General

[Christian Nelson]

I think I understand better what you are saying. A sort of natural law that sits in all of us, that can't be logically explained. That most of us share at least in some way.

Gotcha, I guess that was what I was trying to figure out, essentially, in my mind a person couldn't rationally explain that which was inherently irrational, how could you expect someone to rationally explain thier morals.

So I was a bit confused..

[John Satclaire]

Originally Posted by Christian Nelson

A sort of natural law that sits in all of us, that can't be logically explained.

Here's the thing, though: while the same core natural law generally sits in broad swaths of humanity (the West, for example, the whole tension between individual freedom and social responsibility aside), it cannot be denied that other cultures have sincerely held core irrational beliefs that are markedly divergent from our own.

Thanks in part to a long Western tradition of being willing and able to kill others around the globe who didn't avoid certain departures from our way of feeling things should be, the most glaring instances of divergence are pretty much gone. Slavery isn't what it used to be, for example; India's custom of tossing the widow onto the husband's pyre (or encouraging her to leap on herself) appears to have died out under the British; human sacrifice, one of my ancestors' personal favorites for marking solstice, has been all but stamped out. Of course, some instances remain where we might say that we're comfortable using war as a means of enforcing our values on another culture (the custom of female "circumcision," for example; perhaps some forms of Sharia law).

So, granting that we're all operating on nothing more than gut feeling... how do we decide when we care enough about how we feel to say, either within our own society or as a matter of course whenever other human beings are involved, regardless of where they live, Thou Shalt Not... Or Else. Once we've decided we care enough about something to impose our irrational feelings about how things should be on others, how do we justify our feeling on the matter as superior to that of the savages with whom we disagree? It's amazing the fun you can have with such a simple concept as Is-Ought!

[Christian Nelson]

Well, I suppose if one simply enjoys to debate without ever comming to any conclusion, that could be fun to debate is/ought..

I don't know if that is very productive though..

[davidwirth]

Thats why in real debates, there is a panel of judges who makes a decision on who wins a debate? What I get from all of these pages reading and posting is a better understanding. You may not sway me to your way of thinking but the fact that I have to read the posts and try to counter what you are saying does exersize the mind. Other than saying I am right you are wrong like one poster who I won't name but I will make sure I never wish him a "happy whatever" for fear of being thrown to the ground and pounded on because he has finally snapped.

[agentSmith]

Originally Posted by stevedavidson

Agentsmith,

Its the same person from one post to the next.

The fact that you refuse to believe (there's that word again) what I say is not my problem.

Busted me how? You can yell 'he's hit, he's hit' all you want, but that doesn't make it reality.

I was speaking to the fact that I called you out on talking like a wild man and so you quit and started talking like one of my professors.

The whole debate goes to this stevedavidson, I Believe, based on my experience, that people don't arbitrarily take up religion just to piss off the great stevedavidson, IMO they are selfmedicating a deepseated need for an authority figure that extends past childhood.

So from where I sit, what you did on page 4 was the moral equivalent of kicking a crutch out from under a cripple and laughing at him on the ground, it made you look just as bad as that would.
When I tried to give you a hint that there were people out here more than wise enough to see your rant for the kind of pointless drivel sixteen year olds have been writing into metal songs since the eighties instead of the wildly intelligent point of view you were pretending it to be, instead you blithely assumed I was on your team(because EVERYONE loves stevedavidson) and tried to use me as ammo against the people you were trying to bulldoze.
So I decided to give you as much of a taste as I was capable of what it was like to have someone dis your whole persona.

I moved from letters to reading when I was three. By the time I was nine I was reading so much faster than my brother(4 years older)that we would lay head to head on the floor and read the same book, him rightside up and me upside down. At that time I was living on a steady diet of Heinlein, Brunner, Asimov, Chandler and even your namesake Avram Davidson. At 12 I discovered John K King books in downtown detroit on lafayette(still open and still one of the biggest) 500,000 books in stock, a 4 story warehouse turned into Nirvana. By the time I was a junior we were carting paperbacks down there 1,000 at a time. I just kept getting faster and faster, the last time I checked several years ago, probably around 700-800 wpm with over 90%C . I've read everything I could lay my hand on from the upanishads and the vedas to Kiplings Puck of Pook's Hill. I can read the book in many case literally as fast as I can watch the movie.

I currently think you are a jerk who picks on people slower than him. Is that what you wanted? To alienate someone you have so much in common with? I have first editions of Chandler's books sitting on my shelf that have been read by me a dozen times each, wouldn't it have been nice to sit around and have a beer and talk about the stree? Was whatever release going on a rant brought worth offending not just me, but alot of other people? I can't see how it would be.
Don't step on another man's game is as true everywhere else as it is in paintball.
Would you pick on some 12 year old with a spyder? NO, so why pick on someone with beliefs you don't respect?

Rob

[Mar]

really no need for the personal attacks Smith. I may not be as well read as you, but even I know that 'two wrongs don't make a right'...

Perhaps you would be better served to continue the same line via p.m. rather than here.

Point seems moot though, I am guessing the thread will be locked in short order.

[davidwirth]

Originally Posted by Mar

really no need for the personal attacks Smith. I may not be as well read as you, but even I know that 'two wrongs don't make a right'...

No, 2 wrongs don't make a right but 3 lefts do

[davidwirth]

I am going to be really pissed if a thread I started as an opening to Sci-fi gets locked because it turned to religion. Granted as I stated before, i sort of helped but I also tried to get it back on track with some humor which was just blown over by everyone so they could continue feeding the argument. SD- though not the only offender was by far the worst and started the thread on a downward spiral with what could be called nothing but a flame because someone wished him a "happy Easter" this past weekend.

[Emerald Wolf]

Yah know, the real problem with religion in general (most faiths) is that the members spend so much time arguing over who is "right" they never really see the message of thier own faith. Do good things, take care of each other. Really the Golden Rule and Wicca's Do What Thou Wilt but First Do No Harm rule states this pretty clearly. It's sad that people take ancient (translated) writings and spin/edit them to fit their own prejudices and behaviors.

God created man in his image, and we could create Him in ours. Thus we fight.

What do I KNOW about God....Nothing 'cept he's there, and that's good enough. His vision is considerably longer than mine, so things all kinda balance out in the end.

Catchya on the Flip Side.....

Emerald Wolf -- Gobots gobots, mighty robots....

[agentSmith]

Originally Posted by Mar

really no need for the personal attacks Smith. I may not be as well read as you, but even I know that 'two wrongs don't make a right'...

Perhaps you would be better served to continue the same line via p.m. rather than here.

Point seems moot though, I am guessing the thread will be locked in short order.

I honestly felt there was a need in this case, Mar. You can click on my name and browse my posts, you'll see this is not how I roll, in fact, you'll find other threads where stevedavidson and I have happily shared the bandwidth. However, in this case I feel what he did was totally reprehensible, just like Judo practicioners don't go around rassling people to the ground at random, writers shouldn't go around using the skills and experience they have to pick on people.
However, it's certainly not something I'm going to continue by P.M, I'm not going to post on the subject of religion or stevedavidson in this thread again, for that matter. I agree with DavidWirth that a lock is where things are headed and I won't be the cause of it, if I can help it.

I understand stevedavidson's position and we disagree, I will take his views under advisement.


John Satclaire, I believe a neater term for the 'natural law' you refer to would be Meme, a word coined by author David Brin in his nonfiction short piece "The Meme of Otherness" from the book Otherness. He really parallels your ideas.

Rob