One difference that should be mentioned is that religion often tries to control who a person is versus what they own or how they act.

 

And society increasingly rejects the notion we can tell people who they are and interfere with how they identify as a human being.

 

Guns are objects, things to own. A person being gay is intrinsic to their identification as a person, something they cannot "shut off" when convenient. In the past, this was reflected in the Civil Rights Act and people of color. Before that, it was women.

 

The situation muddies a bit when that gay person goes out and demands the same services offered to other human beings, which is an imposition on another person's belief structure. Every act we take as a society is some kind of imposition on another person. It's the nature of being tribal.

 

But, as a society, we're coming around to the idea that when it comes to a person's core identify, their self-identification and something that cannot be changed or turned off when convenient, we don't allow intolerance toward that person.

Unless you're the VP, who thinks that we can have camps to "get the gay out". Probably not fair, but I'm not part of the MSM.

 

I remember a long time ago when I was a freshman in college in my first class, the professor said that politics is defined as "the authoritative allocation of values in a society". I believe that definition still fits and means that those in political power allocate their values on us. We can argue about what is right and wrong and how the process is carried out, but this is the essence of politics.

 

Exactly, which is why we vote for those that share our values.  We want the authority to "allocate" them.  Which, whether people want to accept it or not, is an imposition on those that disagree with us.  We might dull those through compromise or mutual interests, but our motivations are no different.   They are the same as those who are driven by religion to try and "allocate" their values in the same way.  We just have different sources for our moral philosophies.

 

 We just have different sources for our moral philosophies.

Yes, facts and alternative facts.  

 

Yes, facts and alternative facts.  

 

I would suggest characterizing non-religious moral beliefs vs. religious moral beliefs as a battle of fact vs. non-fact is more than a bit problematic.

 

I would suggest characterizing non-religious moral beliefs vs. religious moral beliefs as a battle of fact vs. non-fact is more than a bit problematic.

Your insistence on equating each is, well, equally problematic. 

 

Your insistence on equating each is, well, equally problematic. 

 

Equate?  The only thing I've equated is our desire to impose on one another.  Which is true, we all do that.  There is no moral high ground to be had there, no matter how hard you want it.  And you're being hypocritical if you deny it.  

 

Your claim is inherently problematic.  While some views (depending on the moral issue) may contain degrees of objective reasoning those come in degrees and that brush is painting far too broadly.  And that's to say nothing of how complicated the relationship is between values and facts.

Edited February 18, 20179 yr by TheLeviathan

If you have any interest at all in following a science-based discussion of the origin and evolution of morality, and have not heard of Patricia Churchland, then it's time to redirect the little grey cells a bit.

 

http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199570706.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199570706-e-003

 

Equate?  That depends on the issue, morality is far too broad for that claim.  I've said nothing to lead to any conclusion there.

 

Your claim?  Problematic regardless.

Look, the impositions proffered by social contract are very different from those proffered by religion, although the latter will use the former as a vessel for their favored impositions.  

 

Let's not pretend that the source of right-wing religious morality has sound footing--it is neither founded in fact nor, in my opinion, the teachings of Jesus.   I think it's fair game to debate the actual values of their policy stances--whether there's actually any there-there to their supposed 'morality'.  

 

Social Contract theory has a long and much-debated history. I'm pretty sympathetic to Rawls and especially Gauthier, and tend to view this as reaching an equilibrium point in a negotiation game.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/game-theory-and-humanities

I know a lot of people don't like Richard Dawkins, but his book the Selfish Gene explores the issue of social contract and game theory by way of analyzing altruism as it occurs in nature.   This book first exposed me to the Prisoner's Dilemma, Tragedy of the Commons and concept of Hawks and Doves; it also coined the word 'meme' I believe.

 

Look, the impositions proffered by social contract are very different from those proffered by religion, although the latter will use the former as a vessel for their favored impositions.  

 

Let's not pretend that the source of right-wing religious morality has sound footing--it is neither founded in fact nor, in my opinion, the teachings of Jesus.   I think it's fair game to debate the actual values of their policy stances--whether there's actually any there-there to their supposed 'morality'.  

 

Well, I can agree with all of that.  But now you are arguing against what they want to impose and why, as opposed to condemning them for the act of imposing.  

 

Which is different than telling them they are wrong for imposing.  We all do that, it's hypocrisy to fault them for that.

Take Donald's survey on the media.

 

Well, I can agree with all of that.  But now you are arguing against what they want to impose and why, as opposed to condemning them for the act of imposing.  

 

Which is different than telling them they are wrong for imposing.  We all do that, it's hypocrisy to fault them for that.

As I said, there's a difference between the impositions we accept by social contract and the impositions desired by the religious right.   I think it's a matter of type, but you think it's merely a matter of degree--fine, the degree to which they wish to impose their beliefs on others shouldn't be tolerated. 

As I said, there's a difference between the impositions we accept by social contract and the impositions desired by the religious right.   I think it's a matter of type, but you think it's merely a matter of degree--fine, the degree to which they wish to impose their beliefs on others shouldn't be tolerated.

 

I guess I'm confused what you find those differences to be as you first allude. I think there is one type you could argue (dealing with identity issues - LGBTQ issues for example) that I would agree about, but are there others?

In re: abortion. The "pro life" argument is not about "saving a life" it has and has always been about controlling women. Make no mistake about it.

 

If you are "anti choice" you are basically anti empowering women and pro controlling them and their choices.

 

People can hide behind religion all they want, but that's what it's all about.

I know a lot of people don't like Richard Dawkins, but his book the Selfish Gene explores the issue of social contract and game theory by way of analyzing altruism as it occurs in nature. This book first exposed me to the Prisoner's Dilemma, Tragedy of the Commons and concept of Hawks and Doves; it also coined the word 'meme' I believe.

Yes. Dawkins can be an ass but he's a smart one. Take a look at Daniel Dennett too, when you get a chance.

Take Donald's survey on the media.

Textbook example of a push poll.

 

"12. Were you aware that a poll was released revealing that a majority of Americans actually supported President Trump's temporary restriction executive order?"

 

'A' poll. Heh.

 

"22. Do you believe that if Republicans were obstructing Obama like Democrats are doing to President Trump, the mainstream media would attack Republicans?"

 

Um, if I say "yes" it means what? If I say "no", it means what? Either way, I apparently accept the premise, as opposed to Democrats perhaps calling for scrutiny?

 

Oh, plus, they want name and email address. Legitimate poll, obviously.

 

Thanks for the good chuckle.

 

 

This is going to be a long entry. I wasn't totally surprised that Trump won the presidency, but I had thought that somehow, some way the more qualified candidate would eventually win out (Clinton, without question then and now). When the Donald won, I hoped that some facets of his candidacy would come out and even strengthen--populism for forgotten Americans, relaxation of some of the more complicated regulations, perhaps a return to the libertarian Donald that advocated choice in reproductive issues and tolerance for gays. Also I hoped that perhaps when he got in office he would be humbled a bit by the history and duty that being president brings with it. Some men who didn't have great histories going in became functional or better presidents (most recently Harry Truman, but also Chester Alan Arthur, James K Polk and Calvin Coolidge to name a few).

 

That hasn't happened. I had hoped that Trump was trying to build a base with his "build a wall", anti-immigrant and thinly-veiled racist rhetoric. Either he or Bannon really believes this and Bannon apparently has the ear of Trump. There is a segment of our population (I think about 25%) that fears outsiders, particularly Muslims and particularly if they're not white. His nativist BS is playing well with them, for everyone else, it's an abomination. Again on social issues, such of abortion, God, guns and gays, Trump is going with the extreme intolerance that is Steve Bannon. The third component of the Trump administration is not "drain the swamp", but hire the most right-wing and richest people to be in your cabinet. This mess is capped off by a man who is narcissistic to the max, unwilling to believe that he actually trailed in the popular vote by almost 3 million and constantly crowing about his "huge" electoral margin. He's made the press his whipping boy and uttered so many obviously untrue statements about unimportant stuff, it is not possible to believe what he says about substantial topics.

 

I understand a bit of chest-thumping when winning when almost no one said you would, but the election happened over three months ago. There are serious questions about the legitimacy of his win and throwing gasoline on the fire by claiming voter fraud and "the biggest margin since Reagan" doesn't help at all. How big a part did Russia play and how close to the campaign were they?

 

I can't take anything that Trump or his minions say at face value. I don't believe his victory is legitimate and my knee jerk will be to oppose anything he is for. I do believe in this situation it is right and proper to resist at every turn.

 

Now about that election. Here's my shorthand to determine how close an election really was: How many flipped votes would win the election for the loser? In GW Bush's case it was 500 and some in Florida. In 1960, Nixon would have needed 11,270 to flip three states including Illinois to send the election to the House of Representatives. In '68, Nixon prevailed because he won California or three small states with a total margin of about 90,000 would have brought the election to the House. In '76, Gerald Ford would have needed to flip two states which he lost by about 18,000 votes. In 2016, Trump won three states by 77,774 so that is what Clinton needed to win the Electoral College. So Trump's election wasn't the tightest on record ('60 and '00 have the modern honor), but it was close and don't forget that Clinton received over 2.8 million more votes.

Yes. Dawkins can be an ass but he's a smart one.

Uhhh, and in the common idiom, this is seen as a good thing, or a bad thing?

Uhhh, and in the common idiom, this is seen as a good thing, or a bad thing?

In the common idiom, 'yes.'

With Dawkins being brought up, it made me think of a video of him reading "Fan Mail".

 

It's quite hilarious, sometimes a bit frightening.

 

WARNING: Video contains adult language.

 

Presidents don't host rallies. Furhers hold rallies. This is getting ridiculous. I'm feeling sick. Good night.

With Dawkins being brought up, it made me think of a video of him reading "Fan Mail".

 

It's quite hilarious, sometimes a bit frightening.

 

WARNING: Video contains adult language.

 

That was amazing. Plenty of common idioms in there.

Edited February 18, 20179 yr by Craig Arko

 

Presidents don't host rallies. Furhers hold rallies. This is getting ridiculous. I'm feeling sick. Good night.

 

He rabble rouses the base while the puppet masters go about their work.....

This isn't actually right, but it's an A+ for making the effort.

 

 

Meanwhile back on the ranch... Nearly 100 Tech Companies Join Forces In Court To Oppose Donald Trump's Immigration Ban

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdrange/2017/02/06/nearly-100-tech-companies-join-forces-to-oppose-donald-trumps-immigration-ban/#52171320124b

Edited February 18, 20179 yr by Craig Arko

I might have to update daily what this maniac is doing too.  

 

I might have to update daily what this maniac is doing too.  

I have zero free articles left. What's the scoop?

 

I have zero free articles left. What's the scoop?

 

She went into a thriving urban DC school and basically called the teachers lazy and waiting to be told what to do.

 

She went into a thriving urban DC school and basically called the teachers lazy and waiting to be told what to do.

The teachers were basically asking Devos to impose her beliefs upon them....

 

The teachers were basically asking Devos to impose her beliefs upon them....

 

And I'm hoping we can get her fired so we can impose some better ideas on the Dept. of Ed than the mess she's bound to create.  

 

She went into a thriving urban DC school and basically called the teachers lazy and waiting to be told what to do.

Ugh... She is the worst possible person to have that position. I would be a better candidate, and my only credential is I went to public schools K-12. I assume a great many/majority of the students are African American.

 

Talk about the political BS of "you run my back, I'll rub yours".

 

Thanks for sharing Levi.