patrick.net

Peter P says

I have much respect for Ayn Rand. But I confess to being a subjectivist.

Isn't it ironic that Ayn Rand got her early inspirations from Nietzsche?

I think you mixed objectivity and objectivism.

They are somewhat related.

What about science and Scientism?

Peter P says

They are somewhat related.

Well, Ayn Rand objectivism is a different thing. I think it came from the word "objective" == goal. Basically, her "philosophy" was get your objectives no matter what.

And yes it was a primitive form of Nietscheanism.
Remember, Nietsche was a very unhappy man. we usually take his "God is dead." out of context. In fact it was like "God is dead. We've killed God. It's impossible to live in this new world of us. We need something instead right now." So he invented his Superman. He was very talented man, suffereing a lot from the state of his mind and anding in complete insanity.

Ayn Rand was a poor and vulgar writer, a cynical mediocre in any sense whose crede was: let's grab all we want as long as we enjoy it. She just found a way to sell cynicism to those who liked that form of it.

Ironically, they became very popular among extreme right wing atheists. Nietsche -- in Germany, Ayn Rand -- in America.

What about science and Scientism?

A good question to ask Dan.

Ayn Rand did believe in objective reality (metaphysics) and epistemology.

Yep. "God is dead" was more about the meaning of life.

Unfortunately, we now live in a society of Untermenschen.

Peter P says

Unfortunately, we now live in a society of Untermenschen.

Really, do you personally know any "Untermensch"?
If you do are you sure you know him well enough to decide?

Peter P says

"God is dead" was more about the meaning of life.

Well God as far as we may know Him is all about the meaning of life.

You are right. God, the human concept, is all about the meaning of life.

But if reality is objective, He exists beyond our conception. Hmm...

Peter P says

You are right. God, the human concept, is all about the meaning of life.

But if reality is objective, He exists beyond our conception. Hmm...

Very nice!
I would say for most of young people I happened to know who turn to believe in God, this is the path. They need the meaning of life and they need an objective one. (Including me many years ago. :)

I am the rare one who turned to Nietzsche. Yet I believe God exists in my subjective reality. :-)

anyone notice that the sodomite model, that castrated and murdered his newscaster lover, is all over the news without the mention of the whole male/male sodomited designation. Weird.

Bap69, your unhealthy obsession with this topic has made you into a troll. Find a willing man and get what you need. Remember to put some lube in first, and make sure he wears a condom. After the initial pain goes away, you'll feel better.

michaelsch says

As a software developer you use electromagnetic waves or quants, which are a form of matter.

Yes, that's how programming is done. The developer directly manipulates electromagnetic waves in the computer like Magneto.

You do realize that everyone has a physical brain that depends on the electro-magnetic force. That has nothing to do with atheism being more "materialistic" than monotheism. It's just that atheists don't use supernatural bullshit to explain morality, and doing so would add nothing to the discussion anyway.

michaelsch says

Your pretending you do not understand it is "bullshit". Your references to mathematics is another example of your "bullshit". As your post on your assumption about no contradiction in mathematics clearly illustrates you hardly know what you are talking about.

However, much worse of your "bullshit" is when you pretend you do not understand what I (or someone else) ask you.

You can call my writings bullshit all you want. Most people understand what I say and don't misinterpret them as you do. And as for not understanding what you are asking, that's a failure to write clearly on your part.

Here's a helpful tip. If it isn't clear in your mind, it won't be clear coming out of your mouth.

michaelsch says

Dan8267 says

The seven-day week preceded Christianity, but that wasn't going to stop them from claiming credit for it.

What a bullshit! Stop whom to take credit for what. With all your lecturing you loose a common sense.

The fact is that the seven-day week is a result of astrology, not the Judeo-Christian myth of god creating the Earth in 6 days and resting on the seventh. Feel free to argue against this, but present facts rather than assertions. As for who invented the Zodiac, Google that shit and don't waste my time.

michaelsch says

Dan8267 says

The fact that you actually try to square those myths with reality illustrates exactly why religious beliefs are a mental disorder and homosexuality is not.

Bullshit! It illustrates nothing about homosexuality.

Boy are you grasping for straws. Let's first acknowledge that you did not refute the fact that Bap's delusion shows that religious beliefs are a mental disorder. Very interesting.

As to how this relates to the conversation regarding homosexuality, the only people asserting that homosexuality is a mental disorder are the ones clearly suffering from a mental disorder of their own. If only crazy people call you crazy and doctors don't, you're probably not crazy.

I guess I didn't dumb this down enough for you.

michaelsch says

Dan8267 says

No, objective means that the creator of the morality is irrelevant.

Another example of your bullshit!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Oh yes, because Wikipedia is the ultimate authority on all subject matter. That's why we know that Plato was an ancient Hawaiian weather man and surfer, writer of cosmo girls and founder of the punahou in Ancient Florida.

Only the intellectually lazy use Wikipedia. It is foolish and stupid. Get a real source. One that isn't dominated by dumb-ass kids, plagiarizers, and corporate and government agencies with political agendas.

Furthermore, I was explaining what makes my moral system objective. That has nothing to do with some philosophy named after the word "objective" anyway. Christ, your reading comprehension skills suck. So, I'll dumb this down as much as possible. An objective moral code is no more or less likely to be accepted by a person X before and after person X's status and situation (race, gender, nationality, wealth, social or political power, etc.) is randomized. A subjective moral code is more or less likely to be accepted by a person X depending on his status and situation. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this concept.

At this point you are disagreeing for the sake of being disagreeable.

Bap33 says

anyone notice that the sodomite model, that castrated and murdered his newscaster lover, is all over the news without the mention of the whole male/male sodomited designation. Weird.

Woman Cuts Off Husband's Penis, Tosses It Into Garbage Disposal

Scorned woman 'chops off cheating boyfriend's penis and flushes it down the toilet'

Woman Cuts Off Man’s Penis Before Stabbing Him To Death

I've got about ten thousand more of these stories. Why doesn't the press mention the whole male/female "sodimited designation" in these stories? Oh yeah, because it's irrelevant. But wait, what if Bap is right and such stories proves that heterosexuality is a mental disorder. We need to rehabilitate straights into becoming gays.

Bap, your cherry picking, which is the most heterosexual thing you've ever done.

Peter P says

But if reality is objective, He exists beyond our conception. Hmm..

Why he instead of them? That's a pretty damn big assumption.

curious2 says

Bap69, your unhealthy obsession

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-w21eCrF86rA/T9eOmH9tvrI/AAAAAAAAA68/Lc4lI7Ro-fE/s1600/Sem+T%C3%ADtulo-1+c%C3%B3pia.jpg

Like I said, that's a mighty gay avatar for an alleged heterosexual. And Bap certainly fits the profile of a self-hating closet homosexual republican. Hell, it seems like that's half the party.

Dan8267 says

As to how this relates to the conversation regarding homosexuality, the only people asserting that homosexuality is a mental disorder are the ones clearly suffering from a mental disorder of their own. If only crazy people call you crazy and doctors don't, you're probably not crazy.

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

next.

Dan8267 says

And Bap certainly fits the profile of a self-hating closet homosexual republican.

name calling?? really? I do have a question about the male/male sodomite thing: Do those that center their lives around deviant sex have different names for the masculine male and the feminine male?

Dan8267 says

Peter P says

But if reality is objective, He exists beyond our conception. Hmm..

Why he instead of them? That's a pretty damn big assumption.

Maybe, it's because the entire universe points to a singular point of generation, not points?

Bap33 says

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
next.

Sounds like the opinion of one bigoted psychologist who is upset that homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder just like black people are no longer considered mentally inferior to white people. There used to be a lot of bigotry (racism, sexism, and homophobia) in the pseudo-science of the 19th and early 20th centuries. This was replaced by objective, rational science in which evidence, not personal opinion, was the basis for scientific consensus.

As I stated in in a previous post, countless reputable medical associations do not consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder. Your refutation of this is that one organization used to half a century ago during more bigoted times. If this is a reputable organization, then we'd have to go with its current statement that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

But, I'll tell you what. I'll invite an expert from that organization to discuss whether or not homosexuality is a mental disorder. Hell, I'll invite your expert witness as well.

Dan8267 invited American Psychiatric Association to fact-check this discussion.

Invite another expert to fact-check this discussion.

If only bigoted people call you bigoted and doctors don't, you're probably not bigoted.

Dan8267 invited N.E. Whitehead to fact-check this discussion.

Invite another expert to fact-check this discussion.

Bap33 says

If only bigoted people call you bigoted and doctors don't, you're probably not bigoted.

I just invited Dr. Whitehead to defend his position. If it turns out that he has convincing medical evidence that homosexuality is in fact a mental disorder, I'll retract my statement that it's probably prejudice, not science. Of course, if he has convincing medical evidence that homosexuality is a mental disorder, then why hasn't the medical community accepted that evidence? I look forward to the debate.

Dan8267 says

black people are no longer considered mentally inferior to white people.

what was used to judge anyone's mental dominance? Exploration? Invention? Engineering? Math? Writing? Poetry? Civility? Sanitation? Mastery over environment? Animal husbandry? What is the meter used for such considerations?

Dan8267 says

convincing medical evidence

he wrote a paper, and there are footnotes at the end for double checking. What more is normally required before something wrote by a doctor is called "medical evidence"?

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. It is a lifestyle choice. And for that we should celebrate its existence.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

black people are no longer considered mentally inferior to white people.

what was used to judge anyone's mental dominance? Exploration? Invention? Engineering? Math? Writing? Poetry? Civility? Sanitation? Mastery over environment? Animal husbandry? What is the meter used for such considerations?

http://tinyurl.com/cle5cuv

There is really no mental superiority. There is only one will over another.

Bap33 says

I do have a question about the male/male sodomite thing: Do those that center their lives around deviant sex have different names for the masculine male and the feminine male?

In your case Bap, the former is called Fred Phelps. The latter is called Bap, as in you got screwed by Fred Phelps. He has made a fortune off your pain, and left you with only self-loathing. But, as in many abusive relationships, you continue to take his side. He's got you believing that you can't find a better man.

Peter P says

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. It is a lifestyle choice. And for that we should celebrate its existence.

"Mental disorder" might not be the best description, in my opinion. I submit that the unnatural behavior of the masculine male/male sodomite indicates a birth defect on the same level as any other maniacal defect. I also submit that the behavior of the feminine male/male sodomite indicates a glandular birth defect. The former may only be a perverted mind expressing a dominance just short of forced rape. That may be tuff to treat. The latter is obviously suffering from a mis-firing hormone that can be treated. I suggest birth defect may be a better expression, and we should save these people from being abused, just as we save Downs people from being abused.

Dan,
that page didn't load. I figued you would have a short hand answer. I was not making any type of arugement about that issues. Just asking a question that I think helps shape the point.

Bap33 says

I submit....

Yes, or at least you keep trying to.

Bap33 says

we should save these people from being abused

Now you're asking for a government bailout? We keep telling you, just put some lube in first and make sure he wears a condom.

Peter P says

There is really no mental superiority. There is only one will over another.

correct you are. From whence, or upon what, is "will" normally hinged?

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

convincing medical evidence

he wrote a paper, and there are footnotes at the end for double checking. What more is normally required before something wrote by a doctor is called "medical evidence"?

The only peer review of his work that I could find was http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/counting/

Dr Whitehead's claims about the potential impact of the Civil Unions Bill can, quite fairly and with due respect for the passion of his convictions, be rejected. His argument is flawed. His "research method" seems little more sophisticated than joining dots on a two-dimensional plane. He superficially connects observations from some published studies of genetic and environmental factors in human sexuality and mental health. The pattern that emerges is a distorted caricature of existing knowledge that lacks depth and complexity. It adds nothing to serious, informed debate about the nature of homosexuality or the ways in which a civil society should formulate law.

The essential problem is that Dr Whitehead's research is quasi-science. He has strayed far beyond his field of expertise. His training and professional experience, and his publications in academic journals, are almost entirely in geological and nuclear science. I conducted an exhaustive search of his research papers listed by Thompson ISI Web of Science (the international standard search tool for scientific information). Although Dr Whitehead claims he has researched the field of sexuality for 13 years, this effort has been entirely unproductive. My search revealed no empirical study of human sexuality and indeed no systematic review on the topic that has been accepted by internationally recognised, peer-reviewed journals. His three books are populist and are not published by mainstream academic publishers that require scientific review. Thus, they are not regarded as serious works in the field of human sexuality.

Bap33 says

I submit that the unnatural behavior of the masculine male/male sodomite indicates a birth defect on the same level as any other maniacal defect.

Examples of unnatural behavior common in human beings... You know, shit that other animals don't do and that our Stone Age ancestors didn't either.

- Skydiving
- Flying in giant metal machines
- Boating
- Shooting guns (there's fucking nothing less natural than a gun)
- holding court
- Congress (ok, bad example, that is deviant behavior)
- surgery
- marriage (including the heterosexual type)
- imprisonment (oh, wait, I already mentioned marriage)
- driving
- NASCAR
- writing
- maintaining a police force

So, how exactly is unnatural behavior evil?

Examples of natural behavior in human beings... You know, shit that other animals do and our Stone Age ancestors actually did.

- Shitting on the ground
- Rape
- War
- Flinging poo
- Murder
- Neglecting babies until they die of starvation
- Running around naked

So, how exactly is natural behavior good? Bap, weren't you the guy who complained about humans acting like animals? That's natural behavior. Law and order are unnatural.

Bap33 says

elliemae says

Maybe if I tattooed the info on my breasts & jumped up & down wearing a barely-there bra?

proof that I am not gay!

LOL - Elliemae's joke, in a thread about ObamaCare that Bap69 had not even commented in, doesn't prove anything about Bap, but his reply proves that he's desperately grabbing any shred of hope to deny what he refuses to accept he really is. Reasons why people want to believe in a god include the fact that they refuse to accept their own mortality, and in Bap's case his own sexuality. In both instances, obsessive fervor reflects desperation, not objective belief.

Dan8267 says

michaelsch says

Dan8267 says

No, objective means that the creator of the morality is irrelevant.

Another example of your bullshit!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Oh yes, because Wikipedia is the ultimate authority on all subject matter.

Only the intellectually lazy use Wikipedia. It is foolish and stupid. Get a real source. One that isn't dominated by dumb-ass kids, plagiarizers, and corporate and government agencies with political agendas.

OK, now it's Wikipedia's fault. A real source is Dan's invention, is it?

I can give you other links, like to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective, but it saems useless, you are not interested in objective definitions.

Let's concentrate on your private definition of your "objective" morality. After all you've used this word, therefore you should have a right to define it the way you want, correct?

Dan8267 says

An objective moral code is no more or less likely to be accepted by a person X before and after person X's status and situation (race, gender, nationality, wealth, social or political power, etc.) is randomized.

A subjective moral code is more or less likely to be accepted by a person X depending on his status and situation.

You speak about moral code, i.e. about a codified morality. What makes you thinking such an "objective" code even exists? Could you please come up with an example of such a code? AFAIK, all moral codes that existed in human history were "subjective".

Do you think a complete moral code may be even theoretically formulated?
BTW, do you understand that such an assumption contradicts Gödel's incompleteness theorems?

Or maybe you think there is an ideal "objective" moral code common to all, which can't be completely formulated? In this case how is it different from an objectively existing morality, to which Christians believe, a man may communicate by the Grace of the Holy Spirit?

Dan, you keep juggling terms and definitions, but it does not make your position consistent.

Dan8267 says

You can call my writings bullshit all you want. Most people understand what I say and don't misinterpret them as you do.

I called bullshit those of your writing, in which You do not understand what you say and misinterpret them afterwards.

Unfortunately in some cases I abused this word trying to parodize your style, for these I apologize.

I had hoped this thread would go away but a certain user with a hunky avatar kept bringing it back when it dropped off the front page. Now it's back due to the debate about moral systems, and if I may summarize both Dan and Michael make good points.

The Best Comparisons award goes to Dan for saying moral systems are like bridges, where many different designs all depend on the same principles of engineering. A badly designed bridge may collapse suddenly, while a well designed bridge has a much better chance of enduring. A sound moral system should, in fact, be fair to all participants, like cutting a pie into pieces where the person who cuts is the last to choose his own slice.

Yet as Michael pointed out, empirical observation shows moral codes tend to be subjective.

I like the combination of these two ideas because it provides a valid tool to compare different systems of morality. For example, we can observe that the Islamic/Islamist world has a system of morality that is inherently unfair to many or most of the people who live there, and it produces volatility, and they have paid a terrible price in productivity. The entire GDP of the entire Muslim world, more than 1 billion people, adds up to around the GDP of Spain. If we evaluate moral systems like bridge designs, we may see ways to optimize existing systems of morality in ways that might improve fairness and stability and productivity, resulting in a healthier system with more successful results.

BTW, Wikipedia is never a source in itself, by its own admission. Rather, it is a place to look for sources. The text of articles can be changed by anyone, and should be considered mainly as a loose narrative presenting the source links. Citing Wikipedia is like chasing the wind, but you can use Wikipedia to retrieve sources in the same way sailors use the wind to bring back fish.