Gay Marriage

[Urza-DSF]

I agree, with the drug business I always have the idea the reason it isn't legalized yet is the fact that a lot of people make so much money on it. And why wouldn't those people influence politicians. (I hope I'm wrong)

Unfortunatly its the *wrong* people who are making moiney off of marajuana. Because its such an openly-availible resource it would be very difficult for any of the big-tobacco companies as well as the drug companies to make a profit in the same way they do with their normal drugs (overpricing, ect). They don't see any reason to do it because it does not help their financial situation.

[Minionman]

Related to that, if people can get the information they need they can run their lives better than the government could, because they know all the little details abou themselves. For example, I will probably never drink beer but there are plenty of people who do and who have perfectly fine lives. Just because I don't do it doesn't mean everyone else would be better if they didn't do it, because they can better run their own lives than I can. In this beer example, people may drink beer, but only a small amount of them show up for work too drunk to do anything, or turned alchoholic. That's one other reason against the government trying to control morals. There are other things where I will go for extra government control, but at this level I'm against it.

You guys got all the good stuff. Darn.

[Occhidiangela]

How to you square that with the legit beer, wine and whiskey companies who do very well at making a buck.

The wrong people making money is at present the criminals and the clevel orgainzed crime networks who find a market and vend their products, all without contributing as the tobacco and booze vendors do, to the collective revenue.

Not sure where you are going with the "it does not help their financial situation" since they don't want to be caught up in federal court for selling an illegal or controlled substance. Legalize it, tax it, treat it like booze and tobacco, and you give legit businesses a shot at making an honest buck growing, curing, and selling the finest in Virginia Gold, or what have you.

"Come to where the real buzz is, come to Marlboro country!" :lol:

Occhi

[eppie]

How to you square that with the legit beer, wine and whiskey companies who do very well at making a buck.

The wrong people making money is at present the criminals and the clevel orgainzed crime networks who find a market and vend their products, all without contributing as the tobacco and booze vendors do, to the collective revenue. 

Not sure where you are going with the "it does not help their financial situation" since they don't want to be caught up in federal court for selling an illegal or controlled substance.  Legalize it, tax it, treat it like booze and tobacco, and you give legit businesses a shot at making an honest buck growing, curing, and selling the finest in Virginia Gold, or what have you.

"Come to where the real buzz is, come to Marlboro country!"  :lol:

Occhi

Well the difference is of course that taxes on alcohol and tobacco go the state, drug money goes directly to people.
And I guess the price for a gram of weed will go down spectacularly once it is legal. (at least you know you get the good stuff). Not even talking about the price of harddrugs.
(the debate on legalizing harddrugs is by the way going on over here, at the moment selling is illegal as well as using, but using is not punished)
No it was just my conspiracy thinking... maybe I watch to many b-movies.

state bene mi amici..

[--Pete]

Hi,

The thing is, slavery is just plain wrong.

That's a social and moral point of view. At different times, different societies had differing forms of slavery and everybody in those societies accepted it and would have laughed at you for thinking otherwise. Hell, there are even rules and regulations for the treatment of slaves in the Bible and yet it was various Christian groups (the Quakers come to mind) who were the most outspoken and influential in the abolitionist movement.

Even "having your neighbor for dinner" has had meanings that were accepted and cherished by some which are revolting to most today. Dr. Hannibal Lecter's behavior would have raised few eyebrows amongst the Maori of a century ago (although narrow minded revisionists who cannot comprehend any outlook but their own are actively trying to deny this).

"Just plain wrong" is very much in the eyes of the beholder. It is a knee-jerk reaction that substitutes for rational though. Almost anything you might think "just plain wrong" was once considered fitting and proper by some group somewhere. So, think it out a little more deeply, and realize why you think something is wrong under the assumptions you've made. And realize too what those assumptions are and why you made them. Usually, if you are honest, you will realize that your outlook is driven by the society you live in and that, in turn, is driven by the dominant religion of that society.

Get all that organized religion out of government.

A wonderful concept. Shall we start with the seven day week? And especially the weekend? Nature has handed us three natural units of time, the day, the lunar month, and the year. Unfortunately, they are mutually incommensurable. So how we divide them up is strictly up to us. And the grouping of days into weeks with a Sabbath at the end of each is strictly a Judaic thing (I think, although they may have stolen it from the Babylonians and 'retrofitted' a religious fable onto a practical fact). The addition of a second day off (Sunday) which ends up giving us the weekend is thanks to that Jewish splinter group, the Christians. So, since that is all "organized religion", let's throw it all out. No more weekend, no more Friday evening pizza and beer, no more Monday night football.

Of course, what we would replace it with isn't clear since almost every usable division of the year has been used by some religion or another. Perhaps we could re-institute the calends and ides, since priests of Jupiter are pretty much an extinct species and not much of anyone would notice that we've reverted to yet an older religion's observances. And we would have a mass public BBQ every fifteen days or so, good for everyone but the sacrificial bulls.

OK, satiric sarcasm off. The reason for that little inanity was to show how basic the religious influence is in our milieu. A thousand years of Christian domination of Europe has made many, many concepts that originated in religion into customs that we blindly accept. Some of them even make sense or, at worst, are morally and practically neutral.

While "the wall of separation between church and state" is neither as high nor as thick as an agnostic/atheist such as myself would want it, it has grown over the years. That the Enlightenment gave birth to such a concept (consider Pascal and his famous wager and what that says about his unquestioning acceptance of religion, specifically Catholicism) at all is a tribute to their ability to think outside the box. And while many bemoan the fact that it is not perfect (while others bemoan that it exists at all), it is good that haste is being made slowly to insure not throwing out the . . .

(Enough cliches in one paragraph for you?)

--Pete

[Chaerophon]

"Just plain wrong" is very much in the eyes of the beholder.

I can agree with that; however...

At different times, different societies had differing forms of slavery and everybody in those societies accepted it and would have laughed at you for thinking otherwise.

Here I feel that your relativism is far too uncritical. There were most likely people in these societies who were non-slaves and felt that slavery was wrong and, clearly, there had to be more than a few slaves who felt the same way. The constraint of the human spirit (will to power...?) in such a way, while perhaps seemingly 'fitting' to the constrainers cannot possibly be viewed in the same light by all of those who are constrained. Our belief that such behaviours are "just plain wrong" is not necessarily 'just' a "knee-jerk reaction that substitutes for rational thought". While it is clearly a reaction that speaks to the social mores and perspectives of our time; one must be careful in criticizing the foundation of these perspectives too harshly. I personally subscribe to the notion of fundamental human equality, our equal right to a voice, as being universally desirable and the fundamental units necessary for the enactment of social justice. At heart, no individual human being wants not to be heard - they may think that such a desire is somehow 'wrong' and so keep it pent up; however, that is beside the point. While it may be dangerous to simply impose Western Enlightenment notions of liberal justice in native societies, establishing the socioeconomic and ideological groundwork by which marginalized groups may make ethical claims to common humanity is the first step in admitting any kind of principle of human rights. While you may argue that my defense of such a goal is relativist in its own right, I would point to the relative universality of this perspective as a part of the transnational women's and anti-slavery movements as struggles from both within and outside of particular societies as a worldwide phenomenon. These struggles seem to me to be an indicator that this desire for a right to a voice tends to transcend difference and relativism among local marginalized groups.

It goes without saying that this reaction to slavery is centered in our own liberal ethos of equality; however, this ethos is one that is defended against detractors by the notion that unchallenged ideas run the risk of becoming hegemonic failures of reason. As a base unit, I see some inherent value in such a perspective. The visible constraint and marginalization of a slave's inherent entitlement to a voice as a part of 'humanity' is what strikes the modern liberal as "just plain wrong". While there undoubtedly remain a vast multitude of the fundamentally 'voiceless' in our modern neoliberal society, we do tend to place a premium on the formal concept of our 'shared humanity'. This instinct towards formal equality as a right to having a voice is a necessary precursor to a heightened, more just understanding of the human condition. Without it, dialogue is impossible and 'difference' remains fundamentally an issue of right or wrong rather than what it simply is; difference.

[Baajikiil]

Hey, don't you know that this is the internet? You're not allowed to write such intelligent posts on here ;)

Posts like this are the reason I love the lounge. I just wanted to say that this thread has been very interesting to me, and has been well worth the read. Thanks everybody.

[Occhidiangela]

Three thoughts:

1. For Pete:

Usually, if you are honest, you will realize that your outlook is driven by the society you live in and that, in turn, is driven by the dominant religion of that society.

Religion or philosophy, or both? Particularly since the Enlightenment, it seems to be that both have a heavy contribution to the "common cultural assumptions" or the "frequently taken for granted societal norms." I suppose that until the Enlightenment, religion and philosophy were equivalent. Hmmmm, probably need to do a bit more reading on that.

2. Chaerphon: And where do you think the premise for universal human rights comes from? What driving philosophical idea is the kernel of that concept? One could argue that the idea derives from a matter of Christian doctrine, the concept that all souls are equal before God's eyes. That idea has roots that probably go back to pre Christian times, not to mention the influence of the Vedic thought, though the Hindu caste system is in stark contrast as a social norm inconsistent with a "universal" equal rights position. I don't understand the Tao well enough to comment on its contribution.

3. The end of slavery was made practical, in an economic rather than moral sense, by the advent of the machine age. Given the outlook of many early industrialists, the habit of treating the labor as "lesser beings than themselves" made for a significant class divide that Marxian thought harnessed in the name of class warfare, which was not invented by Marx.

"The Peasants Are Revolting!"

But back to slave labor. The marvels that were and are the Roman roads were built, at least in part, by slave labor. Slavery as a means of agricultural production is an old method, see Sparta and the Helots. Slavery for manual labor in general was alive and well in the 19th century in any number of Islamic societies. It is argued by some that slavery is alive and well, still, in East Africa, particularly the Sudan; that prison labor in the Soviet Union was nothing more than slave labor; and that use of prisoners in the US for roadwork is a form of slave labor, which is one reason why the Chain Gang is not quite as common as it once was. The story in Cool Hand Luke is now more of a period piece, even an anachronism. :D

[kandrathe]

This chapter seemed appropriate for your current situation.

Good weapons are instruments of fear;
all creatures hate them.
Therefore followers of the Tao never used them.
The wise man prefers the left.
The man of war prefers the right.
Weapons are instruments of fear;
they are not a wise man's tools.
He uses them only when he has no choice.
Peace and quiet are dear to his heart.
And victory no cause for rejoicing.
If you rejoice in victory, then you delight in killing;
If you delight in killing, you cannot fulfill yourself.
On happy occasions precedence is given to the left, on sad occasions to the right.
In the army the general stands on the left, the commander-in-chief on the right.
This means that war is conducted like a funeral.
When many people are being killed, they should be mourned in heartfelt sorrow.
That is why a victory must be observed like a funeral.

Tao Te Ching, Chap. 31

Eastern philosophies do harbor the respect for the individual and really all life. In fact, it may be that due to the Roman Empires demands for luxuries 2000 years ago caused a large influx of eastern trade into the middle east exposing the west to these new eastern ideas. I find many parallels between Christianity and eastern teachings, especially Mo Zi. Mo Zi's challenges had a profound effect on both Confucianism and Taoism.

Edit: Oh, and for the topic I offer up this tidbit.

[--Pete]

Hi,

There were most likely people in these societies who were non-slaves and felt that slavery was wrong

Conjecture not supported by evidence. We have a lot of writings from the Greeks, from the Romans, from the lands of the fertile crescent, and none of them as far as I know condemns slavery or refers to some lost document that does. If such people as you postulate did exist, then they were silent or ignored.

clearly, there had to be more than a few slaves who felt the same way. (i.e., that slavery was wrong).

No. There were undoubtedly many who felt that *they* being a slave was wrong. They would have rather been slave holder than slave. But the very concept of no slavery was foreign to their thought process. To generalize to a whole population is dangerous. There may have been a visionary or two, but if so, their thoughts were not preserved. Probably because they were (as is common with visionaries) considered crackpots and their opinions not worth recording.

. . . one must be careful in criticizing the foundation of these perspectives too harshly.

I was not criticizing the foundations or the perspectives at all. If pointing out *why* a belief exists threatens that belief, then clearly either the belief is on shaky ground or the believer is. The fear of introspection is a hallmark of insecurity -- a fear shared by religions and ignorant societies. When one is secure, one does not fear, indeed one welcomes, the examination of attitudes and ideals since that helps clarify these ideas and expose contradictions and weaknesses. It is through this (difficult and painful) process that progress in knowledge is made by both individuals and societies.

I personally subscribe to the notion of fundamental human equality . . .

Fine. But realize that that is, for this argument, an *assumption* and not a conclusion. You use that (as you should) as a springboard to argue for a certain treatment of humanity. But that starts where my point ends. My point was that you need to examine why you subscribe to such a belief. To do so, you need to examine those that did not subscribe to your belief (Cicero comes to mind with his instrumentum vocalae). You need to examine why for most of six thousand years of recorded history slavery, caste systems, sexual discrimination, etc. etc, were the *unquestioned* norm. Once you understand *why* most of humanity did not share your viewpoint and why you do, then you are on the path of knowledge and independent thinking.

I am *not* saying that your assumption is wrong (for I hold one very similar -- and don't feel like going further afield by arguing the differences), but simply that your assumption is, at as far as this thread goes, unexamined.

At heart, no individual human being wants not to be heard

Unfounded generalization. And contrary to observation. Most people, in most societies over most of history were concerned about eking out a basic living and were more than happy enough just to be left alone. They did not particularly wish to be ruled, but vastly preferred that than to rule. Even today, in any social group, there are few who wish to lead. Most prefer to follow. And studies have shown that choice, while good in some ways, is actually a stress inducer which most people avoid by simply following the lead of someone in authority (a religious leader, a politician, a spouse, an anchorman, a doctor, a lawyer, a tinker, or a tailor) .

These struggles seem to me to be an indicator that this desire for a right to a voice tends to transcend difference and relativism among local marginalized groups.

So it may seem to you. I simply see it as a case of a few people embracing and preaching the latest fad and most of their society either following these leaders or (mostly) ignoring the whole issue. What you ascribe to the common people as a whole, I see as the result of the efforts of a few charismatic demagogues. Consider the spread of communism. Even while it was failing in Russia and China, there were people who actively tried to promote it in smaller countries (Yugoslavia, Cuba, etc.). Did the struggle for the new world order make the basic tenets of communism correct? If you contend that the spread and adoption of an idea somehow justifies that idea, then you must say "yes". If you say "no", then you must reexamine your argument, for clearly it has a flaw.

It goes without saying that . . . 'difference' remains fundamentally an issue of right or wrong rather than what it simply is; difference.

Then why say it :)

this ethos (of equality) is one that is defended against detractors by the notion that unchallenged ideas run the risk of becoming hegemonic failures of reason.

This is a false exclusion of the middle. In effect you are saying that if everyone's opinions are not held equally valid, then one person's opinions (or worth) will dominate. This is nonsense. Consider the case of medical necessity. If a doctor gives you an option you do not care for, you seek a second opinion from another doctor. You do not hold *everyone's* opinion in equal value (the bum on the corner, the guy that sells you groceries, and your 'idiot' brother-in-law you do not even mention this to, because you frankly don't care what they think). But you do hold members of the medical profession as having opinions of "equal" value. Perhaps 'oligarchy', but definitely not 'hegemony'. And only for this limited field. You might consult your gardener and not your doctor for the care of your lawn.

The visible constraint and marginalization of a slave's inherent entitlement to a voice as a part of 'humanity' is what strikes the modern liberal as "just plain wrong".

And the concept of "inherent entitlement" is what makes the modern liberalism a bad joke. Mankind has no rights other than those that they are willing to fight for. Just because overeducated idiots were handed these 'rights' on a platter by those who bled for them does not mean that these 'rights' are 'entitlements'. The modern liberal is an immature brat who is not thankful for his toys because he did nothing to earn them and has never considered their price. He exercises his sovereignty by the good graces of those who earned it for him and returns the favor by denigrating their sacrifice.

This instinct towards formal equality . . .

Again a generalized platitude having no basis in reality. As far as history and psychology tell us, the instinct is for domination, not equality. Democracy simply shifts the basis for domination away from an hereditary system ultimately based on military prowess to one based on a mixture of financial opportunity, charisma, education, talent, and a few other factors. It may be true that, as an example, Ted Kennedy has no more or less input at the polls than Joe Sixpak. But to say they have political equality is but the punchline of a poor joke.

--Pete

BTW Thank you for the lexical challenge. If the Net were neural, answering your post would have "grooved" my link to Merriam-Webster ;)

[kandrathe]

And the concept of "inherent entitlement" is what makes the modern liberalism a bad joke. Mankind has no rights other than those that they are willing to fight for. Just because overeducated idiots were handed these 'rights' on a platter by those who bled for them does not mean that these 'rights' are 'entitlements'. The modern liberal is an immature brat who is not thankful for his toys because he did nothing to earn them and has never considered their price. He exercises his sovereignty by the good graces of those who earned it for him and returns the favor by denigrating their sacrifice.

Wow. I just wanted to offer you my applause. That is an apophthegm worthy of Thomas Paine!

[Obi2Kenobi]

That's a social and moral point of view. At different times, different societies had differing forms of slavery and everybody in those societies accepted it and would have laughed at you for thinking otherwise.

I think this is best answered by none other than you!
Conjecture not supported by evidence.
To generalize to a whole population is dangerous.

"Just plain wrong" is very much in the eyes of the beholder. It is a knee-jerk reaction that substitutes for rational though.

I feel (apparently, along with Duckula) that there are some things which are wrong. I do judge people from todays standards in addition to the standards of that day. Just because something is socially acceptable doesn't make it right in my view. That's why it's my view. To feel that you can only judge people based on what general society determines as right and wrong is to have no opinions of your own, just everyone else's. If everyone suddenly subscribed to this, there would be no change on anything, ever. Always remember, everyone else often turn out to be idiots.

Almost anything you might think "just plain wrong" was once considered fitting and proper by some group somewhere.

It was considered proper by the group, yes, but that still doesn't make it right from my point of view, which is where I judge others from. Sure, I look at things from their point of view, but my position is the one I use most.

A wonderful concept. Shall we start with the seven day week? And especially the weekend? Nature has handed us three natural units of time, the day, the lunar month, and the year. Unfortunately, they are mutually incommensurable. So how we divide them up is strictly up to us. And the grouping of days into weeks with a Sabbath at the end of each is strictly a Judaic thing (I think, although they may have stolen it from the Babylonians and 'retrofitted' a religious fable onto a practical fact). The addition of a second day off (Sunday) which ends up giving us the weekend is thanks to that Jewish splinter group, the Christians. So, since that is all "organized religion", let's throw it all out. No more weekend, no more Friday evening pizza and beer, no more Monday night football.

That's not what she was referring to and you know it. You're just playing semantics here. That has no real effect on anyone. The thing being brought up is law-making. I don't give a hoot if our week is 7 days, 9 days, or 16.7 days (Although that would make for an interesting calander), and frankly, it doesn't alter anyone's life in any [important] way.

Of course, what we would replace it with isn't clear since almost every usable division of the year has been used by some religion or another. Perhaps we could re-institute the calends and ides, since priests of Jupiter are pretty much an extinct species and not much of anyone would notice that we've reverted to yet an older religion's observances.

Just because it's shares similarities to an organized religion doesn't mean that organized religion is in the government by adding it. That's like saying that the author of one book should be sued for plagarism because his book was published with the same color cover as another book.

And we would have a mass public BBQ every fifteen days or so, good for everyone but the sacrificial bulls.

Yes, because instituting a system used to measure time is obviously the same as adopting all the traditions of the society is was famous in. :rolleyes:

Some of them even make sense or, at worst, are morally and practically neutral.

You forgot legally, which is what we're talking about. The making of laws. A calender, for example, doesn't impose anything on anyone.

Pascal and his famous wager

You get an "F" for style for even mentioning that stupidity. :P

[Count Duckula]

It always takes me a couple days to fully digest the Gospel According to Pete. ;)

That's a social and moral point of view. At different times, different societies had differing forms of slavery and everybody in those societies accepted it and would have laughed at you for thinking otherwise.

True. I've taken enough Greek and Roman history classes to know that their societies depended on slavery. (Did you know that a rudimentary steam engine was created during Roman times but was shunned and eventually forgotten because of the cheap and readily available slave labor?)

Hell, there are even rules and regulations for the treatment of slaves in the Bible and yet it was various Christian groups (the Quakers come to mind) who were the most outspoken and influential in the abolitionist movement.

The Bible (and the Five Books) also advocate stoning your diobedient children in Leviticus, as well as people who don't keep the Sabbath holy by not working. Plus, in the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abram manages to pacify the Sodomites wanting to sodomize Lot (and now you know where that word comes from) by giving the ravenous crowd Lot's daugters! So, the Bible advocates rape to save your relatives from homosexuality.

It is this kind of religious BULL#$%& I want out of our government.

I believe that people can do whatever the hell they want to as long as their actions 1) contribute to the common good and 2) don't harm anyone else without their consent. A hyperactive and detrimental sect of an otherwise peacable religion is bound to cause trouble. Hell, look at what the Pharisees did to us Jews!

(And y'all get to stew on that for a while. Dinner's ready. :P)

[Crusader]

As for the Drugs discussion, you may know that some softdrugs (marihuana) are legalised here too. Through government control of the substances at a decent price and tracking and trying to help all users, instead of outright forbidding it and opening an avenue for crime, the drug problem has become a lot more controllable. You can't eliminate it. It's impossible.

And then there's always cigarettes. No one can doubt that it is a drug, but I don't hear voices to treat it as, for instance, marihuana is treated, now do I?

Also, I agree with Duckila on the statement that some nations try to live by the bible too much. Let's not forget that the bible is a book written thousands of years ago over 300 years AFTER the events took place and no reliable sources available at that time besides mouth to mouth stories to rely it on (which could get exaggerated then as much as now with each and every telling). I am not going to start a discussion on that, but my point is that the bible was probably written by standards of that time. Had Jesus said that the earth was a globe instead of flat one would not find it back in the bible, for instance.

[Count Duckula]

We're back, ready for Round 2!

"Just plain wrong" is very much in the eyes of the beholder. It is a knee-jerk reaction that substitutes for rational though.

You're right--I should be more specific.

Slavery violates another person's right to live free and as he/she wishes. While you spoke in a later post about fighting and dying for freedoms, Pete, African slaves could on a small scale but could not on a large scale. *prepares to open up another can of worms* American slavery has also been political since America was a nation. Indentured servants. The 3/5 law where slaves were considered to be 3/5 of a person when determining state populations for Congressional representatives so plantational states wouldn't dominate Congress. Free Persons of Color laws to separate Africans from Cajuns and Indians. Jim Crow laws. Releasing the Emancipation Proclamation before the Civil War ended to bolster support for the failing Union and their brain-dead-led army. Reconstruction. Poll tax. Grandfather Clause. Red-lining. (I think that's the word for rezoning a voting district to control the voting of certain groups of people.) Strom Thurmond reading from a Christ-jeezerly phone book on the Congressional floor to try and stop the Civil Rights Act from getting passed.

All that is just plain wrong. Yet, there's a precedent for the people in power screwing over the people they don't like. Roman persecution of Christians, anyone? (Hell, the Christianization of the Roman empire was a political move too. Constantine realized there were a buttload of Christians everywhere, and rather than have them challenge Rome's authority, why not make them a part of Rome's authority? Throw in some inspirational "God helped me win this war" stuff and you've got a new official religion for the empire. I can only hope that Shrub doesn't attempt the same tactic.)

(Pete has a Merriam-Webster on his side. I've got ~13 years of history classes and too much Discovery Channel on mine. ^_^)

[LemmingofGlory]

I feel (apparently, along with Duckula) that there are some things which are wrong.

Unfortunately, "just plain wrong" is not a particularly convincing argument. As Pete said, realize why you think something is wrong under the assumptions you've made. Your assumptions (or axioms) and further reasoning lead to why you take a particular position, and that makes for a much more convincing argument (unless your axioms are embarrassingly inconsistent).

And sometimes you can't reach a conclusion given your chosen set of axioms. (A bit of colloquial Gödel here, eh?) See my post in this thread entitled "All about incest" for an example. Incest is something I have an inclination against, but I feel my axioms are too weak (or limited) to rationally conclude that.

...but that still doesn't make it right from my point of view, which is where I judge others from.

That your judgement comes from your point of view is obvious. What's not obvious is why you hold that point of view. Thus, it matters what axioms you assume (and, perhaps, why) to come to your conclusions.

To feel that you can only judge people based on what general society determines as right and wrong is to have no opinions of your own, just everyone else's. If everyone suddenly subscribed to this, there would be no change on anything, ever.

I believe Pete's comments on this matter were more to make clear the influence of society in how one thinks, not to imply independent thinking is totally impossible.

That's not what she was referring to and you know it. You're just playing semantics here. That has no real effect on anyone.

Pete's example provides illustration of two of his previous points.

(1) The 7-day-week illustrates an inobvious religious influence, which gets back to knowing why you make certain assumptions and how they lead to your conclusions. Suppose someone concludes that Christmas being a federal holiday is acceptable but a "Thou shalt have no God before me" law is not. Why? Well, let's look at what was assumed to get there.

(2) "Get all that organized religion out of government" is excessively general. The extent to which "all" applies is unknown except to the speaker.

In short, it makes a good soapbox, but more specificity is necessary. And, as I'm ending this post, it seems Ducky has provided more specificity. *gets popcorn to watch round 2*

-Lemmy

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . apophthegm . . .

And another trip to M-W ;)

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Let's not forget that the bible is a book written thousands of years ago over 300 years AFTER the events took place and no reliable sources available at that time besides mouth to mouth stories to rely it on (which could get exaggerated then as much as now with each and every telling).

And of course, it has been edited and translated now and again. Which is the meaning, eh? Thou shalt not kill, or thou shall commit no murder? Among other bits and pieces under long scrutiny . . .

For what it's worth, the Bible, as we know it, is a compendium of philosopht, teachings, parables, poetry, law, story, history, and doctrine that spans considerable time before the events recorded in the Gospels, as well as writings after the Crucifixion.

The oldest copies of the Gospels were, depending on which scholar you believe most, written down within one to one and a half centuries after the Crucifixion, though there is some question as to the earliest writings of, for example, Paul whose various epistles form a considerable portion of Christian doctrine. I am not aware of any originals being still in existence, nor that any were ever found. The decision to include some writings and not others was, depending on who you read (Sword of Constantine is enlightening, if long, as are Elaine Pagel's somewhat shorter books on the Gnostic movement) a political or ecumenical decision, or both.

Hence, to correct your assertion, the Bible was not written "300 years later" but rather, a series of things written previously was agreed for inclusion into "The Book" (I think it was originally referred to as Biblos in Greek, which IIRC means "book.") That makes the Bible at the very least a source of doctrine: agreed principles. What it is beyond that is of course not going to be solved or universally agreed any time soon, nor in this thread. :)

I am not going to start a discussion on that, but my point is that the bible was probably written by standards of that time. Had Jesus said that the earth was a globe instead of flat one would not find it back in the bible, for instance.

But you did start a discussion in that, by writing that post, my friend. :D Again, the various books included in the Bible were indeed written in standards that differ from todays, and I will point out one further tidbit for you:

Not every chronicler tried to adhere to Heradotus and Thucydides initial efforts at making history more objective and less "story." It is only relatively recently, in the past few centuries, that history has been accumulating the rigor that the scientific method developed. A lot of story in "history."

Warm regards

Occhi

[Count Duckula]

3.  The end of slavery was made practical, in an economic rather than moral sense, by the advent of the machine age.  Given the outlook of many early industrialists, the habit of treating the labor as "lesser beings than themselves" made for a significant class divide that Marxian thought harnessed in the name of class warfare, which was not invented by Marx.

Eh. The technology became practical, therefore useful. Slavery still exists in America in a way. Migrant workers and illegal aliens and crops too delicate to be picked by machines. (Read Reefer Madness about the strawberries.) Migrant workers and illegal aliens and modernized slaughterhouses. (Read Fast Food Nation and Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them and start hating ConAgra and pig farms.) And the American politicians who want to seal off the borders. (But only between US and Mexico--apparently Canadians are too valuable for their beer, hockey, and free health care. Where's a DeeBye Photoshopped Photograph™ when I need one?)

I have a problem with anyone who treats anyone else as property or a cheap resource. And, like LoG and his incest argument, I have no axioms or anecdotes to back it up properly. (ObiWan, the way you make an argument is to state your opinion then find facts to back up your opinion. "Just plain wrong" does neither, and Pete, Lemming, and Occhi called me on it. :))

[Occhidiangela]

Eh. The technology became practical, therefore useful. Slavery still exists in America in a way.

Neither sanctioned nor legal. Rape still exists in America today. Neither sanctioned nor legal. Murder still exists in American today, neither sanctioned nor legal. Pedophilia still exists in America today, neither sanctioned nor legal. Now, the efforts spent at enforcement and avoidance of these laws are certainly subjects worthy of public comment and concern: they are violations of the laws of our nation.

"Slavery still exists" That's an interesting Humpty Dumpty, with an emotional trigger inserted due to the history or slavery and its legacy in today's social environment. A troll, if you will, used by many reporters to get people's attention. :P

Using that structure, the sweatshops of the industrial age were also slavery, even though the workers were paid a wage, right? Well, there is a term used by some economists and sociologists called "wage slavery" but that is again the use of an emotionally charged term to illustrate a social imbalance.

An abusive labor practice is not the same thing as sanctioned and legal slavery, which is what I was referring to. Marx and other thinkers would agree with you, as would many good union members in long standing in the Teamsters, that abusive labor practices require a social rebalancing for a healthy society. For that matter, I agree. For all their warts, unions grew for a good reason: to counteract the exploitation of labor in an attempt to strike a "better" was required for a better social balance.

Since slavery is illegal, your slide in comment confuses the discussion on slavery, as a societal norm and legal activity, with a general coercion of another person to labor for your benefit. The fact that unethical turds exploit migrant and illegal labor is a long standing social imperfection, however, it is not slavery as I was discussing it.

As to closing the borders with Mexico, what would be the point of that? I share your distaste for that, for perhaps different reasons.

The idea I endorse is to enforce the agreed laws, limits, treaties, and statues, or by Constitutional process, change them. The complete avoidance of responsibility for the defense and maintenance of our borders (aided and abetted by many a rich Texan hiring illegal aliens for his yardwork while carping about "them wetbacks" ***grrrrrrr*** some of my neighbors irritate me back home) is hardly utile if they create a complete restriction to lawful trade and lawful travel and lawful immigration.

I have a problem with anyone who treats anyone else as property or a cheap resource. And, like LoG and his incest argument, I have no axioms or anecdotes to back it up properly. (ObiWan, the way you make an argument is to state your opinion then find facts to back up your opinion. "Just plain wrong" does neither, and Pete, Lemming, and Occhi called me on it. )

Are you familiar with "The Iron Law of Wages?" :D

Occhi