Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Philosophy For discussion about general and fundamental problems connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 27th, 2008, 01:33 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 598
Doin what comes naturally

Doin what comes naturally



I think that one of the most egregious informal fallacies we Americans are bombarded with is prescriptions camouflaged as descriptions. The value of education lay in its monetary value, GDP is an accurate measure of a nation’s accomplishment, the environment is not an issue in the Corporate bottom line, well-being is the Corporate bottom line, the Corporation is responsible only to their share holders, health care in America is the best, CEO pay is meritocracy in action, etc. These are all understood as descriptions of reality rather than being the prescriptions of those who profit by such things.



I am claiming that we are led to accept as truism that it is “natural” for education to be valued in dollars, a GDP growth of 4% is a measure of the nation’s well-being, Corporations are not responsible for the environment, CEOs get the big bucks because they are what make the institution successful, etc. That which is ‘natural’ is accepted without question. In such a milieu we easily accept the hurricane as a description of why the poor have lost everything in New Orleans. An examination will, I think, disclose that the poor were doomed to such a happening by the ordination of the powerful over past decades.



Describing the status quo as natural and universal is an effective means for maintaining the status quo. I am claiming that the status quo is described as natural and universal, when in fact the status quo is ordained by the “Wizard”. “Follow the money” is a useful tactic for discovering those who are the elements of the “Wizard”.



What is the logical consequence to our planet when the world economy must grow every year?
coberst is offline  
Old April 27th, 2008, 12:17 PM   #2
forester814
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Coberst, you make some good points here.



When the success or failure of a country is measured in dollars, it utterly fails to take into account the country's reason for existing in the first place: people. The human element is lost on spreadsheets.



When education is looked at as nothing more than a spreadsheet liability, it fails not only on the human level but also on the financial level.



It seems so obvious as to not need to be said, but more and better education directly translates into greater earning power, greater productivity, and therefore, greater GDP.



As I see it, there are few things more important to a country's success (both on a human level and on an economic level) than education. Somehow, that connection is lost on politicians, given the increasingly sorry state of public education in this country.



Quote:
What is the logical consequence to our planet when the world economy must grow every year?




One only need look around to see the answer, as I'm sure you were implying. Increasingly scarce and increasingly unaffordable resources: oil, minerals, fresh water, timber, the list goes on and on.



At some point, the system becomes incapable of sustaining the ever-greater demands placed on it, and collapse results.



There are a number of experts who believe we have already passed that point.



Quote:
Describing the status quo as natural and universal is an effective means for maintaining the status quo.


On another topic, as you may have seen elsewhere on this site, this is also the chief argument against gay marriage. Tradition, in and of itself, is supposed to serve as counter-argument enough when uppity gay people start talking about wanting the right to legally marry.



"Gays can't get married because marriage is between one man and one woman. It's always been that way; it's tradition!"



Of course, it's NOT always been that way, it's just been that way for a while.



Before the current tradition, marriage was traditionally (and legally) between one man and one woman of the same race and religion.



Before that, marriage was traditionally (and legally) between one man and as many women as he could afford to support.



No doubt there was a great outcry from traditionalists each time the "tradition" was changed, but thankfully, cooler heads prevailed.



Tradition is, among other things, a feel-good way of describing a fear of change, and insufficient basis alone for making laws.
 
Old April 27th, 2008, 12:29 PM   #3
Nomad
 
fxashun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ga
Posts: 23,114
Actually one man and one woman has been the standard.



And in most societies that were homogenous, the religious and race issues were pretty moot.



But the gender constant is pretty much universal among higher life forms. And when it isn't, there's a problem. Your link to same sex marriage is a weak one.
fxashun is offline  
Old April 27th, 2008, 12:58 PM   #4
forester814
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
Actually one man and one woman has been the standard.


When will you stop lying about this?

That's not even the standard TODAY, nevermind historically.



You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.



Polygamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.



Quote:
And in most societies that were homogenous, the religious and race issues were pretty moot.


But of course you know that in OUR society, neither issue was ever moot, and some "traditionalists" STILL find this contentious.



Quote:
Your link to same sex marriage is a weak one


I know you believe that for your own narrowminded reasons, but I have clearly proven you wrong. Whether you accept this is immaterial.



Again, feel free to jump in with the last word.
 
Old April 27th, 2008, 01:05 PM   #5
Nomad
 
fxashun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ga
Posts: 23,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by forester814
When will you stop lying about this?

That's not even the standard TODAY, nevermind historically.
It was the standard in the U.S. until 2004. And worldwide until late 1990's I think. I''m not lying.



Quote:
You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.



Polygamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.
Where's the same gender part though. You can have sex with a goat legally in Denmark too. I'd rather not talk about that either.



We are trying to find where a society considered same gender marriage the same as "regular humans". In a society that didn't also allow pedo and zoophilia. Good luck. It's either anything goes or man and woman.



Quote:
But of course you know that in OUR society, neither issue was ever moot, and some "traditionalists" STILL find this contentious.
What you consider "traditionalist" I consider intelligent an immunity to the barrage of bullshit from the homosexuals.



Quote:
I know you believe that for your own narrowminded reasons, but I have clearly proven you wrong. Whether you accept this is immaterial.



Again, feel free to jump in with the last word.
Forest you couldn't prove a tree is green. Would you please show where you have "proven my reason is wrong" when scientists haven't even done it themselves. That bullshit "I've proven you wrong" is old and overused. I guess we are gonna talk about some mysterious "circular argument" next. Bullshit.



And if you want to get personal calling someone narrowminded, just shows you have JACK else to say. Maybe you are the narrowminded one.
fxashun is offline  
Old April 27th, 2008, 01:41 PM   #6
forester814
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
Forest you couldn't prove a tree is green.


Well, I'm certain I couldn't prove it to your satisfaction, anyway. You seem more interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, than in learning and broadening your understanding of the world, regardless of the topic.



Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
And if you want to get personal calling someone narrowminded, just shows you have JACK else to say. Maybe you are the narrowminded one.


I don't call you narrowminded to insult you, fx. When a person is presented with facts that contradict his view (as I have just done), and instead of embracing or even addressing the facts, clings to his disproven view anyway (as you have just done), this is person is being narrowminded.



Or willfully ignorant, if you prefer.



You sidestepped my "JACK else to say," which was the majority of my post. It consisted of proof that "one man and one woman" is not only NOT the standard, it's not even the most common.



According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.



Instead of admitting I had proven you wrong, you changed your argument from "one man one woman is the standard" to "where's the same sex part?"



I didn't address "the same sex part" because it wasn't part of your assertion that "one man one woman is the standard," which you offered after I said, "Before that, marriage was traditionally (and legally) between one man and as many women as he could afford to support."



There was no "same sex part."



I've heard it said that "it takes a big man to admit when he is wrong." You appear to be a big man, but I've never known you to admit to being proven wrong.



Here is yet another chance.

Consider this a growth opportunity for you.
 
Old April 27th, 2008, 01:47 PM   #7
forester814
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Coberst, my apologies. I didn't mean to hijack your thread.

I'll desist, and wait to see if you care to reply to my initial post.
 
Old April 27th, 2008, 05:47 PM   #8
Nomad
 
fxashun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ga
Posts: 23,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by forester814
Well, I'm certain I couldn't prove it to your satisfaction, anyway. You seem more interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, than in learning and broadening your understanding of the world, regardless of the topic.
I've clearly given my reasons for thinking the way I do. And all you come up with is BS like the below.



Quote:
I don't call you narrowminded to insult you, fx. When a person is presented with facts that contradict his view (as I have just done), and instead of embracing or even addressing the facts, clings to his disproven view anyway (as you have just done), this is person is being narrowminded.
You have NOT disproven what I said. I base MY standard on the biological standard of it takes one man and one woman to procreate. THAT standard is CONCRETE. If you would read back you would see that my exact quote was not based on marriage, it was based on the universal exchange that it takes to procreate nearly EVERY living thing. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has found a "use" for homosexuality. It's just an aberration like albinism, retardation, and conjoined twins. All of which have also been "observed in nature". Retardation is close the rate of occurrence in the population as homosexuality depending on who you consult on your numbers.



Quote:
Or willfully ignorant, if you prefer.
I actually prefer to think that anyone who denies the obvious defective characteristics of homosexuality are being "willfully ignorant".



Quote:
You sidestepped my "JACK else to say," which was the majority of my post. It consisted of proof that "one man and one woman" is not only NOT the standard, it's not even the most common.



According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.
That's based on social norms. Social norms brings us cannibalism, human sacrifice, slaverym and as you mentioned polygamy. Which also happens in nature. LOL.



Quote:
Instead of admitting I had proven you wrong, you changed your argument from "one man one woman is the standard" to "where's the same sex part?"
And you completely left trying to justify same sex marriage and went to trying to show just how many ways humans have modified "man and woman". The difference is that "man and man" is the "black sheep" of human unions.



Quote:
I didn't address "the same sex part" because it wasn't part of your assertion that "one man one woman is the standard," which you offered after I said, "Before that, marriage was traditionally (and legally) between one man and as many women as he could afford to support."
But your first post was a lame justification of same sex marriage as if it's just another human option. Of course I don't buy that for one minute. Based on my biological standard of one man and one woman.



Quote:
There was no "same sex part."
It seems you totally forgot about what you posted in the first place.



Quote:
I've heard it said that "it takes a big man to admit when he is wrong." You appear to be a big man, but I've never known you to admit to being proven wrong.



Here is yet another chance.

Consider this a growth opportunity for you.
I think you are just showing your zeal to "prove me wrong" in something. Maybe you ought to work harder on being right in your own points. Leave proving ME wrong to the professionals.
fxashun is offline  
Old April 27th, 2008, 10:41 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by forester814



As I see it, there are few things more important to a country's success (both on a human level and on an economic level) than education. Somehow, that connection is lost on politicians, given the increasingly sorry state of public education in this country.







.




I agree, few things are more important than education. I disagree that we should blame the polticians because in doing so we take our eye off the ball. It is we who are the blame. Essentially anything that happens in the US is the responsibility of the citizens of the US. Those who came before us have given us a great governmental structure and it is our failing when we fail to use it properly.



We citizens of the US do not have the intellectual sophistication to comprehend our problems. Until we citizens become self-actualizing self-learners we will fail to meet our responsibilites for our self and for the generations that come after us.



PS: I am convinced that the logical consequence of an ever expanding economy is the consumption of the planet.
coberst is offline  
Old April 28th, 2008, 03:42 AM   #10
Nomad
 
fxashun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ga
Posts: 23,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by coberst

PS: I am convinced that the logical consequence of an ever expanding economy is the consumption of the planet.
You are correct. We are seeing it right now with petroleum. Before it's over, fresh water will be a commodity.



Humans are at best a parasite, at worse, cancer.



I question whether we were actually "evolved" here. We simply don't fit into the fabric of this planet. And our developing the ability to manipulate and mix human genetic material with other species only serves to make me question the "how's" of our presence here.
fxashun is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Tags
doin, naturally



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Natural Cures For Diabetes - How to Cure Diabetes Naturally intangible child Healthcare 0 April 2nd, 2009 08:27 PM
YO! how U doin!!? Big Al78640 New Users 1 May 21st, 2007 02:52 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.