|
On June 15 2010 14:26 eLiE wrote:Well, I'd say we're at a slight disadvantage considering god is such a tough guy to get a hold of. That's why it's not really a fair argument, the discussion of faith is not a rational one or one possible to prove or disprove, hence the term taking a leap of faith. We're not wrong in doing it, and neither are atheists in staying rationally grounded, but rationality isn't everything, it's a certain point of view. And I'm not saying faith goes blindly without doubt, really, the two go hand in hand.
Personally (studying science towards medicine), I think there are things too amazingly complicated and perfectly formed to believe that they could arise purely out of chance, and that's all the evidence I need to believe in something else.I actually had a really smart professor who got stuck teaching an elective bio course, and he took it in his own direction and made a pretty smart argument for and against a god using all these theories. I wish i could understand the diagrams I scribbled down. EDIT: Show nested quote +this is true and a good point, I agree actually. however it demonstrates what science lacks when it comes to greater understanding. I think this is the whole point. Science is confined to a rational perspective (I remember the prof going on about occam's razor). Because we can't create testable predictions for theories about god or spirituality, the topic is by definition arbitrary and irrational. Faith fills in the gaps that science cannot.
My Opinions:
You see a steep, treacherous slope up a mountain and thinks its impossible to scale it and hence gives up without knowing that on the other side of the mountain, there is a long gentle path to the peak.
A building may seem impossible to build as all its components have to be there at the same time for it to be erect but have the onlooker forgotten about the scaffolding that once held it up but was removed after the building was complete?
|
It's hard to have discussions this good anywhere but TL.net.
|
For sure, travis. I don't know about you guys, but I'm having fun with this. To Ixas, until science has evolved (sneaky reference to op) to the point where it can answer this questions that I use faith to answer, I'll be sticking with faith. I'm not smart enough to climb up that mountain or build that building, but I'm sure scientists will continue to devote their time to those questions. We'll probably be dead by the time there could be any sort of answer anyways. I'm not even sure if I'm making sense anymore, kind of late, and I have to get up in 5 hours for work (subbing with daytime rate, woo), so time for bed.
|
On June 15 2010 14:57 eLiE wrote:
For sure, travis. I don't know about you guys, but I'm having fun with this. To Ixas, until science has evolved (sneaky reference to op) to the point where it can answer this questions that I use faith to answer, I'll be sticking with faith. I'm not smart enough to climb up that mountain or build that building, but I'm sure scientists will continue to devote their time to those questions. We'll probably be dead by the time there could be any sort of answer anyways. I'm not even sure if I'm making sense anymore, kind of late, and I have to get up in 5 hours for work (subbing with daytime rate, woo), so time for bed.
Faith lives in the gaps that science has yet to fill. Lightning, earthquakes, tsunamis were once considered to be acts of god. By extrapolating this trend, I project that science will sooner or later, answer almost everything and religion, almost nothing.
Goodnight.
|
On June 15 2010 14:57 eLiE wrote:
For sure, travis. I don't know about you guys, but I'm having fun with this. To Ixas, until science has evolved (sneaky reference to op) to the point where it can answer this questions that I use faith to answer, I'll be sticking with faith.
scientists have already answered questions you are probably referring to (i guess. the following two are at least the most widely cited ones allegedly speaking in favor of the intent of a creator).
the laws of the universe with its four forces of which a minute change to just one of them would have the entire universe as we know it collaps or disperse with no atoms, planets, life possible is the way it is, the earth and the universe are suited for life, because if it were any different then life wouldnt be there to observe that and ask that question. the very fact that life is here means that our world must allow for its existence.
"dont be surprised that the cat has holes in its fur precicely where it has its eyes."
another thing is with the complexity of life and that fascinating thing that we call dna. what ixas tried to say with that metaphor was that complex things can be broken down into small segments that are not complex at all. dna or "life" didnt just go from a random, abundant cloud of molecules into that form just like that. millions of changes over millions upon millions of years have accumulated into that which we now call life. evolution is a very simple principle. that which can survive and is not wiped out will prevail. chemical reactions happen everywhere. it is no surprise that some of them result in molecules that can repair themselves. its nothing but evolutionary changes accumulated over a long period of time. its not chance at all really. just that the most suited to survive/outlast will do so and if changes occur to it then some of them will put it into a worse position and some of them into a better one.
why would "god" be a satisfactory asnwer to anyone? does he not just push our questions back one step further instead of answering them? where did god come from? nothing is solved with that, and nothing (i know of) requires the existence of a god.
|
i'm more worried about girls and boys assuming promiscuous behaviors from young age, and losing morals
|
On June 15 2010 21:30 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:
i'm more worried about girls and boys assuming promiscuous behaviors from young age, and losing morals
How do "promiscuous behaviors" and "losing morals" go together though?
More precisely, what are "morals" anyways? Is it something that you read in a book, or is it something that a preacher preaches? Or is it an individual's interpretations of the rules of society that they are raised in, affected by every experience in their life?
If two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly, is it a bad thing? If so, why?
|
On June 15 2010 14:20 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 13:58 3clipse wrote:On June 15 2010 13:19 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 13:09 3clipse wrote:
Your argument boils down to the classic "even if you can prove natural processes have caused x, you cannot prove that god did not cause those natural processes". I don't need to prove that. The onus is on you to provide cause for supernatural explanation if you are citing "evidences" of it. Well, how about the fact that conscious experience is not necessary nor serves any function in a material universe. All that we do could happen without consciousness. I disagree. I doubt any being could function with the adaptive capabilities, perception and complex thought patterns as humanity without developing a consciousness of oneself. really? rocks fall, do they have to experience falling? waves crash, do they have to experience crashing?
we do a lot more than falling and crashing. we are highly complex instruments which actively seek to prevent themselves falling. a rock will never attempt to prevent itself falling.
so why do we need to experience our own adaptive ability and logic internally then, right? to me it seems like a natural product of the ability to analyse data and then analyse your analysis. in fact, this seems obvious to me so i have no doubt im oversimplifiying it and am interested for you to expand on your comments about consciousness and whether or not it is necessary or valuable to human (or other) function.
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe.
|
On June 15 2010 23:10 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 21:30 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:
i'm more worried about girls and boys assuming promiscuous behaviors from young age, and losing morals How do "promiscuous behaviors" and "losing morals" go together though? More precisely, what are "morals" anyways? Is it something that you read in a book, or is it something that a preacher preaches? Or is it an individual's interpretations of the rules of society that they are raised in, affected by every experience in their life? If two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly, is it a bad thing? If so, why?
huh?
~
i'm talking about common sense and self-destructing behavior
you threw both tough questioning and misinterpretation for no reason
|
On June 15 2010 23:28 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 23:10 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 21:30 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:
i'm more worried about girls and boys assuming promiscuous behaviors from young age, and losing morals How do "promiscuous behaviors" and "losing morals" go together though? More precisely, what are "morals" anyways? Is it something that you read in a book, or is it something that a preacher preaches? Or is it an individual's interpretations of the rules of society that they are raised in, affected by every experience in their life? If two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly, is it a bad thing? If so, why? huh? ~ i'm talking about common sense and self-destructing behavior you threw both tough questioning and misinterpretation for no reason
Your statement implies that when they assume promiscuous behaviors, they lose morals..... I can see how it can be interpreted differently though..... Now at least.....
Still, morals are a very subjective thing. How can somebody "lose" them?
|
On June 15 2010 23:41 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 23:28 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 15 2010 23:10 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 21:30 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:
i'm more worried about girls and boys assuming promiscuous behaviors from young age, and losing morals How do "promiscuous behaviors" and "losing morals" go together though? More precisely, what are "morals" anyways? Is it something that you read in a book, or is it something that a preacher preaches? Or is it an individual's interpretations of the rules of society that they are raised in, affected by every experience in their life? If two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly, is it a bad thing? If so, why? huh? ~ i'm talking about common sense and self-destructing behavior you threw both tough questioning and misinterpretation for no reason Your statement implies that when they assume promiscuous behaviors, they lose morals..... I can see how it can be interpreted differently though..... Now at least..... Still, morals are a very subjective thing. How can somebody "lose" them?
Why you implied the "two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly" thing?
sex is natural and at the Teen Age, the mind and body of the person start to evolve over this aspect.
Sex done with responsability is good, no one gets hurt both in psique and body.
Promiscuous behavior can pretty much be identified by common sense, because it is the offensive use of human sexual nature.
And morals were not supposed to be subjective, people outside them are just "displaced"
At least in my mind, moral is the technical concept of common sense, the regional, religious and cultural aspects that influenced it is a particular problem
I believe that the Bold part is what created our discussion
|
On June 15 2010 23:55 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 23:41 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 23:28 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 15 2010 23:10 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 21:30 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:
i'm more worried about girls and boys assuming promiscuous behaviors from young age, and losing morals How do "promiscuous behaviors" and "losing morals" go together though? More precisely, what are "morals" anyways? Is it something that you read in a book, or is it something that a preacher preaches? Or is it an individual's interpretations of the rules of society that they are raised in, affected by every experience in their life? If two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly, is it a bad thing? If so, why? huh? ~ i'm talking about common sense and self-destructing behavior you threw both tough questioning and misinterpretation for no reason Your statement implies that when they assume promiscuous behaviors, they lose morals..... I can see how it can be interpreted differently though..... Now at least..... Still, morals are a very subjective thing. How can somebody "lose" them? Why you implied the "two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly" thing? sex is natural and at the Teen Age, the mind and body of the person start to evolve over this aspect. Sex done with responsability is good, no one gets hurt both in psique and body. Promiscuous behavior can pretty much be identified by common sense, because it is the offensive use of human sexual nature. And morals were not supposed to be subjective, people outside them are just "displaced" At least in my mind, moral is the technical concept of common sense, the regional, religious and cultural aspects that influenced it is a particular problem I believe that the Bold part is what created our discussion
BDSM can also be considered "offensive use of human sexual nature", and nobody gets hurt either (well, if somebody does, they consented to it  ). Is it wrong? Same with homosexuality..... Threesomes? Polygamy? And much, much more.....
Morals are very much subjective. How do you know that others are "displaced" and not you? How is your view right, and others are wrong? How do you know that promiscuity is wrong? How about the other things I brought up?
Another example - animal rights. Personally, I like having a bacon-cheeseburger once in a while. I had pork chops last night, I had bacon and eggs this morning and a ham-sandwich at lunch. I like my meat. But I doubt that some vegetarians and vegans feel the same way about it as I do..... Am I right? Are they right? Who has the superior morals?
I dunno. But I'm not going to condemn them for having a different view than mine.
|
On June 16 2010 00:17 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 23:55 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 15 2010 23:41 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 23:28 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 15 2010 23:10 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 21:30 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:
i'm more worried about girls and boys assuming promiscuous behaviors from young age, and losing morals How do "promiscuous behaviors" and "losing morals" go together though? More precisely, what are "morals" anyways? Is it something that you read in a book, or is it something that a preacher preaches? Or is it an individual's interpretations of the rules of society that they are raised in, affected by every experience in their life? If two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly, is it a bad thing? If so, why? huh? ~ i'm talking about common sense and self-destructing behavior you threw both tough questioning and misinterpretation for no reason Your statement implies that when they assume promiscuous behaviors, they lose morals..... I can see how it can be interpreted differently though..... Now at least..... Still, morals are a very subjective thing. How can somebody "lose" them? Why you implied the "two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly" thing? sex is natural and at the Teen Age, the mind and body of the person start to evolve over this aspect. Sex done with responsability is good, no one gets hurt both in psique and body. Promiscuous behavior can pretty much be identified by common sense, because it is the offensive use of human sexual nature. And morals were not supposed to be subjective, people outside them are just "displaced" At least in my mind, moral is the technical concept of common sense, the regional, religious and cultural aspects that influenced it is a particular problem I believe that the Bold part is what created our discussion BDSM can also be considered "offensive use of human sexual nature", and nobody gets hurt either (well, if somebody does, they consented to it ). Is it wrong? Same with homosexuality..... Threesomes? Polygamy? And much, much more..... Morals are very much subjective. How do you know that others are "displaced" and not you? How is your view right, and others are wrong? How do you know that promiscuity is wrong? How about the other things I brought up? Another example - animal rights. Personally, I like having a bacon-cheeseburger once in a while. I had pork chops last night, I had bacon and eggs this morning and a ham-sandwich at lunch. I like my meat. But I doubt that some vegetarians and vegans feel the same way about it as I do..... Am I right? Are they right? Who has the superior morals? I dunno. But I'm not going to condemn them for having a different view than mine.
what i said
regional, religious, and cultural aspects aside
but please do not misinterpret different tastes with offensive tastes.
What if one sexually influences a child negatively, by not waiting for it to mature its thinking and self knowledge?
will one still find another point of view to try and say this is subjective?
It is no right to not comdemn different tastes, as long as it does not invade and offend the obvious consensus that rule the community
(My complain is that nowadays even this consensus is getting corrupted by media and younger ones assimilating "bad" things)
Human beings are animals that live in groups, like animals that live in groups the innate knowledge about "morals" what is "good and what is wrong" tend to be known by the majority.
The ones that cant figure that out, are displaced and do not belong that group.
example: TL, how many (Me, Oakhill, and many others) were banned for acting offensively?
|
On June 16 2010 00:29 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2010 00:17 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 23:55 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 15 2010 23:41 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 23:28 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 15 2010 23:10 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 21:30 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:
i'm more worried about girls and boys assuming promiscuous behaviors from young age, and losing morals How do "promiscuous behaviors" and "losing morals" go together though? More precisely, what are "morals" anyways? Is it something that you read in a book, or is it something that a preacher preaches? Or is it an individual's interpretations of the rules of society that they are raised in, affected by every experience in their life? If two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly, is it a bad thing? If so, why? huh? ~ i'm talking about common sense and self-destructing behavior you threw both tough questioning and misinterpretation for no reason Your statement implies that when they assume promiscuous behaviors, they lose morals..... I can see how it can be interpreted differently though..... Now at least..... Still, morals are a very subjective thing. How can somebody "lose" them? Why you implied the "two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly" thing? sex is natural and at the Teen Age, the mind and body of the person start to evolve over this aspect. Sex done with responsability is good, no one gets hurt both in psique and body. Promiscuous behavior can pretty much be identified by common sense, because it is the offensive use of human sexual nature. And morals were not supposed to be subjective, people outside them are just "displaced" At least in my mind, moral is the technical concept of common sense, the regional, religious and cultural aspects that influenced it is a particular problem I believe that the Bold part is what created our discussion BDSM can also be considered "offensive use of human sexual nature", and nobody gets hurt either (well, if somebody does, they consented to it ). Is it wrong? Same with homosexuality..... Threesomes? Polygamy? And much, much more..... Morals are very much subjective. How do you know that others are "displaced" and not you? How is your view right, and others are wrong? How do you know that promiscuity is wrong? How about the other things I brought up? Another example - animal rights. Personally, I like having a bacon-cheeseburger once in a while. I had pork chops last night, I had bacon and eggs this morning and a ham-sandwich at lunch. I like my meat. But I doubt that some vegetarians and vegans feel the same way about it as I do..... Am I right? Are they right? Who has the superior morals? I dunno. But I'm not going to condemn them for having a different view than mine. what i said regional, religious, and cultural aspects aside but please do not misinterpret different tastes with offensive tastes. What if one sexually influences a child negatively, by not waiting for it to mature its thinking and self knowledge? will one still find another point of view to try and say this is subjective? It is no right to not comdemn different tastes, as long as it does not invade and offend the obvious consensus that rule the community (My complain is that nowadays even this consensus is getting corrupted by media and younger ones assimilating "bad" things) Human beings are animals that live in groups, like animals that live in groups the innate knowledge about "morals" what is "good and what is wrong" tend to be known by the majority. The ones that cant figure that out, are displaced and do not belong that group. example: TL, how many (Me, Oakhill, and many others) were banned for acting offensively?
What is the difference between "different tastes" and "offensive tastes"? Is it not arbitrary, based on your belief? Where would we be if people stopped thinking differently than everyone else?
There was a time when it was illegal, and immoral, to believe anything other than that the earth was flat..... It was a very, very bad thing to think otherwise. People were publicly executed for such differences. But where would we be without these people who were "displaced"?
You have a belief that some things are "offensive". Take a step back and try to see how similar it is to a belief that the world is flat.
Being banned was an action taken by at least one moderator, because you broke some arbitrary rule(s). Who is to say that those rules are "right"?
Our society actually needs people to break rules. Why? Because it brings attention to problems with the rules, and it forces us to change the rules as society changes. Basically, it forces us to collectively reassess our stance on those crimes/moral codes whenever someone is deviant. This can allow us to question the punishment, and even the (il)legality of behaviors. Otherwise, we would be stagnant. And that is a very bad thing. This is a pretty basic concept from intro to Criminology.....
|
On June 15 2010 23:18 Lachrymose wrote:
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe.
I have the same view myself.
However I would say consciousness is still very different from material reactions. Material reactions are objectively observable and measurable. Consciousness is not, it is purely subjective and not measurable or observable in any objective fashion.
I've got work to do. I shouldn't be in this thread right now. I'll come back later lol.
|
On June 16 2010 00:52 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2010 00:29 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 16 2010 00:17 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 23:55 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 15 2010 23:41 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 23:28 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 15 2010 23:10 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 21:30 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:
i'm more worried about girls and boys assuming promiscuous behaviors from young age, and losing morals How do "promiscuous behaviors" and "losing morals" go together though? More precisely, what are "morals" anyways? Is it something that you read in a book, or is it something that a preacher preaches? Or is it an individual's interpretations of the rules of society that they are raised in, affected by every experience in their life? If two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly, is it a bad thing? If so, why? huh? ~ i'm talking about common sense and self-destructing behavior you threw both tough questioning and misinterpretation for no reason Your statement implies that when they assume promiscuous behaviors, they lose morals..... I can see how it can be interpreted differently though..... Now at least..... Still, morals are a very subjective thing. How can somebody "lose" them? Why you implied the "two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly" thing? sex is natural and at the Teen Age, the mind and body of the person start to evolve over this aspect. Sex done with responsability is good, no one gets hurt both in psique and body. Promiscuous behavior can pretty much be identified by common sense, because it is the offensive use of human sexual nature. And morals were not supposed to be subjective, people outside them are just "displaced" At least in my mind, moral is the technical concept of common sense, the regional, religious and cultural aspects that influenced it is a particular problem I believe that the Bold part is what created our discussion BDSM can also be considered "offensive use of human sexual nature", and nobody gets hurt either (well, if somebody does, they consented to it ). Is it wrong? Same with homosexuality..... Threesomes? Polygamy? And much, much more..... Morals are very much subjective. How do you know that others are "displaced" and not you? How is your view right, and others are wrong? How do you know that promiscuity is wrong? How about the other things I brought up? Another example - animal rights. Personally, I like having a bacon-cheeseburger once in a while. I had pork chops last night, I had bacon and eggs this morning and a ham-sandwich at lunch. I like my meat. But I doubt that some vegetarians and vegans feel the same way about it as I do..... Am I right? Are they right? Who has the superior morals? I dunno. But I'm not going to condemn them for having a different view than mine. what i said regional, religious, and cultural aspects aside but please do not misinterpret different tastes with offensive tastes. What if one sexually influences a child negatively, by not waiting for it to mature its thinking and self knowledge? will one still find another point of view to try and say this is subjective? It is no right to not comdemn different tastes, as long as it does not invade and offend the obvious consensus that rule the community (My complain is that nowadays even this consensus is getting corrupted by media and younger ones assimilating "bad" things) Human beings are animals that live in groups, like animals that live in groups the innate knowledge about "morals" what is "good and what is wrong" tend to be known by the majority. The ones that cant figure that out, are displaced and do not belong that group. example: TL, how many (Me, Oakhill, and many others) were banned for acting offensively? What is the difference between "different tastes" and "offensive tastes"? Is it not arbitrary, based on your belief? Where would we be if people stopped thinking differently than everyone else? There was a time when it was illegal, and immoral, to believe anything other than that the earth was flat..... It was a very, very bad thing to think otherwise. People were publicly executed for such differences. But where would we be without these people who were "displaced"? You have a belief that some things are "offensive". Take a step back and try to see how similar it is to a belief that the world is flat. Being banned was an action taken by at least one moderator, because you broke some arbitrary rule(s). Who is to say that those rules are "right"? Our society actually needs people to break rules. Why? Because it brings attention to problems with the rules, and it forces us to change the rules as society changes. Basically, it forces us to collectively reassess our stance on those crimes/moral codes whenever someone is deviant. This can allow us to question the punishment, and even the (il)legality of behaviors. Otherwise, we would be stagnant. And that is a very bad thing. This is a pretty basic concept from intro to Criminology.....
i got your point
but lets think about this for a moment?
is "arbitrary" the same as "random"?
|
No.
Arbitrary is like "I don't like BDSM, so it's bad". Random is like "Flip a coin, heads and it's bad, tails and it's good".
And I'm interested in seeing where you are taking this.
|
On June 16 2010 01:41 Impervious wrote:
No.
Arbitrary is like "I don't like BDSM, so it's bad". Random is like "Flip a coin, heads and it's bad, tails and it's good".
And I'm interested in seeing where you are taking this.
now here is what i mean
not all rules are arbitrary
cultural, religious,regional and polictical influences in it may be,
but i'm totally for the highest degree of purity and order, of if it hurts instead of cure, if it destroys instead of build up, if it causes pain for no reason, if it steals for no explainable reason, if it causes disorder just for pleasure of chaos, these things you know.
But i get your point of view, i just believe that to put things real in life the whole theorycrafting and questioning must be put aside to a certain degree(of course) or things would never come out of paper
|
On June 16 2010 01:49 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2010 01:41 Impervious wrote:
No.
Arbitrary is like "I don't like BDSM, so it's bad". Random is like "Flip a coin, heads and it's bad, tails and it's good".
And I'm interested in seeing where you are taking this. now here is what i mean not all rules are arbitrary cultural, religious,regional and polictical influences in it may be, but i'm totally for the highest degree of purity and order, of if it hurts instead of cure, if it destroys instead of build up, if it causes pain for no reason, if it steals for no explainable reason, if it causes disorder just for pleasure of chaos, these things you know. But i get your point of view, i just believe that to put things real in life the whole theorycrafting and questioning must be put aside to a certain degree(of course) or things would never come out of paper
Actually, those influences cause pretty arbitrary differences..... They're far from random.....
Something like war is terrible, right? It kills people and destroys stuff. It is chaotic.
Did you know that computers were developed to model the trajectories of artillery during war? Vehicles had many technological innovations due to wars. Jet engines were created for war, now used for many, many other uses. Nuclear power was an off-shoot of the atomic bomb programs. Communication devices were created, such as the world wide web. New surgical techniques were developed, as were medicines and treatments. And many, many more things.
Our lives would be very different without wars. The technology generated during war has definitely saved and enriched more lives in the long term than it has cost. Is it a terrible thing? That's for you to decide. But nothing is as black-and-white as you seem to try to make it out.....
|
On June 16 2010 01:49 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2010 01:41 Impervious wrote:
No.
Arbitrary is like "I don't like BDSM, so it's bad". Random is like "Flip a coin, heads and it's bad, tails and it's good".
And I'm interested in seeing where you are taking this. now here is what i mean not all rules are arbitrary cultural, religious,regional and polictical influences in it may be, but i'm totally for the highest degree of purity and order, of if it hurts instead of cure, if it destroys instead of build up, if it causes pain for no reason, if it steals for no explainable reason, if it causes disorder just for pleasure of chaos, these things you know. But i get your point of view, i just believe that to put things real in life the whole theorycrafting and questioning must be put aside to a certain degree(of course) or things would never come out of paper
Actually, those influences cause pretty arbitrary differences..... They're far from random.....
Something like war is terrible, right? It kills people and destroys stuff. It is chaotic.
Did you know that computers were developed to model the trajectories of artillery during war? Vehicles had many technological innovations due to wars. Jet engines were created for war, now used for many, many other uses. Nuclear power was an off-shoot of the atomic bomb programs. Communication devices were created, such as the world wide web. New surgical techniques were developed, as were medicines and treatments. And many, many more things.
Our lives would be very different without wars. The technology generated during war has definitely saved and enriched more lives in the long term than it has cost. Is it a terrible thing? That's for you to decide. But nothing is as black-and-white as you seem to try to make it out.....
EDIT - and I agree, things need to get done plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
