Re: Liberals Hate Christianity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Yes, I would. So go ahead and try to save a few home invaders lives and happiness... they come banging on the Don's door and they're going to have issues. Why are you obsessed with enslaving people to the point where criminals have the right to home invade and people don't have the right to defend themselves? Do you rob people's houses on a regular basis?
Well, my range of activity is beside the point of my post. And I'm not trying to save home invaders or leave anyone unprotected. I'm just saying that you will take a decision if you are ready to face the cosequences. Imagine that the invader is the one making the decision to shoot or not. If he doesnt shoot then he will get shot himself. If he does shoot he'll be spending a good time in prison. The decision will depend on what he values more, his life or his freedom. Not on his moral code.
Re: Liberals Hate Christianity
I got news for ya. If he's standing in my bedroom, waving a pistol around, the decision has already been made for him.
Re: Liberals Hate Christianity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I got news for ya. If he's standing in my bedroom, waving a pistol around, the decision has already been made for him.
Oh, today's youth.... Where's you abstract thinking? I'm not talking about that specific event but about the act of pulling the trigger or not as a personal decision based on ones priorities and not on a doctrine.
Re: Liberals Hate Christianity
Are you trying to make the point about whether I factor external stimulus into my decision making process or not?
Fair enough, but you probably didn't pick the best issue to use as self-defense tends to be intensely personal and hopefully, spur of the moment. I suppose you could pre-meditate a self defense, but you'd have a hard time selling it to a jury you had no other options. Last I checked, booby-trapping your place is illegal and not considered self-defense.
I have a wife (and now a baby on the way) to think about. I'm not going to let somebody take them away from me. I'd rather die, and yes, I have made that decision ahead of time and there's very little the government could threaten me with that would change my mind (actually, the only thing I can think of is them taking them away from me now if I don't submit to a life of defenseless slavery).
Again, why is it so important to you that people leave themselves vulernable and defenseless? Sorry, you lost me hours ago.
Re: Liberals Hate Christianity
ok, maybe the example wasnt the best....
Quote:
I have a wife (and now a baby on the way) to think about. I'm not going to let somebody take them away from me. I'd rather die, and yes, I have made that decision ahead of time and there's very little the government could threaten me with that would change my mind
exactly my point. But religion didnt have a say in that decision did it? (well, except maybe marrying you...)
Quote:
Again, why is it so important to you that people leave themselves vulernable and defenseless? Sorry, you lost me hours ago.
That wasnt my point really... My point was that fairness is very subjective and anything you consider necessary is "fair" if you are prepared to face the consequences of your actions.
Re: Liberals Hate Christianity
I made that point pages ago. "Fair" is what I want. "Unfair" is what you want that differs from that.
Re: Liberals Hate Christianity
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster
exactly my point. But religion didnt have a say in that decision did it? (well, except maybe marrying you...)
this notion flys in the face of self preservation and i believe that all altruism in western culture is derived from religious assumption
it becomes so habitual that even if one is not religious, they are taught to put certain relatives safety and well-being above their own
it serves no real egoistc purpose to save the life of a wife, sybling, child or parent at the expense of your own life
if it wasnt for this simple fact (for so many, but not all), i would disbelieve in the possible existence of a right and wrong entirely
Re: Liberals Hate Christianity
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
it serves no real egoistc purpose to save the life of a wife, sybling, child or parent at the expense of your own life
in so much as the ego is affected/produced by biology, there are certainly biological reasons for an individual to risk their own life to ensure the survival of their children. moreover, a response of violence against an attacker should not necessarily be seen as a conscious decision to forfeit one's life for the protection of one's family. such a response, while endangering the individual, may be adaptively advantageous for populations.
Re: Liberals Hate Christianity
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster
exactly my point. But religion didnt have a say in that decision did it? (well, except maybe marrying you...)
Well, in truth, it is my religion that makes me at times question my right to defend myself. It certainly is what brought me to a place that I find capital punishment unacceptable. If I have any questions about the war, it is because of Christ's teachings, not because of the pathetic ramblings of a Left that seems to relish it's own destruction. This religion is also is what tempers a lot of other base instincts I have. My wife and unborn child, well, okay, I'm not Abraham. I would not allow these to be sacraficed. Call me small, and a weak follower.
So, I guess your point, now that I've given it a couple of hours to calm down and reflect upon it, is that I'm a hypocrite, that my so-called religious morality is no less tenuous than the concept of 'fairness' that gets tossed around. Fair enough. I wouldn't let you carve my wife and unborn child up, but I probably would let you do it to me. I guess I am a hyporcrite. Must be nice to be able to take the high ground on these issues. Are you in a penitentiary or something?
Re: Liberals Hate Christianity
why? Do types like me usually end up in one? ~;)
Quote:
So, I guess your point, now that I've given it a couple of hours to calm down and reflect upon it, is that I'm a hypocrite, that my so-called religious morality is no less tenuous than the concept of 'fairness' that gets tossed around.
I never said that. But you realise yourself that religion plays a smaller role in real life than it would if the bible was followed to the letter. Because following it to the letter is not what it was meant when the bible was written and humans felt similarly about similar things then and now.
As of fairness it doesnt exist. There are just hings that you are going to do something about because they bother you more intensely and others you will ignore because you consider them insignificant. The things themselves and your reaction will depend on the priority you set yourself and no religion or law can set for you.
Thats why Democracy is crap. It destroys your independency without even giving you a chance to fight for it.
Re: Liberals Hate Christianity
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
this notion flys in the face of self preservation and i believe that all altruism in western culture is derived from religious assumption
Altruism is a net gain for the gene if the sacrifice of one preserves many.
All you have to do is save two children to be even there and then. Those children will then go on to have more children and so on, the genes prosper.
On the other hand if you let your own kids die then your genes die to.
Your genes don't like that at all.
Re: Liberals Hate Christianity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Altruism is a net gain for the gene if the sacrifice of one preserves many.
All you have to do is save two children to be even there and then. Those children will then go on to have more children and so on, the genes prosper.
On the other hand if you let your own kids die then your genes die to.
Your genes don't like that at all.
yes - but honestly - i am not driven by genes
survival of the species doesnt matter to me at all
the "net gain" of my genetic survival matters not at all
when faced with imminent death if i save my child or spouse - it is altruism that will save them - not some inherent notion of a greater social good
if they exist to better serve me - then their deaths to prolong my life are in my interests from a logical standpoint
they can be replaced as long as i am alive
this is where egoism can no longer explain life - the idea that i have a will to keep society going based on my selfish reasoning falls flat - imo
Re: Liberals Hate Christianity
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
but honestly - i am not driven by genes
We have noticed that.... ~;)
Re: Liberals Hate Christianity
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
yes - but honestly - i am not driven by genes
survival of the species doesnt matter to me at all
the "net gain" of my genetic survival matters not at all
when faced with imminent death if i save my child or spouse - it is altruism that will save them - not some inherent notion of a greater social good
you give yourself too little credit. ~;) you need not be consciously aware of your own altruistic programing to carry out the instructions. also, in terms of inclusive fitness, an adaptation towards altruistic behavior would apply directly to populations, not individuals. 'abberations' could certainly be found in healthy populations. to draw a distinction between altruism and "some inherent notion of a greater social good" is not entirely necessary. if one replaces "social" with "genetic" in that
sentence, the phrase becomes even more redundant.
Quote:
if they exist to better serve me - then their deaths to prolong my life are in my interests from a logical standpoint
they can be replaced as long as i am alive
this is where egoism can no longer explain life - the idea that i have a will to keep society going based on my selfish reasoning falls flat - imo
i understand that you are speaking specifically about "egoism", a concept i have little experience with. however, as i mentioned earlier, the ego itself can be considered as a property of the brain and it's chemistry. as such, it is beholden to evolutionary considerations. from an evolutionary standpoint, over human history, replacing offspring is likely more difficult than protecting the ones that you have successfully raised to their present age. you have no guarantee that you will live to sire other children if your current ones die. so investing all that you can in their protection would be logical. also, again, the adaptation of 'putting one's life at risk to protect one's children' does not necessarily need to be seen as a kind of virtual suicide.
