EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 896
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Acertos
France852 Posts
On February 23 2014 02:46 Simberto wrote: Yeah, but i wouldn't say that philosophy is a science, i'd rather classify it as a secular religion, even if that doesn't make a lot of sense. The basis for philosophy is the study of fundamental problems while religion is a group of dogmas related to the divine and accepted by a big/large group (which differenciate it from sects). Religion is solely based on faith and trust in a dogma (and its god(s) depending on the definition you put to religion and that's a philosophical question), a religion gives you simple and optimistic answers to these fundamental questions and gives you an optimistic way of living while always putting an emphasis on what's good and bad. Religious philosophers existed and had well-thought arguments, because the majority of well-known philosophers believed in god(s) but never the same way the religious autority did, we would call them agnostist now i think and they never blindly believed in what the religious autority told them. And no philosophy isn't a secular religion in the sense that even greek philosophers like Aristote, Platon, Socrate, Diogene etc... didn't agree with each other with basic questions like why or how a person think, how a person should abide, the origin of feelings and sensations, if humans are free or not, the order of society (how should the society be organized), if the gods existed or not, their role etc... all these questions were debated alot by these philosophers while religion (helenism) as a simplistic doctrine couldn't go so far (because it was made by people who had no clue about anything). Now plz don't ever compare again religion and philosophy because first they don't fit in the same category of things (study vs dogma + faith) and because the basis for philosophy is reflection while it's blind faith for religion. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On February 23 2014 04:05 Acertos wrote: The basis for philosophy is the study of fundamental problems while religion is a group of dogmas related to the divine and accepted by a big/large group (which differenciate it from sects). Religion is solely based on faith and trust in a dogma (and its god(s) depending on the definition you put to religion and that's a philosophical question), a religion gives you simple and optimistic answers to these fundamental questions and gives you an optimistic way of living while always putting an emphasis on what's good and bad. Religious philosophers existed and had well-thought arguments, because the majority of well-known philosophers believed in god(s) but never the same way the religious autority did, we would call them agnostist now i think and they never blindly believed in what the religious autority told them. And no philosophy isn't a secular religion in the sense that even greek philosophers like Aristote, Platon, Socrate, Diogene etc... didn't agree with each other with basic questions like why or how a person think, how a person should abide, the origin of feelings and sensations, if humans are free or not, the order of society (how should the society be organized), if the gods existed or not, their role etc... all these questions were debated alot by these philosophers while religion (helenism) as a simplistic doctrine couldn't go so far (because it was made by people who had no clue about anything). Now plz don't ever compare again religion and philosophy because first they don't fit in the same category of things (study vs dogma + faith) and because the basis for philosophy is reflection while it's blind faith for religion. This is simply not true on many accounts. Religion is not nearly as simple as you are making it out to be, nor is it singularly reliant on blind faith. Helenism and the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle are practically inseparable if we are to attempt to let these historic stand on their own two feet, and to insist that a comparative look at religion and philosophy amounts to a category error is to gravely misunderstand how our ideas have developed. Descartes without God isn't Descartes at all. On February 23 2014 04:20 Acertos wrote: While I'm at it with my rant on religion, I will add that religion give you simple answers about everything including what's right and wrong. And magicaly every believer is in the right because they are doing or try to show that they are doing what's said by a very inteligent priest. So even if they have no clue about what they are talking about or believing in (by that I mean the logic consequences of believing in something surnatural) religious people tend to possess a retarded sense of moral superioty and that's why they don't give two shit about what atheists have to say (and even more with atheists who are not familiar with science). This is exactly what I was talking about in terms of how those with a bone to pick always rely on a severely stilted and caricatured form of the thing they take issue with, as if the possibility that their personal experience with something like religion is certifiably all that they need in order to make grand and sweeping declarations. You speak of magic and yet the only thing magical about any of this is your supposed ability to characterize millions upon millions of people based on a clearly less than satisfactory understanding of the subject matter. Don't get me wrong, theists do the same thing with atheists, and I think it is important that those truly interested in better understanding the other side take a step back from their personal exposure to what may very well be an incomplete perspective and consider the possibility that there is still much to learn on the matter. Any time you can sit back and say " _______ people are all like this" without repeating the omitted word, you should take a moment and consider what that sort of thinking can and oftentimes does look like when referring to other things. To be frank, I think one of the most important components of developing a healthy perspective on life and other people is to admit that understanding large groups of people is quite difficult. | ||
|
Acertos
France852 Posts
| ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On February 23 2014 02:42 Roe wrote: you have philosophy for the "why". saying religion is for the spiritual world isn't saying anything. you have to look at it from a socio-psychological perspective to get something meaningful out of it. Yes, the vast majority of religions serve as much, or more, of a social function as a religious one. Hell, even Buddhism has/had social structures and hierarchy, which seems kind of contradictory in itself. And now there are actually "atheist megachurches" which is even more ridiculous as a concept... On February 23 2014 03:43 IgnE wrote: But if you are going to talk about why the average person responds with disdain to "vulgar atheism" you should at least acknowledge that the vast majority hold to a(n even more) vulgar theism. Which is not quite the same thing as being frustrated by someone who derides the notion of dark matter without knowing much about it, someone who, indeed, seems to have only a cursory understanding of basic physics. The final conclusion deduced from all of this is that the average subscriber to any sufficiently large movement is superficial and uninterested. For every person who reasons with himself and comes to reject the existence of God, I would not be surprised to find (I have no proof, of course, because this cannot be determined using polls and requires a great degree of honesty with oneself) that there are 9 who reject God because it is in vogue or because it makes them feel smart to associate themselves with the one person. As atheism and agnosticism slowly overtake religions I think you will find that the average person will truly be no different than from before, they will just have a different label to use when describing themselves. I think also the reason that topics like homosexuality still are not fully accepted in the US is not solely religious. People just need to rationalize their discomfort over the subject so they often turn to religion. Conversely, the dogma of third-wave feminism and the extreme social left ensures that research into whether homosexuality and transgenderism are mental illnesses/are preventable through prenatal treatment or elementary gene therapy (through epigenetics, maybe) will probably never see fruition, but I think there are a lot of non-straight people who really just would not wish to be considered mentally ill as well. As an example, I think a lot of people would vehemently oppose acceptance of necrophilia, but they would be hard pressed to find a logical argument in opposition that also makes homosexuality or BDSM or other deviant sexualities opposed as well. The reality is that we think many things are wrong or right based on what society and large portions of society tell us, but we often cannot rationalize this, so we have to turn to dogma to give us credibility. | ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On February 23 2014 04:33 Chocolate wrote: Conversely, the dogma of third-wave feminism and the extreme social left ensures that research into whether homosexuality and transgenderism are mental illnesses/are preventable through prenatal treatment or elementary gene therapy (through epigenetics, maybe) will probably never see fruition, but I think there are a lot of non-straight people who really just would not wish to be considered mentally ill as well. Of course it's preventable with gene-therapy, just like left-handedness or red hair. edit: Strangely enough left-handed had been considered a mental illness. And I'm sure when the technology becomes reliable and cheap enough some people will avoid having red-haired boys. A lot of mental illnesses are social constructs too. There's no objective definition of mental illness that is completely separate from the social environment yet. Indeed 'impairing normal social functioning' is sometimes a criterion for diagnosis. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On February 23 2014 04:48 hypercube wrote: Of course it's preventable with gene-therapy, just like left-handedness or red hair. A lot of mental illnesses are social constructs too. There's no objective definition of mental illness that is completely separate from the social environment yet. Indeed 'impairing normal social functioning' is sometimes a criterion for diagnosis. But it is not yet confirmed that gene expression is the actual cause because research into this area is not going to pass many ethics committees and could potentially cause public outrage. You don't know if homosexuality could be determined by point mutations, unhealthily high presence of certain hormones in the womb, psychological factors from a young age through puberty, or gene expression. Indeed, mental illnesses are often social constructs but I think there are some that are much more acute than some of the ones that seem more like differences in personality, like schizophrenia. However, homosexuality, if it is indeed a mental illness, to me would seem more acute than things like schizoid personality disorder or borderline personality disorder. Unfortunately, most people in the US seem pretty polarized from one side to the other and there aren't many people who would probably be willing to entertain that homosexuality is a treatable/curable condition that are not also incredibly hateful. Strangely enough left-handed had been considered a mental illness. And I'm sure when the technology becomes reliable and cheap enough some people will avoid having red-haired boys. True, but as of right now there is no evidence regarding what actually causes left-handedness. And regarding red hair, that is obviously genetic. | ||
|
Acertos
France852 Posts
On February 23 2014 04:17 farvacola wrote: This is simply not true on many accounts. Religion is not nearly as simple as you are making it out to be, nor is it singularly reliant on blind faith. Helenism and the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle are practically inseparable in terms of how much the two were conjoined, and to insist that a comparative look at religion and philosophy amounts to a category error is to gravely misunderstand how our ideas have developed. Descartes without God isn't Descartes at all. I tried to give a simple definition to religion: It's a set of dogmas related to the divine and accepted / practiced by a large group of people, it can involve true faith in god(s) or not depending on the definition. Either way you have to blindly act like the religious autority tells you to (or at least act enough so that you don't get rejected). Religions and their dogmas aren't based on logical thinking but on what seems to be a sign of god(s) (the holy books) and their interpretations which have been argued alot, at least for modern religions. I don't see how you can argue with that. Yes as you said and as I said, religious philosophers existed like Descartes and many others. I never denied that nor the fact that religion influenced greatly philosophy, I said that Philosophy doesn't involve blind faith and that's true because there is always a reasoning behind every philosophic theory while in the case of religion there is nothing of the sort. I don't understand why you think it's possible to compare religion and philosophy, yes both influenced each other and sometimes talked about the same subjects but that's it, the main point is that philosophy is a study and religion a set of practices based on someone's faith. PS : I don't want to argue about helenism because it was not my point and because it's more than a religion, it's a way of life that was cimented in Greece and it was at that time that agnosticism was born (perhaps with protagoras?). | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On February 23 2014 04:54 Chocolate wrote: But it is not yet confirmed that gene expression is the actual cause because research into this area is not going to pass many ethics committees and could potentially cause public outrage. You don't know if homosexuality could be determined by point mutations, unhealthily high presence of certain hormones in the womb, psychological factors from a young age through puberty, or gene expression. Indeed, mental illnesses are often social constructs but I think there are some that are much more acute than some of the ones that seem more like differences in personality, like schizophrenia. However, homosexuality, if it is indeed a mental illness, to me would seem more acute than things like schizoid personality disorder or borderline personality disorder. Unfortunately, most people in the US seem pretty polarized from one side to the other and there aren't many people who would probably be willing to entertain that homosexuality is a treatable/curable condition that are not also incredibly hateful. True, but as of right now there is no evidence regarding what actually causes left-handedness. And regarding red hair, that is obviously genetic. Is homosexuality a mental illness? Is christianity? What about liberalism? Conservatism? WHY ISN'T ANYONE INVESTIGATING THESE ILLNESSES? Maybe it's because they aren't detrimental... | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On February 23 2014 04:54 Chocolate wrote: But it is not yet confirmed that gene expression is the actual cause because research into this area is not going to pass many ethics committees and could potentially cause public outrage. You don't know if homosexuality could be determined by point mutations, unhealthily high presence of certain hormones in the womb, psychological factors from a young age through puberty, or gene expression. Well, if the only consequence if homosexuality who is to say that hormone levels are 'unhealthily' high. And if there are other consequences it can be found anyway even if homosexuality is not targeted per se. Unfortunately, most people in the US seem pretty polarized from one side to the other and there aren't many people who would probably be willing to entertain that homosexuality is a treatable/curable condition that are not also incredibly hateful. I think the reason is more prosaic. Psychiatry is not reliable enough as a science and would find it hard to resist pressures from wider society. This is why studying links between race and intelligence is so controversial (even though it's much easier to answer than your question). There may be a link, there may not: but the number, and influence, of people who are emotionally invested in one result or the other is much higher the number of those are just genuinely curious. Science is ultimately a social endeavour: unless you have a critical number of people who are in it for the right reasons you'll just get gibberish in the end. True, but as of right now there is no evidence regarding what actually causes left-handedness. And regarding red hair, that is obviously genetic. I thought left-handedness had a hereditary component. Is that incorrect? | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On February 23 2014 04:54 Chocolate wrote: But it is not yet confirmed that gene expression is the actual cause because research into this area is not going to pass many ethics committees and could potentially cause public outrage. You don't know if homosexuality could be determined by point mutations, unhealthily high presence of certain hormones in the womb, psychological factors from a young age through puberty, or gene expression. Indeed, mental illnesses are often social constructs but I think there are some that are much more acute than some of the ones that seem more like differences in personality, like schizophrenia. However, homosexuality, if it is indeed a mental illness, to me would seem more acute than things like schizoid personality disorder or borderline personality disorder. Unfortunately, most people in the US seem pretty polarized from one side to the other and there aren't many people who would probably be willing to entertain that homosexuality is a treatable/curable condition that are not also incredibly hateful. True, but as of right now there is no evidence regarding what actually causes left-handedness. And regarding red hair, that is obviously genetic. But I really really really want to know whether or not left-handedness is a mental illness. Unfortunately the dogma of third-wave feminism and the extreme social left ensures that research into whether left handedness and Ambidexterity are mental illnesses/are preventable through prenatal treatment or elementary gene therapy (through epigenetics, maybe) will probably never see fruition. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On February 23 2014 05:27 Dapper_Cad wrote: But I really really really want to know whether or not left-handedness is a mental illness. Unfortunately the dogma of third-wave feminism and the extreme social left ensures that research into whether left handedness and Ambidexterity are mental illnesses/are preventable through prenatal treatment or elementary gene therapy (through epigenetics, maybe) will probably never see fruition. Generally there is no major difference in the lives of left-handed and right-handed people, while homosexuals and especially transgender people have extremely high rates of suicide attempts/completion when compared to the general population. Of course this is due to society's view on being queer, but take transgenderism as an example. I think people who feel that they are in the wrong kind of body, interested in the wrong kinds of things for their gender, and are going to (perhaps this will change) not be able to have children when they are post-op are going to be pretty unhappy regardless of whether they are accepted or not. Of course knee-jerk sarcasm mocking what I wrote is to be expected but to me it just confirms that many people are unwilling to entertain the idea that being LGBT may be preventable and detrimental. I am not being hateful. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On February 23 2014 05:21 hypercube wrote: Well, if the only consequence if homosexuality who is to say that hormone levels are 'unhealthily' high. And if there are other consequences it can be found anyway even if homosexuality is not targeted per se. I think the reason is more prosaic. Psychiatry is not reliable enough as a science and would find it hard to resist pressures from wider society. This is why studying links between race and intelligence is so controversial (even though it's much easier to answer than your question). There may be a link, there may not: but the number, and influence, of people who are emotionally invested in one result or the other is much higher the number of those are just genuinely curious. Science is ultimately a social endeavour: unless you have a critical number of people who are in it for the right reasons you'll just get gibberish in the end. A link between race and what? If you have a definition of intelligence you'd win a Nobel prize before you even began your study. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On February 23 2014 05:36 Chocolate wrote: Generally there is no major difference in the lives of left-handed and right-handed people, while homosexuals and especially transgender people have extremely high rates of suicide attempts/completion when compared to the general population. Of course this is due to society's view on being queer, but take transgenderism as an example. I think people who feel that they are in the wrong kind of body, interested in the wrong kinds of things for their gender, and are going to (perhaps this will change) not be able to have children when they are post-op are going to be pretty unhappy regardless of whether they are accepted or not. Of course knee-jerk sarcasm mocking what I wrote is to be expected but to me it just confirms that many people are unwilling to entertain the idea that being LGBT may be preventable and detrimental. I am not being hateful. It wasn't sarcasm, it was satire. Could you speak more about being LGBT being "detrimental"? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
A federal court ruled against the University of Notre Dame on Friday in a lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate, the Associated Press reported. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld a federal judge's previous ruling that denied Notre Dame's request for an injunction to prevent it from complying with the birth control mandate. The court noted in its decision that Notre Dame already notified the administrator of its employee plan as well as the insurer for students that the university would not pay for contraception coverage. The Roman Catholic university had re-filed its lawsuit challenging the Obama administration's birth control mandate on the basis of religious freedom in December. Its original lawsuit had been dismissed because the school would not be subject to the health care law's regulation in the first place, as birth control is to be provided directly by insurers to employees at religious schools. Source | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On February 23 2014 05:37 Dapper_Cad wrote: A link between race and what? If you have a definition of intelligence you'd win a Nobel prize before you even began your study. Intelligence will never have a good definition because detractors will always find populations who will perform worse than other populations which to detractors will be seen as threatening to equality. That doesn't mean that intelligence is not real, but that to actually have a working definition is impossible. Nobody wants to be the racist who thinks that IQ is a decent measure, even if it might be. On February 23 2014 05:40 Dapper_Cad wrote: It wasn't sarcasm, it was satire. Could you speak more about being LGBT being "detrimental"? Detrimental to mental health as measured by instances of depression and suicide attempts. Like I wrote previously this is obviously partly societal, but to what degree is unknown. And I don't know if this is a factor because I don't know of any studies, but some LGBT people (rather logically) may also be upset that they are unable to have biological children with their partners. Anyway I just brought this up to use as an example that dogma provides an excuse that prevents people from entertaining ideas that offends what they fundamentally believe to be true. | ||
|
Acertos
France852 Posts
On February 23 2014 04:17 farvacola wrote: This is exactly what I was talking about in terms of how those with a bone to pick always rely on a severely stilted and caricatured form of the thing they take issue with, as if the possibility that their personal experience with something like religion is certifiably all that they need in order to make grand and sweeping declarations. You speak of magic and yet the only thing magical about any of this is your supposed ability to characterize millions upon millions of people based on a clearly less than satisfactory understanding of the subject matter. Don't get me wrong, theists do the same thing with atheists, and I think it is important that those truly interested in better understanding the other side take a step back from their personal exposure to what may very well be an incomplete perspective and consider the possibility that there is still much to learn on the matter. Any time you can sit back and say " _______ people are all like this" without repeating the omitted word, you should take a moment and consider what that sort of thinking can and oftentimes does look like when referring to other things. To be frank, I think one of the most important components of developing a healthy perspective on life and other people is to admit that understanding large groups of people is quite difficult. I don't really see how it's caricatured, religious people are either born and educated like it and always have this sense of what's good or bad which comes from the religious autority which obviously leads to a biased opinion. The converted are mostly persons who are not comfortable in life (can be a variety of things from depression (my mother for example went to religion for awhile when she lost her job) to not knowing the meaning of one's existence or the disatisfaction with society) and end up turning to religion, in a sense that's great, they feel better, have new objectives, know what's good or not and have a positive view on life. But the bad part is that now the rational thinking is solely based on what the religion says. The proof of this passive and active influence is that religious people tend to think that something is immoral even if there is no logical thinking behind it, it's called arbitrarity and in the case of believers the greatest influence for morality is religion. One example among others, when I talked to one of my muslim friend (math mvp) in my prepa about gay marriage he told me that it was unnatural (2 men can't make a baby together) and that was the single argument he kept repeating. I know you will dismiss that because it's one person but this confusion of unnatural = immoral is always prevalent with believers (and the notion of what's natural is also biased). Now I will repeat it, religious people have a biased sense of justice and religious activists always have this sense of moral superiority over atheists (and I've got it too over these activists) because they possess the word of god and that's why they can so easily dismiss others opinions. Yes I'm judging millions of people who act or on the contrary keep their voice down out of superstition (the fear of what's denounced by religions actually) but more so moralists who Bible in hand try to impose their views on others without trying to rethink their believes (and sorry but I have often rethought mine, I'm not the cynical retard you make me out to be). | ||
| ||
