[helene_t]

Well said, Lobowolf.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Certainly, beliefs themselves shouldn't be imposed on people; but laws based on those beliefs are a different thing. Laws are based on people's moral ideals.

I don't think this entirely correct - in my view, laws are an extension of the beliefs of those who hold power. There are Jews and Christians living in Iran, but they are subject to Islamic law because Islamics are in power. The moral ideals are determined by belief in the religion, not vice-versa.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Mar 27 2009, 08:08 AM, said:

whether or not i believe that noah's ark occurred in the way the bible describes it, and for the reasons given in the bible, has absolutely no bearing on my reasoning abilities or my opinions of other matters

Such beliefs evidence a willingness to accept propositions without sufficient evidence.

[Phil]

PassedOut, on Mar 29 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 27 2009, 08:08 AM, said:

whether or not i believe that noah's ark occurred in the way the bible describes it, and for the reasons given in the bible, has absolutely no bearing on my reasoning abilities or my opinions of other matters

Such beliefs evidence a willingness to accept propositions without sufficient evidence.

Thus the word, 'beliefs'.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Mar 29 2009, 12:27 PM, said:

So to recap, Alan Greenspan's influence helped shape a payroll tax increase on middleclass and lower income Americans that was used not to bolster the SS fund as claimed but was instead used to subsidize the tax reductions for businesses and the wealthy that were critical to Reagan's agenda.

It was one of the greatest transferences of wealth ever to occur - from the poor to the wealthy - yet the illusion is still observed that Reagan and Greenspan were legendary enemies of higher taxes.

And therefore you are certain the current president is irreversibly and absolutely corrupt?

[Winstonm]

It comes as no surprise that the Republican party and its Straussian brethren control the Christian Right:

Quote

The goal of the wise is to ennoble the vulgar. But what could possibly ennoble the vulgar? Only weeping, worshipping, and sacrificing could ennoble the masses.

Religion and war - perpetual war - would lift the masses from the animality of bourgeois consumption and the pre-occupation with "creature comforts." Instead of personal happiness, they would live their lives in perpetual sacrifice to God and the nation

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Mar 29 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 29 2009, 12:27 PM, said:

So to recap, Alan Greenspan's influence helped shape a payroll tax increase on middleclass and lower income Americans that was used not to bolster the SS fund as claimed but was instead used to subsidize the tax reductions for businesses and the wealthy that were critical to Reagan's agenda.

It was one of the greatest transferences of wealth ever to occur - from the poor to the wealthy - yet the illusion is still observed that Reagan and Greenspan were legendary enemies of higher taxes.

And therefore you are certain the current president is irreversibly and absolutely corrupt?

No, I believe our system and institutions are irreversibly and absolutely corrupt.

Btw, I am not alone in these thoughts - it appears Glenn Greenwald is fed up, as well:

Quote

Nonetheless, despite allegations of criminality far less extensive than those that have been made against the U.S., their political system is compelling serious investigations into these crimes.  That's because for countries that aren't completely corrupted to their core, political leaders aren't free to commit serious crimes and then simply be shielded from investigation and accountability.  Credible allegations of high-level criminality -- and only the hardest-core Bush followers deny that we have that -- compel criminal investigations

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Mar 29 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

Quote

Certainly, beliefs themselves shouldn't be imposed on people; but laws based on those beliefs are a different thing. Laws are based on people's moral ideals.

I don't think this entirely correct - in my view, laws are an extension of the beliefs of those who hold power. There are Jews and Christians living in Iran, but they are subject to Islamic law because Islamics are in power. The moral ideals are determined by belief in the religion, not vice-versa.

might makes right, winston?

PassedOut, on Mar 29 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 27 2009, 08:08 AM, said:

whether or not i believe that noah's ark occurred in the way the bible describes it, and for the reasons given in the bible, has absolutely no bearing on my reasoning abilities or my opinions of other matters

Such beliefs evidence a willingness to accept propositions without sufficient evidence.

and that addresses the point how, exactly?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Mar 29 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 29 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 27 2009, 08:08 AM, said:

whether or not i believe that noah's ark occurred in the way the bible describes it, and for the reasons given in the bible, has absolutely no bearing on my reasoning abilities or my opinions of other matters

Such beliefs evidence a willingness to accept propositions without sufficient evidence.

and that addresses the point how, exactly?

It increases the likelyhood that your reasoning and opinions run counter to the evidence.

[Winstonm]

Quote

might makes right, winston?

Is Dick Cheney in prison?

You may view what I wrote in idealistic fashion and think I meant that might makes right; I, however, believe it is simply the pragmatist's view that might's rightness or wrongness simply goes unchallenged.

There is difference between what is right and what is real. We live in a world of reality.

[blackshoe]

So all those parents who, over the millenia, tried to teach their children to do the right thing were wasting their time?

Should the Golden Rule really read "Do unto others before they do unto you"?

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Mar 29 2009, 02:19 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 29 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 29 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 27 2009, 08:08 AM, said:

whether or not i believe that noah's ark occurred in the way the bible describes it, and for the reasons given in the bible, has absolutely no bearing on my reasoning abilities or my opinions of other matters

Such beliefs evidence a willingness to accept propositions without sufficient evidence.

and that addresses the point how, exactly?

It increases the likelyhood that your reasoning and opinions run counter to the evidence.

you seem to be saying that a belief in the bible's account of noah's ark is proof that a person's reasoning in other matters is more apt to be false... do you see the problem with that?

[Al_U_Card]

Evidence is not stereotyping.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Mar 29 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

So all those parents who, over the millenia, tried to teach their children to do the right thing were wasting their time?

Should the Golden Rule really read "Do unto others before they do unto you"?

Do you think the golden rule is universally accepted and taught? Do you think the children of Machiavelli were taught to "do unto others as" or "do unto other before"?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Mar 29 2009, 04:16 PM, said:

you seem to be saying that a belief in the bible's account of noah's ark is proof that a person's reasoning in other matters is more apt to be false... do you see the problem with that?

I'm saying that people who form conclusions based on evidence are more likely to be correct than those who do not.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on Mar 29 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

So all those parents who, over the millenia, tried to teach their children to do the right thing were wasting their time?

No. People do not need to accept myths as truths in order to teach children to do the right thing. Many of the myths are good stories and teach children useful lessons. That does not make them true.

[Winstonm]

Lukewarm said:

Quote

you seem to be saying that a belief in the bible's account of noah's ark is proof that a person's reasoning in other matters is more apt to be false... do you see the problem with that?

Passed out said:

Quote

It increases the likelyhood that your reasoning and opinions run counter to the evidence. 

And I ask: Jimmy, could you refresh our memories about your positions on evolution and Intelligent Design?

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Mar 29 2009, 04:16 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 29 2009, 02:19 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 29 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 29 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 27 2009, 08:08 AM, said:

whether or not i believe that noah's ark occurred in the way the bible describes it, and for the reasons given in the bible, has absolutely no bearing on my reasoning abilities or my opinions of other matters

Such beliefs evidence a willingness to accept propositions without sufficient evidence.

and that addresses the point how, exactly?

It increases the likelyhood that your reasoning and opinions run counter to the evidence.

you seem to be saying that a belief in the bible's account of noah's ark is proof that a person's reasoning in other matters is more apt to be false... do you see the problem with that?

What's tragic and comic, at the same time, is that Jimmy actually doesn't see the connection

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on Mar 29 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

Do you think the golden rule is universally accepted and taught? Do you think the children of Machiavelli were taught to "do unto others as" or "do unto other before"?

I have no idea what Machiavelli taught his children. Or even if he had any.

I do know how I would wish to teach my own children.

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on Mar 29 2009, 09:56 PM, said:

So all those parents who, over the millenia, tried to teach their children to do the right thing were wasting their time?

Should the Golden Rule really read "Do unto others before they do unto you"?

I don't see how you can reach that conclusion.

I don't know much about development psychology, but intuitively I would think that having been taught the moral norms generally accepted in the society one grows up in, increases the chance of happiness. I am sure there are examples of professions in which it is better not to be constrained by ethics, but I think those would be exceptions. ("Vice president under G.W." may or may not be such an example, I dunno).