“You’ll comply when you have a gun in your face…”

[Michael Ellis]

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-agent-king-every-home
Guest Post: An Agent Of The King In Every Home
While fantastic organizations like Oath Keepers are working hard to educate police and military on their sworn duty to uphold and defend Constitutional liberties, we as the citizenry must also show our support and resolve to see that the values and principles outlined in that historic document are not tarnished by apathy. The proverbial line in the sand must be drawn now, or not at all. This means, at the very least, non-compliance with unjust laws that defile our conscience, as well as our heritage.

The common response to this by naysayers would be: “You’ll comply when you have a gun in your face…”

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/at...rs-share-national-income-drops-lowest-history
Attention Marxists: Labor's Share Of National Income Drops To Lowest In History
And here is where the Marxist-Leninist party of the US should pay particular attention: "some recovery it has been - a recovery in which labor's share of the spoils has declined to unprecedented levels."

Corwin approved?

 

[JemyM]

I read intellectual history. If you quit at John Locke you end up about at the arguments presented in this article.

But the "support the dogma of our ancestors" agenda is probably the most dumbest idea of mankind.

 

[Captain Buzzkill]

But the "support the dogma of our ancestors" agenda is probably the most dumbest idea of mankind.

I beg to differ.

 

[JemyM]

I beg to differ.

All I get is a text that informs me that I must pick American or Swedish and that the content cannot be displayed outside the right country.

 

[dteowner]

I believe Buzz is documenting for you that there are FAR more stupid ideas running around. You're probably better off not seeing it.

Just curious, JemyM, what dogma does your incredibly enlightened self support? I think we've got "foaming at the mouth atheist" pretty well covered, and we appear to have a good line on "I've read a book or two, therefore my opinion must be correct", but I wonder if you have any actual convictions of your own.

 

[JemyM]

Just curious, JemyM, what dogma does your incredibly enlightened self support?

That dogma is wrong.

The moral individual must look at experience (such as education) through the use of reason and empathy in order to figure out the course of action. Not doing doing so is ammoral, doing against the result is immoral.

 

[dteowner]

Lots of impressive syllables, and yet not an answer to be found. Guiding principles? Or is the guy that claims he can objectively define good and evil suddenly going to pull a "everything's relavtive and every situation is unique"?

 

[JemyM]

Lots of impressive syllables, and yet not an answer to be found. Guiding principles? Or is the guy that claims he can objectively define good and evil suddenly going to pull a "everything's relavtive and every situation is unique"?

To know the form water will take it helps to know the atoms in the single water molecule, but you must also know how molecules align with eachother, the form of the container as well as the temperature.

With this analogy I try to explain the fundamental flaw in trying to study morality by studying the single individual. Saying morality is relative is a bit like saying evolution is random when its driven by natural selection.

First we can establish that despite variation, if you know math, probability is quite deterministic. When you study behavior in large numbers, individual behavior pretty much disappear, you get a rather absolute middleground.

Second, studying morality within the individual is to study internet by screwing up the modem. Morality have a lot to do with social adaption meaning you must look at how people interact with eachother if you want to study morality.

Third, while the individual haven't changed for million of years, experience does. We wouldnt be flying now if we didn't have a cummulative experience that piled on top of eachother for generations. Ethics is also based on experience. If you wish to maximize your potential of doing the right thing, learning about past experiences is really the best cause of action.


Speaking about morality, it's the day after the celebration after my last exam in psychology, and I have a hangover that makes me see stars jumping in front of my eyes so I apologize if my sentences might get incoherrent.

 

[dteowner]

Ah, so you favor tyranny of the masses, then? Morality as defined by the majority? That's what working to the average gets you. Under that structure, your stance on religion (or the denial thereof) would have to be considered outside the average and therefore immoral. Until a decade or two ago, your stance on homosexuality would have to be considered immoral as well. Shame on you, I guess. You sure you like where your theories are taking you?

I wonder how you define "large numbers" for your moral quorum. A family unit? A city? How about a country-size region (I differentiate from a nation so you don't get sidetracked with a complaint about nationalism)? Such a region would include millions of people which should make for a quite reasonable sample of average morality, yes? Well shit, now you're saying the nazis were perfectly fine because millions of people shared the common morality.

If you insist on a global sample, then I propose that you've gotten exactly nowhere since you're no longer are drawing conclusions about people--you're just defining something with itself.

 

[Jhari]

There being no good answer to the definition and construct of morality, one may have to take the pragmatic approach. That is, if one wishes to operate within a society, then one must conform with the prevailing morality of that grouping, no matter what the size of that group, and no matter how a superset of that group defines morality.

It is always a social group which codifies morality, and it is always up to the individual to conform to it or not. and yes, it is, by definition, tyranny of the masses.

Note that social groups are often layered, making definitions of morality multifaceted, and forcing an individual to conform to various levels (definitions and expectations) of morality

 

[JemyM]

Ah, so you favor tyranny of the masses, then? Morality as defined by the majority? That's what working to the average gets you. Under that structure, your stance on religion (or the denial thereof) would have to be considered outside the average and therefore immoral. Until a decade or two ago, your stance on homosexuality would have to be considered immoral as well. Shame on you, I guess. You sure you like where your theories are taking you?

Taking a snapshot of the past, that we already did evolve from, as an example of where the evolution of ethics will lead us… Sounds like the Crocoduck.

I wonder how you define "large numbers" for your moral quorum. A family unit? A city? How about a country-size region (I differentiate from a nation so you don't get sidetracked with a complaint about nationalism)? Such a region would include millions of people which should make for a quite reasonable sample of average morality, yes? Well shit, now you're saying the nazis were perfectly fine because millions of people shared the common morality.

How much water do you need to study the properties of water?

Quantity is quite irrelevant. What's relevant is how people align with other people.
Was nazism sucessful? I dunno about your insights on history, but I would estimate that even if they had not been taken down by the rest, that nation wouldn't have lasted very long. Countries like that tend to drop sooner or later and most countries like that did.

Peoples behavior may be different from area to area, but it's the same humans driving it all. Again, is the water within the glass and the bottle different (relative) or is it the same water forming to different environments?

If you insist on a global sample, then I propose that you've gotten exactly nowhere since you're no longer are drawing conclusions about people—you're just defining something with itself.

What's known as the "western civilization" consists of countries which are no longer separated collectivist cultures, but have open competition and cooperation within. You see all of these heading in a certain direction, sharing similar issues and solutions. For instance, all of these prefer trade to war.

 

[SAGO]

so guys, what is morality and what is the right thing to do?

 

[Michael Ellis]

How much water do you need to study the properties of water?

Quantity is quite irrelevant. What's relevant is how people align with other people.
Was nazism sucessful? I dunno about your insights on history, but I would estimate that even if they had not been taken down by the rest, that nation wouldn't have lasted very long. Countries like that tend to drop sooner or later and most countries like that did.

Peoples behavior may be different from area to area, but it's the same humans driving it all. Again, is the water within the glass and the bottle different (relative) or is it the same water forming to different environments?

At any given state whether gas/solid/liquid, will not an H20 molecule be exactly like other H20 molecules?
People are not this perfectly homogeneous but heterogenous.
They do not have properties like chemical elements, rather they have behaviour as a result of choices made.
Forgive the idiom but I propose that here your analogy does not hold water : )

 

[JemyM]

At any given state whether gas/solid/liquid, will not an H20 molecule be exactly like other H20 molecules?

Morality is based on the interraction with your environment, which is why it cannot be studied within one single being.

People are not this perfectly homogeneous but heterogenous.

When you only look at individuals you might see variation, but when you begin to look at probability things become quite predictable.

They do not have properties like chemical elements, rather they have behaviour as a result of choices made.

The idea of "choice" to someone who studied psychology, is equivelant to creationism to someone who studied biology. Regardless of perspective (biology, social, personality, cognitive, humanist, behaviorist or psychoanalytist), "choice" doesn't make sense and cannot exist.

There is no such thing as choice or free will. Acting often begin in the spine, even if the brain thought it made the decision. The rational area of the brain is evolutionary young and pretty much always overridden by the older areas (the rational brain then adjust/adapt to believe it was it's idea to begin with). Even when you use your rational judgement your conclusion is the sum of your past experiences of which there are only one set. Even if you "think" because someone told you to "think", the fact that you were told was an essential element why you acted like you did in that situation.

People believe in choice because we do not want to feel as driven and predictable as we are. Some say that if we didn't have choice, there would be no need for a justicesystem. That's missing the picture. The justicesystem/law when added to a society makes people act (predictably) in a way differently than a society which lacks it.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

There is no such thing as choice or free will. Acting often begin in the spine, even if the brain thought it made the decision.

I haven't read everything in this discussion, but I'm going meta here :

To state that there is not a thing like a "free will", means that people are predictable. People cannot do things "on their own". Peoples are in fact nothing but Automatons.

Now, where is the border between a Robot and a Human, then ? If we believe that there is not a thing like a "free will" ?

The "meta" point is that stating that there is no "free will" is a form of control of people.

Like I said : People become predictable, like Automatons, in the end, if we deny the existence of a "free will".

This denial is nothing but very subtle form of control, of expression of might and power over people.

Because - if we take away the "free will", then we have the tools to create omething like indian kastes. The denial of a "free will" is a tool to treat people differentliy - differently at least compared to as if we would treat them if a "free will" was there in existence.


There is another, even more complicated "meta" point. The propblem is, that I read it in an article long, long ago, and I cannot recollect everything (especially not details) from my memory anymore.

The thing is that if we assume the absence of a thing clled "free will", then we'll have to have people deciding at courts over crimes.

Not only is there the question whether a crime can be a "crime" in itself, since there is no free will - the problem is also how judges should be able to judge if they have no free will, too ?

How are judges supposed to judge over deeds if they don't have any free will to judge either ?

But if we assume they they should be able to judge deeds and especially "crimes" - then we'll soon have a 2-class society : Those, ho assume that a "free will" is still there and is used as a tool to judge things, for example - and those who are denied to have something called as a "free will".

This is how I have the summary of the said article in my memory. And of course it isn't accurate, because I dn't remember the *complete* argumentation line anymore.

 

[JemyM]

Now, where is the border between a Robot and a Human, then ? If we believe that there is not a thing like a "free will" ?

We have no choice.

The "meta" point is that stating that there is no "free will" is a form of control of people.

To the contrary. The strive to be autonomous is a very strong deterministic force that pushes society in a certain direction.

Like I said : People become predictable, like Automatons, in the end, if we deny the existence of a "free will".

We already are.

And the idea of "free will" is actually more fettering and paralysing than accepting the contrary.

The realization that there is no free will is not the same as stopping to think. It's rather the realization that what we are doing now is the end product of everything up to this point, including the act of not acting because you ponder about free will.

The thing is that if we assume the absence of a thing clled "free will", then we'll have to have people deciding at courts over crimes. Not only is there the question whether a crime can be a "crime" in itself, since there is no free will - the problem is also how judges should be able to judge if they have no free will, too?

The courtsystem is a pillar in a system which we developed slowly throughout the ages. We have those for a reason, which is why we have no real choice in the matter. If we decide to drop them as a result of thinking about free will, we had no choice in the matter either. We reached that conclusion because it was the sum of everything we gathered when we thought about it.

 

[dteowner]

So everything is determinist? Wow, I never took you for a religious diehard, JemyM. I guess this must be one of those "the lady doth protest too much" moments.

I think you need to put the books away for a while and get back to the real world. You make it sound so nice and use lots of impressive vocabulary, but yet the stuff you're throwing out there just doesn't match up with reality in the slightest.

 

[JemyM]

So everything is determinist? Wow, I never took you for a religious diehard, JemyM. I guess this must be one of those "the lady doth protest too much" moments.

I think you need to put the books away for a while and get back to the real world. You make it sound so nice and use lots of impressive vocabulary, but yet the stuff you're throwing out there just doesn't match up with reality in the slightest.

Determinist yes, but also too complex for the human mind to comprehend. Which is also why the debate about it is meaningless.

 

[dteowner]

Determinist yes, but also too complex for the human mind to comprehend.

You could hear that same claim, along with the very same disclaimer (in order to get around the "this doesn't match the real world" rebuttal, no doubt) in thousands of sermons every Sunday. Talk about dripping irony... Are you supposed to say amen when you close the textbook, or do you just genuflect at the door of the campus bookstore?

 

[redman5427]

Isn't this like a four hundred year old argument?
I take the other side, that something is going on inside the box and we do have a choice and their is free will. Environment does shape us and all but we as human beings have choice as opposed to animals.
Hehe, I told my Philosophy professor that it was both but that didn't go over well.

Jemy, put a raw egg in some tomato juice and have a nice greasy pork chop and you will be fine.