On 12/15/2012 5:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 4:58:44 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:56:58 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul
On 12/15/2012 3:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
'm saying that to me it seems clear that some people did
know better, and that those people were Progressive. Again,
you might disagree, which is what I am asking. If you
disagree, ok, cool, but why? Otherwise it seems like you are
saying that it is pointless to have any political view at
all because morality is an unknowable mystery.
Name some of these? I like Sam Harris, Penn Jillette,
Glen Beck, Dan Ariely...
Which contemporary political people do I like? Eh, I don't get
into that so much but if I had to say someone, I like Cornel
West, Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, Thom Hartmann more than Penn or
Sam Harris (although mainly I disagree with him on Free Will, not
sure of his other politics as much). Glen Beck, Rush, Ann
Coulter... umm. I only hope that they are born non-white,
non-Christian, and poor for their next 2000 lives.
Ah, "not a cause of some wrong"... Is it OK to be
Not sure what you're saying. Bigotry is always a projection, isn't it?
Is bigotry OK? It's probably unavoidable to a certain extent, but it
isn't a useful or attractive trait as far as I can tell.
Ethics is my second favorite subject within Philosophy! I would
like to see West or Maher or Rachel Maddow, etc. held up to the same
scrutiny as those that they cast upon others. The same goes for Newt or
Bachman, or Phelps. I can link you Youtube videos of each of those
people making statement that can not be seen as anything other than
bigots, but I hope that you will not demand that I spend my time doing
Is what you wrote above a good enough reasoning to make an absolute
claim that any form of bigotry is "bad behavior", what should be
avoided? Isn't such a good indication that we can have some hard rules.
Things go sideways when we bring in "conditions" and "situations" that
allow us to rationalize some forms of bigotry to be "OK".
What makes any person or group of persons to make absolute judgements?
Does that include those making the absolute judgements on those they
perceive as making absolute judgments?
Absolutes are absolute, they do not depend of circumstances nor
How can they imagine for themselves the absolute knowledge of
Truth, and yet, they with their finite computational capacity,
dare do so. Hubris! Behold, Light-bringer!
I don't think it takes a Lucifer or Phoenix to see that abolishing
slavery at all costs was a better option than preserving it at all costs.
Yeah, but we happen to be siting in the 21st century using the
knowledge that has accumulated by science and so forth to pass judgement
on people that did not have our current capacity and we can claim to not
be bigoted? NO!
Are we to accept the indictment of our possible ancestors for
crimes that they may have committed to cast a shadow on our lives?
Really? What choice did you or I have in the nature and behavior of our
respective possible ancestors? I had just as much choice as I have of
the color of the skin I was born with! So what does the "lottery of
life" have to do with things?
Maybe rationalizing bigotry into something OK or even acceptable
is not a nice move!
Sometimes there are moments when it comes down to that.
Really? So there are conditions where it is OK to hate certain
people just because they have some look or smell or live in a house
bigger than mine or ... about them? Or that they say strange things that
we might not agree with?
It doesn't take infinite wisdom to see that having a handful of all
powerful wealthy overlords rule over billions of people living in
various states of alienation and poverty.
OK, what are the names of these "all powerful wealthy overlords" so
that we may go and do "direct actions" against them? I have some
interesting skills... ;-)
I'm not saying these kinds of things weren't inevitable or that those
who rule are any worse than any other people who might have ruled instead.
How about we figure out ways to prevent potential "all powerful
wealth overlords" from ever being born by genetically engineering a
desire to be all powerful and wealthy and overlord? WE can do that you
know! We just make it so that every one is equally smart, so no one can
have any advantage over any other person. What then is the maximum
intelligence that is necessary to survive as a human being and not be
predisposed to being a "all powerful wealthy overlord"? Idi Amin
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin> was not that smart... I have
seen estimates that his IQ was probably around 72.
Well, shit, stupid people can be "all powerful wealthy overlords".
So what else might we do to prevent the existence of "all powerful
wealthy overlords"? Could we prevent the accumulation of wealth and by
so doing prevent the existence of "all powerful wealthy overlords"? What
would be the maximum quantity of wreath allowed? Who would decide that
It had better not be "all powerful wealthy overlords" that decide
things like that!
To me its a logistical issue.
It most certainly is a logical issue! It is a lack of logical
reasoning that allowed the existence of "all powerful wealthy
overlords", IMHO. So when I see governmental policies that prevent
people from learning how to reason, what am I to ascertain about those
policies of the people that advocate for them? People that tell me that
bigotry is sometimes OK, that the taking of some life is OK, the telling
for some lies if OK, the cheating on tests is OK, so long as there is a
"good reason" for it...?
I seem to be inadvertently arguing for absolutes!
There is currently a condition where the mathematics of population,
technology, and the distribution of resources makes a catastrophic
inequality without some sort of intervention.
I absolutely agree! And we are also faced with many choices as to
what to do about it. Some of those choices fall into a category called:
"might cause harm to people" and some fall into a category called "Will
cause harm to people". I wish to not explore choices from the second
category! Maybe there is a category of choices called: "Does no harm at
all". I have firm reasons to believe that this last category cannot exist.
Personally I don't think that there is any hope of that - I think it's
all going to continue to get worse and worse for everyone...but I
could be wrong and I hope that I am. Surprises have happened before.
I am an optimist. I believe, perhaps delusionally, that all real
problems have solutions. Only imaginary problems are insolvable.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at