesting that you believe that people are moral because they are religious, yet you admit that in your own case you chose to be religious because you were already moral and didn't understand why.  Do you really believe that you are unique?  That only you can have morals without religion and the rest of us need religion or else we'll go around killing, raping, and stealing?  I think fear of others and their free will is a large component to why you want to support religion.

Both religion and government have thrived over the millennia using the fear every man has of ever other man.  The thinking goes: Sure I can be moral, but what is to stop everyone else from murder and mayhem?  Sure I don't need government to control me, but who is going to control everyone else?  Etc...

 

[One World Trader]

And to think the money says "In God We Trust".

[writser]

We can stop the discussion on morality. I have found this supernatural being Stahley is referring to.

 

... Bibleman!

 

Did anybody ever watch this? :P (hat tip to Richard Dawkins)

[Guest]

rk,

 

I haven't yet read your longer post. I will shortly.

 

However, in reference to your more recent post about humans knowing our mortality, thinking etc, why are we the only animals that know this? Everything came out of the same primordial goo and we are talking about something a bit different than an extra arm or eye. Perhaps there is a rationale behind it and I haven't read it.

 

Also, to set a point straight: I never ever said people are moral because they are religious. I know plenty of religious people who are quite immoral. I'm simply saying that ultimate morality doesn't exist unless a deity does. that's my only claim.

 

"Goodness" isn't really good in that it's simply an emotion that makes us feel a certain way. For instance, if ripping someone off produced the same chemical reaction of "goodness" that we give to charity, it would be just as "good" to us.

 

We may help others due to empathy. I don't deny that. I do, however, look at empathy as any other evolutionary instinct. Once we realize that helping others is simply an instinct and that "goodness' doesn't exist, why should I continue to "good" things? Just to get the chemical reaction - even if, long term, that puts me at a disadvantage financially or otherwise? No, I would (and should) override it so that the empathy emotion doesn't control my decision making (at least, insofar, it puts me, or a loved one, in a less advantageous position.

 

And, no, for what it's worth, I don't think people would go along killing and raping if religion is removed from the picture.

 

 

writser,

 

Dawkins is so incredibly biased it's incredible. He was also talking up Joe Atwill last year. Atwill is a huge hack and even atheistic scholars disown him. However, Dawkins does whatever he can to make fun of other people. Personally, I don't find insulting other as the "right" way to live. Though, admittedly, the video is quite a bit on the corny side.

 

It's funny how Dawkins claims the universe has no purpose or point...but feels the need to rally his causes.

[ERICOPOLY]

 

"Goodness" isn't really good in that it's simply an emotion that makes us feel a certain way. For instance, if ripping someone off produced the same chemical reaction of "goodness" that we give to charity, it would be just as "good" to us.

 

We may help others due to empathy. I don't deny that. I do, however, look at empathy as any other evolutionary instinct. Once we realize that helping others is simply an instinct and that "goodness' doesn't exist, why should I continue to "good" things? Just to get the chemical reaction - even if, long term, that puts me at a disadvantage financially or otherwise?

 

 

You have both selfish needs as well as social instincts.  They are sometimes at odds and based on your individual situation you may service one at a higher priority to the other.

 

These are instincts though and not Gods that drive us, IMO.

[rkbabang]

We can stop the discussion on morality. I have found this supernatural being Stahley is referring to.

 

... Bibleman!

 

Did anybody ever watch this? :P (hat tip to Richard Dawkins)

 

I never saw that before thanks. 

 

I've always thought the characters from the Bible would make some good books or movies.  It is clear that the most evil villain in the book is God (the Father) where the good guy is Jesus.  A great plot would be if Jesus decided to make a deal with the devil (as a lesser of two evils) to team up and overthrow their common enemy (his a-hole father).  Maybe there can be some drama as both sides try to win over the loyalty of the holy ghost.  In the end it turns out that the Father, Son, and Ghost are just one being with multiple personality disorder which ends up killing itself leaving, Satan who turns out not to be such a bad guy (just misunderstood stemming from some of the bad things he did when he used to drink), with the universe all to himself.

 

I remember reading a book a long time ago, maybe when I was a teenager or in my early 20s called The Jehovah Contract where a hit man was hired to take out god.  I'm going to have to re-read it sometime, I remember loving it.  Here it is on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/The-Jehovah-Contract-Victor-Koman/dp/0977764907

 

 

[Mikenhe]

We can stop the discussion on morality. I have found this supernatural being Stahley is referring to.

 

... Bibleman!

 

Did anybody ever watch this? :P (hat tip to Richard Dawkins)

 

I never saw that before thanks. 

 

I've always thought the characters from the Bible would make some good books or movies.  It is clear that the most evil villain in the book is God (the Father) where the good guy is Jesus.  A great plot would be if Jesus decided to make a deal with the devil (as a lesser of two evils) to team up and overthrow their common enemy (his a-hole father).  Maybe there can be some drama as both sides try to win over the loyalty of the holy ghost.  In the end it turns out that the Father, Son, and Ghost are just one being with multiple personality disorder which ends up killing itself leaving, Satan who turns out not to be such a bad guy (just misunderstood stemming from some of the bad things he did when he used to drink), with the universe all to himself.

 

I remember reading a book a long time ago, maybe when I was a teenager or in my early 20s called The Jehovah Contract where a hit man was hired to take out god.  I'm going to have to re-read it sometime, I remember loving it.  Here it is on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/The-Jehovah-Contract-Victor-Koman/dp/0977764907

 

Also try "God Knows" by Joseph Heller.

 

very good book...

 

Reiligion is nothing more than a ponzi scheme...

[Liberty]

Once we realize that helping others is simply an instinct and that "goodness' doesn't exist

 

This makes no sense. Things can exist even if they are evolutionary adaptations. Anchoring bias is a heuristic programmed into us by evolution because it's quick and works in most situations we would encounter in the simpler society where our bodies evolved over tens of thousands of years. Is anchoring bias not real? Thinking is just an electro-chemical phenomenon that takes place in the brain, something that we can clearly observe with all kinds of equipment, and we can see how it changes or stops if we damage various parts of the brain. Yet thinking is still real. It doesn't need to be magical and supernatural to exist.

 

Ethics are real, even if they only come from human thinking; just like love is real, even if all love would disappear if all sentient thinking disappeared too. Thousands of years ago, less sophisticated civilizations with no good methodology (science) to figure out how things work attributed everything to the supernatural, but we've moved passed that now; I just wish more people would realize it.

 

There's a quote I like about all this: "Yes, you could say that it is all just a game evolution has programmed us to play, but it's an important game for those so programmed."

[rkbabang]

Once we realize that helping others is simply an instinct and that "goodness' doesn't exist

 

This makes no sense. Things can exist even if they are evolutionary adaptations. Anchoring bias is a heuristic programmed into us by evolution because it's quick and works in most situations we would encounter in the simpler society where our bodies evolved over tens of thousands of years. Is anchoring bias not real? Thinking is just an electro-chemical phenomenon that takes place in the brain, something that we can clearly observe with all kinds of equipment, and we can see how it changes or stops if we damage various parts of the brain. Yet thinking is still real. It doesn't need to be magical and supernatural to exist.

 

Ethics are real, even if they only come from human thinking; just like love is real, even if all love would disappear if all sentient thinking disappeared too. Thousands of years ago, less sophisticated civilizations with no science to figure out how things work attributed everything to the supernatural, but we've moved passed that now; I just wish more people would realize it.

 

There's a quote I like about all this: "Yes, you could say that it is all just a game evolution has programmed us to play, but it's an important game for those so programmed."

 

+1  I'm still laughing about "It doesn't need to be magical and supernatural to exist".    So true.  Let's boil this down to the core of the matter.  To the religious:

 

1) If it isn't supernatural it doesn't exist. 

 

Then someone comes along and tries to tell them:

 

2) The supernatural doesn't exist.

 

Since things do exist they perceive the contradiction there. They interpret statement 2 to mean that you are claiming nothing exists, which is absurd.  As Ayn Rand famously said contradictions do not exist, whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises, because one of them is wrong.  It is obvious to me that statement 1 is wrong not statement 2.

 

[Palantir]

Can we get back to talking about drugs and prostitution?

[tengen]

Can we get back to talking about drugs and prostitution?

 

Just wait until someone starts a thread to discuss religion and morality. Then you can derail it with a discussion on drugs and prostitution.

 

My position on drugs: I believe in the "four pillars" approach, which involves harm reduction, prevention, treatment and enforcement. I think legalization will help provided it is part of a broader strategy.

[matjone]

I am for legalization.  If we are going to continue with prohibition we should at least be honest with ourselves and admit that the black market and the violence associated with it are here to say.  I think we are in a state of denial about this.  It is as if people believe that if we just make some tweak to our strategy we can finally win this war.

 

I lean libertarian so I am also for legalization on moral grounds.  The way I see it it is not my business what my neighbor puts into his body as long as he leaves me alone.

 

I wish there was a way to tailor my view of this board so that these types of discussions didn't show up.  I get sucked into these threads and waste time that could be spent on something that might actually make me money.  Maybe we should start a new category for discussions on religion, morality, social causes, and the stock buyback vs. dividend debate :)

 

 

 

 

[Liberty]

I wish there was a way to tailor my view of this board so that these types of discussions didn't show up.  I get sucked into these threads and waste time that could be spent on something that might actually make me money.  Maybe we should start a new category for discussions on religion, morality, social causes, and the stock buyback vs. dividend debate :)

 

Here's a tip: Don't click on those threads ;)

 

They're usually labelled pretty explicitely, and when they aren't and you end up clicking on one, hit the "back" button in your browser and don't come back to that particular discussion.

 

I feel a lot like you about these, and get sucked in and I know it's mostly a waste of time... But I know I only have myself to blame. No need to change the forum when we can simply change our behavior and nobody's forced to read anything they don't want to read. :)

[Mikenhe]

gotta have religion to be moral huh?

 

http://gawker.com/baptist-church-leader-arrested-for-soliciting-dog-sex-o-1617858449?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[rkbabang]

gotta have religion to be moral huh?

 

http://gawker.com/baptist-church-leader-arrested-for-soliciting-dog-sex-o-1617858449?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 

"trying to arrange sex with a dog and an unnamed other animal on Craigslist"

 

Huh?  You'd think he's just go to the pound and adopt a dog if that is what he wanted, without admitting to people what he wanted to do with it.

I guess you don't need brains or morals to be a preacher, just a big mouth and an ability to con people as dumb as you are.

 

But back to the topic of prostitution, I'm thinking about maybe buying a few dogs and pimping them out to preachers in my area.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

gotta have religion to be moral huh?

 

http://gawker.com/baptist-church-leader-arrested-for-soliciting-dog-sex-o-1617858449?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 

It might disappear if it were legal.  The guy lives in a bubble of "do goodness", and needs an outlet.  When things are legal, they are no longer a naughty outlet.  The dog however is not consenting and it's just animal cruelty at that point -- animal cruelty cannot be legalized.

 

Teen binge drinking is probably worse when it's illegal.  At least, I remember my Australian cousins being more responsible around alcohol than I was at age 18.  People it seems get a thrill out of breaking rules.