EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 1:45 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 4:05 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1341
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Yes, it is a claim. Cruelty is a subjective determination so what you believe may be cruel is not what the consensus of the society believes is cruel. In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.



A scenario: What if you were captured and tortured? You had your finger nails ripped out, you were burnt and whipped, you were slowly starved of food and water. You were contained within concrete walls with no sunlight and no chance of human contact other than your torturers. And what if you lived in a society where this was accepted practice? In such a scenario, you would suffer, both physically and psychologically. But you are saying you would be okay with this if the society consensus agreed on it? Is your subjective experience of 'cruelty' .... the pain you suffer as you are being tortured, not relevant because this society has come to a consensus that it's just fine? And if your brother was in the next cell, would his suffering not be the same as yours as his finger nails were being ripped out?


Quote:
If I grew up in that society, it is very possible that I would accept this as the norm. I may not like it and I may call it cruel, but my opinion of what is and is not cruel does not define the society's view.


If you grew up in and lived in such a society, you would experience pain, both psychologically and physically. Your life would be hellish. You would be wishing your mother would have aborted you. You would not want to live. If someone came along and offered you relief through euthanasia, you would gratefully accept it.


Quote:
For example, there are people in our society today who believe keeping pets is cruel.


Such a benign example in the face of a situation that is untenable. I am posing a situation that is unconscionable and you come up with a "keeping pets" example?

Quote:
The society does not share this view, so for our society keeping pets is not cruel regardless of what those folks may think. If the situation were reversed and society believed that keeping pets was cruel and the few fringe folk disagreed the reverse would be true and keeping pets would be cruel for that society.


Sorry, we are not talking about "keeping pets". You are avoiding.

Quote:
"Cruelty is a subjective determination"


Especially if you happen to be the subject! And we are all the subjects. We all experience the same pain, hunger, heat, cold, fear, loneliness, depression and exaltation, joy ... sometimes, for some of us. We are all the subjects. I am not religious but I understand Jesus's teaching that we treat each other as ourselves. The truth is that we ARE each other.


Quote:
Again you start off on a tangent which will confuse you by trying to redefine the terms and take your view as the "one true" definition even if it does change over time.


This is your response to the fact of suffering that we all experience, even through history? Does suffering change over time? You have asserted over and over that I am confused. I am not. And to be clear, I do not and have never taken my view to be the "one true" definition of anything. I am simply having a chat with you and happen to be quite amazed with your insistence and seeming dependence on the majority view (yes, numbers and math) as a kind of panacea for right action. You seem to have no individuality or individual thinking of your own. Are you an individual or a "citizen" who follows? I am STILL hoping to have a conversation with you .... regardless of the state or the math or the accepted practices.

Quote:
In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.


If the majority follows along with what the majority is doing, it must therefore be logical?

Quote:
You are trying too hard to twist things here. Of course the majority will make the determination FOR THE SOCIETY.


Quote:
Are you 'society'? Are you the 'majority'? What are these things? Could I not just simply have a conversation with you?


Quote:
This is because there is NO absolute code which determines such things, which is why it is SUBJECTIVE.


Of course there is no 'absolute code'. And thank god there is no absolute code. How could there be one? People and governments who have tried to establish "absolute codes" have lead to destruction and mayhem. Think genocide. Mao and Pol Pot an Hitler. We cannot control human behavior .... not through religion and not through government. Society is not an absolute code either. We cannot make any determinations through religion, government, or society. Which is why we must embody our individuality .... not as a reaction to conformity, but as a true and authentic response to what religions, government and this abstract term we call "society" which is only real because we adhere to the tenants of ...... have insisted on. If you follow "society", you may as well follow religion. But you are still an individual, are you not?

Is the 'majority', because it is the bulk of the population, logical and therefore the logical basis for "any claim"? I wonder what this "majority" that you speak of will do next.

Quote:
No, the majority (which can be quantified so there is no need to place it within quotation marks) does not have to be logical in the determination. They can be just like you. O:) What IS logical is to use the majority view to determine what is and is not acceptable for that society.


Ahhh, there you go with the numbers again .... as if the "majority" must be right and correct and therefore not accountable to logic. I absolutely do not use the majority's view to determine what is and is not acceptable. That would be akin to being part of the culture that says it is okay to sexually molest children .... and there are cultures who have accepted this practice. Being an individual means recognizing the dysfunction, even when it is accepted practice, and being cognizant enough to be free from these strictures and to actually disagree. It means standing on your own two feet.

The majority is abstract.

Quote:
How can you reach that conclusion? Do you not understand the thing called Math? The majority is not an abstract because it can be quantified, it has a concrete physical component. You can take everyone and physically have them divide themselves using whatever question you desire and have a physical representation of the majority, which will be the largest group after said division.



When you can think as an individual, you will not be concerned with what everyone else is doing, even when they out-number you. When you can stand on your own two feet as an individual, you will not have need for the math of majority.

Quote:
No, it not rushing anything other than logic and it is being rushed out the door in the attempt to redefine anything and everything in order to allow you to decide what is and is not cruel for all history.


You have stated that I am "trying to redefine anything and everything in order for me to decide what is cruel for "all of history"? That is quite sweeping statement and is patently false. We are both trying our best to be logical. Aren't we? I have obviously rushed this conversation. Where do I need to slow down?

Quote:
Take eleven pennies and flip them. Put the ones which came up heads in one pile and the ones which came up tails in the other. According to your logic presented here the larger pile does not exist because it is the majority and thus abstract. That would in turn make the smaller pile the majority and in turn cease to exist for the same reason.
[/quote]

Take eleven human beings and flip them. Put the ones which came up heads in one pile and the ones which came up tails in the other. According to my logic, the larger pile exists and so does the smaller pile. Both piles would rather be treated kindly. The one pile is not different from the other. There is nothing abstract about having you nails pulled out. It hurts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:41 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Yes, it is a claim. Cruelty is a subjective determination so what you believe may be cruel is not what the consensus of the society believes is cruel. In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.



A scenario: What if you were captured and tortured? You had your finger nails ripped out, you were burnt and whipped, you were slowly starved of food and water. You were contained within concrete walls with no sunlight and no chance of human contact other than your torturers. And what if you lived in a society where this was accepted practice? In such a scenario, you would suffer, both physically and psychologically. But you are saying you would be okay with this if the society consensus agreed on it? Is your subjective experience of 'cruelty' .... the pain you suffer as you are being tortured, not relevant because this society has come to a consensus that it's just fine? And if your brother was in the next cell, would his suffering not be the same as yours as his finger nails were being ripped out?


Wayne Stollings wrote:
If I grew up in that society, it is very possible that I would accept this as the norm. I may not like it and I may call it cruel, but my opinion of what is and is not cruel does not define the society's view.


animal-friendly wrote:
If you grew up in and lived in such a society, you would experience pain, both psychologically and physically. Your life would be hellish. You would be wishing your mother would have aborted you. You would not want to live. If someone came along and offered you relief through euthanasia, you would gratefully accept it.


Possibly, but not probably as evidenced by the history of abuses throughout the world. A lot of the view one holds is based on previous experience and what can be determined from the experience of others. If all you know is slavery as a norm, it is unlikely you will view it the same as we do now.


Quote:
Quote:
For example, there are people in our society today who believe keeping pets is cruel.


Such a benign example in the face of a situation that is untenable. I am posing a situation that is unconscionable and you come up with a "keeping pets" example?


Yes, because for those people keeping pets is unconscionable too. It is all perspective, which is why it is a subjective view.

Quote:
Quote:
The society does not share this view, so for our society keeping pets is not cruel regardless of what those folks may think. If the situation were reversed and society believed that keeping pets was cruel and the few fringe folk disagreed the reverse would be true and keeping pets would be cruel for that society.


Sorry, we are not talking about "keeping pets". You are avoiding.


No, I am trying to show you the flaw in your logic, which you are trying to avoid seeing.

Quote:
Quote:
"Cruelty is a subjective determination"


Especially if you happen to be the subject!


Which has no bearing on the determination of whether it is subjective or not. The fact that it is subjective as defined gy the English language means that the view can and will change from person to person.

Quote:
And we are all the subjects. We all experience the same pain, hunger, heat, cold, fear, loneliness, depression and exaltation, joy ... sometimes, for some of us.


No, we do not. Pain tolerence is also very variable between individuals. We may experience similar feelings but even that is variable.


Quote:
We are all the subjects. I am not religious but I understand Jesus's teaching that we treat each other as ourselves. The truth is that we ARE each other.


No, we are ourselves. Each of us adds to the society, but we are individuals who see things differently from each other and similarly with each other and those views change over time.

Quote:
Quote:
Again you start off on a tangent which will confuse you by trying to redefine the terms and take your view as the "one true" definition even if it does change over time.


You have asserted over and over that I am confused. I am not. And to be clear, I do not, and have never, taken my view to be the "one true" definition of anything.


So, when you claimed borders were subjective you knew you were wrong, but wanted to present a flawed argument?

Quote:
I am simply having a chat with you and happen to be quite amazed with your insistence and seeming dependence on the majority view (yes, numbers and math) as a kind of panacea for right action.


As opposed to judging others based on personal experiences and beliefs? How can you view of "right action" be considered correct over anyone else's view of "right action"? Two equal views with all else the same will counter each other. It is when more accept one view over the other that moral codes are created. The code is created for that society and is correct for that society regardless of what other individuals may believe.

Quote:
You seem to have no individuality or individual thinking of your own.


But I do. My views are not the absolute moral code though. I cannot hold others to my code if they do not believe it and there is no other group that believes as I do.

Quote:
Are you an individual or a "citizen" who follows?


Both. I have my own beliefs and I must conform to the beliefs of my society or suffer the consequences if I diverge from those societal beliefs in my actions. All of us are dually tasked. That is part of the basis of the saying, When in Rome do as the Romans do"

Quote:
I am STILL hoping to have a conversation with you .... and not the state or the math or the accepted practices.


That would be a discussion of what could be as opposed to what is then.

Quote:
Quote:
In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.


If the majority follows along with what the majority is doing, it must therefore be logical?


Quote:
You are trying too hard to twist things here. Of course the majority will make the determination FOR THE SOCIETY. This is because there is NO absolute code which determines such things, which is why it is SUBJECTIVE.


Quote:
Of course there is no 'absolute code'. And thank god there is no absolute code. How could there be one? People and governments who have tried to establish "absolute codes" have lead to destruction and mayhem.


So your statements of what are and are not "right" are possibly incorrect? What you believe may be as wrong to others as the keeping of slaves is to you?

Quote:
Think genocide. Mao and Pol Pot an Hitler. We cannot control human behavior .... not through religion and not through government.


Actually, we can to a certain degree, which is why religions and governments created moral and legal codes. They are not perfect controls, but they do control the majority of the society.

Quote:
Society is not an absolute code either.


For that society it could be, but for other societies it clearly is not.

Quote:
We cannot make any determinations through religion, government, or society.


Yes, we can. That is how we all make determinations. The society, government, and religion indoctrinate us from birth on what we should see as correct.

Quote:
Which is why we must embody our individuality .... not as a reaction to the conformity, but as a true and authentic response to what religions, government and this abstract term we call "society" which is only real because we adhere to the tenants of ...... have insisted on.


Really? even if that individuality was the belief in having sex with people even if they did not want to and had to be forced? That is also a true and authentic response to the codes our current Western society has given us.

Quote:
If you follow "society", you may as well follow religion.


Or you may follow the rest of the prisoners who have violated the code of the society in which you live ... unless that society has a death penalty for such actions.

Quote:
But you are still an individual, are you not?


Yes, for better or for worse.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Is the 'majority', because it is the bulk of the population, logical and therefore the logical basis for "any claim"? I wonder what this "majority" that you speak of will do next.


No, the majority (which can be quantified so there is no need to place it within quotation marks) does not have to be logical in the determination. They can be just like you. O:) What IS logical is to use the majority view to determine what is and is not acceptable for that society.


Absolutely not! I do not use the majority's view to determine what is and is not acceptable.


Which means nothing to the rest of society. Others which follow this view are also shunned by the society as child molesters, rapists, murderers, theives, and politicians, to name a few.

Quote:
That would be akin to being part of the culture that says it is okay to sexually molest children .... and there are cultures who have accepted this practice.


Or living in a cultrue which states it is not acceptable to sexually molest children, but hold the personal belief that it is acceptable.

Quote:
Being an individual means recognizing the dysfunction, even when it is accepted practice, and saying being free from these strictures to actually disagree. It means standing on your own two feet.


Yes, but it does not make your beliefs any more acceptable or right for that society.

Quote:
Quote:
The majority is abstract.


Quote:
How can you reach that conclusion? Do you not understand the thing called Math? The majority is not an abstract because it can be quantified, it has a concrete physical component. You can take everyone and physically have them divide themselves using whatever question you desire and have a physical representation of the majority, which will be the largest group after said division.


When you can think as an individual, you will not be concerned with what everyone else is doing, even when they out-number you.


So, if you believe you should be allowed to molest children you should not be swayed by the views of the majority? That too is the path you are proposing in the belief the majority belief is not the proper moral code for a society.

Quote:
Quote:
No, it not rushing anything other than logic and it is being rushed out the door in the attempt to redefine anything and everything in order to allow you to decide what is and is not cruel for all history.


You have just stated that I am "trying to redefine anything and everything in order for me to decide what is cruel for "all of history"? That is quite sweeping statement. We are both trying our best to be logical. Aren't we? I have obviously rushed this conversation. Where do I need to slow down?


When you start assuming what you believe to be is what should be or should not be "right" when another may hold equally strong views in oppostion to you.

Quote:
Quote:
Take eleven pennies and flip them. Put the ones which came up heads in one pile and the ones which came up tails in the other. According to your logic presented here the larger pile does not exist because it is the majority and thus abstract. That would in turn make the smaller pile the majority and in turn cease to exist for the same reason.


Take eleven human beings and flip them. Put the ones which came up heads in one pile and the ones which came up tails in the other. According to my logic, the larger pile exists and so does the smaller pile. Both piles would rather be treated kindly. The one pile is not different from the other. There is nothing abstract about having you nails pulled out. It hurts.


So does having your chest cut open, but we accept that action for a medical reason, while opposing it for a religious sacrifice. This is a subjective view empowered by the belief of that majority to determine whether either are acceptable, neither are acceptable, or both are acceptable. The rest may disagree, but that does not make them right for that society or any other without that majority view to support it.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:25 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1341
Quote:
Yes, it is a claim. Cruelty is a subjective determination so what you believe may be cruel is not what the consensus of the society believes is cruel. In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.


Cruelty is a subjective determination when it is realized we are the actual subjects.
A scenario: What if you were captured and tortured? You had your finger nails ripped out, you were burnt and whipped, you were slowly starved of food and water. You were contained within concrete walls with no sunlight and no chance of human contact other than your torturers. And what if you lived in a society where this was accepted practice? In such a scenario, you would suffer, both physically and psychologically. But you are saying you would be okay with this if the society consensus agreed on it? Is your subjective experience of 'cruelty' .... the pain you suffer as you are being tortured, not relevant because this society has come to a consensus that it's just fine? And if your brother was in the next cell, would his suffering not be the same as yours as his finger nails were being ripped out?

Quote:
If I grew up in that society, it is very possible that I would accept this as the norm. I may not like it and I may call it cruel, but my opinion of what is and is not cruel does not define the society's view.


You may accept it as the norm, but you would still suffer. And in suffering, you would wish it to be different even if you didn't think it was likely that society's view would change.

If you grew up in and lived in such a society, you would experience pain, both psychologically and physically. Your life would be hellish. You would be wishing your mother would have aborted you. You would not want to live. If someone came along and offered you relief through euthanasia, you would gratefully accept it.

Quote:
Possibly, but not probably


What do you mean by "possibly"? If you were being tortured on a daily basis, you would only "possibly" experience pain? This makes no sense for one who inhabits a body.

Quote:
.... as evidenced by the history of abuses throughout the world.


The evidence of abuses throughout history point absolutely to pain and suffering .... not 'possibly' or even 'probably'.

Quote:
A lot of the view one holds is based on previous experience and what can be determined from the experience of others. If all you know is slavery as a norm, it is unlikely you will view it the same as we do now.


Agreed. But the suffering experienced would still be real and not dependent on the views of others. You may think about it differently, you might resign yourself to it, as with "learned helplessness", but you would still experience pain and suffering. The Romans threw the Christians to the lions and at that time, it was considered common practice, but the suffering of those individuals who were mauled by the lions was real.

Quote:
For example, there are people in our society today who believe keeping pets is cruel.



Such a benign example in the face of a situation that is untenable. I am posing a situation that is unconscionable and you come up with a "keeping pets" example?


Quote:
Yes, because for those people keeping pets is unconscionable too. It is all perspective, which is why it is a subjective view.


But you contrast my example with something so benign. At least come up with a better example! A pet, if properly cared for, does not compare.

There is nothing quite as subjective as being the subject of torture. The pain experienced is not dependent on the views of society.

Quote:
The society does not share this view, so for our society keeping pets is not cruel regardless of what those folks may think. If the situation were reversed and society believed that keeping pets was cruel and the few fringe folk disagreed the reverse would be true and keeping pets would be cruel for that society.


Keeping pets? Let's move on .....
Sorry, we are not talking about "keeping pets". You are avoiding.

Quote:
No, I am trying to show you the flaw in your logic, which you are trying to avoid seeing.


I don't avoid. It's not my style .... obviously (?!) Rather than trying to show the flaw in my logic, how about engaging in the spirit of discussion and exploration. We both might learn something.

Quote:
"Cruelty is a subjective determination"


Especially if you happen to be the subject!

Quote:
Which has no bearing on the determination of whether it is subjective or not. The fact that it is subjective as defined gy the English language means that the view can and will change from person to person.


Being the subject has no bearing on the determination of whether it is subjective or not? You are more concerned with the definition written on a page in the dictionary than a real person's experience as the actual subject?

And we are all the subjects. We all experience the same pain, hunger, heat, cold, fear, loneliness, depression and exaltation, joy ... sometimes, for some of us.


Quote:
No, we do not. Pain tolerence is also very variable between individuals. We may experience similar feelings but even that is variable.


I am not talking about tolerance; I am speaking about the "experience" of pain ..... hunger, heat, cold, fear, loneliness, etc. There will always be variability, but the experience is common to all of us.

We are all the subjects. I am not religious but I understand Jesus's teaching that we treat each other as ourselves. The truth is that we ARE each other.

Quote:
No, we are ourselves. Each of us adds to the society, but we are individuals who see things differently from each other and similarly with each other and those views change over time.


And in being ourselves, we understand that when a baby cries, it is doing so because it needs something. How do we know this? How do we recognize another's loneliness, fear or pain, unless we have experienced it ourselves? When my husband sneezes, I know the tickle that has caused the sneeze because I have experienced it myself. When someone bashes their head against the wall and says "ouch", I recognize that "ouch". This is where empathy comes from. My need for security, food, shelter, etc, is not different from yours. Everybody needs it. And we know this, because we know this for ourselves. In this way, I am not different from you and we are not different from each other.

Quote:
Again you start off on a tangent which will confuse you by trying to redefine the terms and take your view as the "one true" definition even if it does change over time.


You have asserted over and over that I am confused. I am not. And to be clear, I do not, and have never, taken my view to be the "one true" definition of anything.

Quote:
So, when you claimed borders were subjective you knew you were wrong, but wanted to present a flawed argument?


Of course not. Who would want to present a flawed argument? I am simply presenting a different one than the one you might expect.

I am simply having a chat with you and happen to be quite amazed with your insistence and seeming dependence on the majority view (yes, numbers and math) as a kind of panacea for right action.

Quote:
As opposed to judging others based on personal experiences and beliefs? How can you view of "right action" be considered correct over anyone else's view of "right action"? Two equal views with all else the same will counter each other. It is when more accept one view over the other that moral codes are created. The code is created for that society and is correct for that society regardless of what other individuals may believe.


Don't get confused about "right action". It's just a term. See through the words. You will know this so called "right action" when you know that someone else's pain could also be your own. Moral codes can be, and often are, quite flawed. Many of these codes seem to be based on the understanding that the other is oneself, while others are based on selfishness, greed and even convenience.

You seem to have no individuality or individual thinking of your own.


Quote:
But I do. My views are not the absolute moral code though. I cannot hold others to my code if they do not believe it and there is no other group that believes as I do.


My views are not the absolute moral code either. There is no absolute moral code. On this, I think we can both agree.

Are you an individual or a "citizen" who follows?


Quote:
Both. I have my own beliefs and I must conform to the beliefs of my society or suffer the consequences if I diverge from those societal beliefs in my actions. All of us are dually tasked. That is part of the basis of the saying, When in Rome do as the Romans do"


Yikes. You mean feed the Christians to the lions? If you are a citizen, Roman or otherwise, you will allow lions to maul people. But if you are an individual, BEFORE you are a citizen, you will question the code of the society in which you live. We ARE dually tasked, but first as individuals .... and then as citizens. One must first stand alone and apart if need be and absolutely NOT do what the Romans are doing if what the Romans are doing does not take into account the very simple understanding that pain is subjective when one is the subject .... and we are all subjects.

I am STILL hoping to have a conversation with you .... and not the state or the math or the accepted practices.

Quote:
That would be a discussion of what could be as opposed to what is then.


What is ..... our current state .... the state of the planet .... is. Shouldn't we question it?

Quote:
In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.



If the majority follows along with what the majority is doing, it must therefore be logical?

Quote:
You are trying too hard to twist things here. Of course the majority will make the determination FOR THE SOCIETY. This is because there is NO absolute code which determines such things, which is why it is SUBJECTIVE.


Of course there is no 'absolute code'. And thank god there is no absolute code. How could there be one? People and governments who have tried to establish "absolute codes" have lead to destruction and mayhem.

Quote:
So your statements of what are and are not "right" are possibly incorrect? What you believe may be as wrong to others as the keeping of slaves is to you?


Think genocide. Mao and Pol Pot an Hitler. We cannot control human behavior .... not through religion and not through government.

Quote:
Actually, we can to a certain degree, which is why religions and governments created moral and legal codes. They are not perfect controls, but they do control the majority of the society.


Ahhhh, but they have created chaos, because neither religions nor governments can do it. Thinking for oneself, with the necessary "insight" into the actuality might create a different situation though. But this takes individuality with the understanding that other individuals are not unlike yourself. Take away the belief structures of religion and political ideologies, and what are we left with? Food, shelter, and basic physical security is what everyone needs in order to fully individuate. This is all we need and everyone needs it. Pol Pot tried to control, the Catholic religion and other religions (Isis, Al Queda, etc.), Hitler, all attempt to control people. Yet people, especially when they are truly thinking for themselves, will not be controlled. Such individuals are the most likely to be jailed and tortured in fact. Neither Nelson Mandela nor Gandhi were able to be "controlled". What are we to do with such individuals who will not conform to the state or to the majority consensus?

We cannot make any determinations through religion, government, or society.

Quote:
Yes, we can. That is how we all make determinations. The society, government, and religion indoctrinate us from birth on what we should see as correct.


Only if you are willing to be indoctrinated. If you are a "citizen", you will take that indoctrination laying down. An individual will not be indoctrinated. An individual will be free of that conditioning because such a person will have questioned it. I am quite astonished that you have made this statement.

Which is why we must embody our individuality .... not as a reaction to the conformity, but as a true and authentic response to what religions, government and this abstract term we call "society" which is only real because we adhere to the tenants of ...... have insisted on. Do you really think that "society, government, and religion indoctrinate us from birth on what we should see as correct." ??? You mean we should all just lay down and accept this indoctrination? We should allow these institutions to see for us? Can we not see for ourselves? I'm sure you did not mean this!

Quote:
Really? even if that individuality was the belief in having sex with people even if they did not want to and had to be forced? That is also a true and authentic response to the codes our current Western society has given us.


No, of course not. I am talking about an individuality that realizes the other as the same self as you. An individual who does not realize this must be locked away for the benefit and the security of people who understand the other is the same as you. But society as we know it does not seem to realize this basic fact. Hence the existence of torture practices, slavery, and feeding people to lions.

If you follow "society", you may as well follow religion.

Quote:
Or you may follow the rest of the prisoners who have violated the code of the society in which you live ... unless that society has a death penalty for such actions.


If you read the full conversation, this statement becomes redundant .....

But you are still an individual, are you not?


Quote:
Yes, for better or for worse.



Is the 'majority', because it is the bulk of the population, logical and therefore the logical basis for "any claim"? I wonder what this "majority" that you speak of will do next.

Quote:
No, the majority (which can be quantified so there is no need to place it within quotation marks) does not have to be logical in the determination. They can be just like you. O:) What IS logical is to use the majority view to determine what is and is not acceptable for that society.


Nelson Mandela, and others who were able to stand apart from the "majority" would disagree. Even if quantified, such a term should indeed be within quotation marks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:25 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Yes, it is a claim. Cruelty is a subjective determination so what you believe may be cruel is not what the consensus of the society believes is cruel. In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.


Cruelty is a subjective determination when it is realized we are the actual subjects.


Correct that it is a subjective determination. There being subjects does not play a part in that determination.

Quote:
A scenario: What if you were captured and tortured? You had your finger nails ripped out, you were burnt and whipped, you were slowly starved of food and water. You were contained within concrete walls with no sunlight and no chance of human contact other than your torturers. And what if you lived in a society where this was accepted practice? In such a scenario, you would suffer, both physically and psychologically. But you are saying you would be okay with this if the society consensus agreed on it?


Possibly, if I had grown up in an area and time where this was the norm.

Quote:
Is your subjective experience of 'cruelty' .... the pain you suffer as you are being tortured, not relevant because this society has come to a consensus that it's just fine?


Pain is not the relevant determination of torture, which is part of your misunderstanding. If you were in the wilderness and broke your leg the act of setting it would be extremely painful, yet you would not consider that "cruel" even though there is extensive pain involved. It is the subjective reason behind that act which is the determination. If the person setting your leg enjoys inflicting pain does that make it cruel even if they do not cause any more pain then would have happened with anyone else setting the bone?

Quote:
And if your brother was in the next cell, would his suffering not be the same as yours as his finger nails were being ripped out?


Suffering is the same, but that does not define "cruelty" for the society.

Quote:
Quote:
If I grew up in that society, it is very possible that I would accept this as the norm. I may not like it and I may call it cruel, but my opinion of what is and is not cruel does not define the society's view.


You may accept it as the norm, but you would still suffer. And in suffering, you would wish it to be different even if you didn't think it was likely that society's view would change.


Possibly, but again this has no relation to whetehr something is or is not cruel. Women giving birth throughout history have wished that it might be different but none would call bearing children cruel based on suffering would they?

Quote:
If you grew up in and lived in such a society, you would experience pain, both psychologically and physically. Your life would be hellish. You would be wishing your mother would have aborted you. You would not want to live.


Given that slaves and others have endured such conditions, the assumed generalization is not supported by evidence. You may believe it, but you have no evidence to how anyone else would react in a certain situation. You might give how the average person might react, which again would be related to the majority view.

Quote:
If someone came along and offered you relief through euthanasia, you would gratefully accept it.


Possibly or possibly not. A person can generally kill themselves if they so desire and the fact there were so many people who were cruely treated according to our current views and still survived, indicates some would not.

Quote:
Quote:
Possibly, but not probably


What do you mean by "possibly"? If you were being tortured on a daily basis, you would only "possibly" experience pain? This makes no sense for one who inhabits a body.


That one would seek death in your scenario.

Quote:
Quote:
.... as evidenced by the history of abuses throughout the world.


The evidence of abuses throughout history point absolutely to pain and suffering .... not 'possibly' or even 'probably'.


The last part of the statement quoted was not about pain or suffering and that was the point being questioned. The total connection you were trying to make.

Quote:
Quote:
A lot of the view one holds is based on previous experience and what can be determined from the experience of others. If all you know is slavery as a norm, it is unlikely you will view it the same as we do now.


Agreed. But the suffering experienced would still be real and not dependent on the views of others.


But suffering does not define cruelty, just suffering. Women giving birth on their own suffer pain, but do not call cildbirth cruelty do they? It is the view of the society as to whether something is cruel not whether it causes sufering.


Quote:
You may think about it differently, you might resign yourself to it, as with "learned helplessness", but you would still experience pain and suffering. The Romans threw the Christians to the lions and at that time, it was considered common practice, but the suffering of those individuals who were mauled by the lions was real.


Yes, and the Romans did not view it as cruel and the suffering does not automatically make it cruel either.

Quote:
Quote:
For example, there are people in our society today who believe keeping pets is cruel.



Such a benign example in the face of a situation that is untenable. I am posing a situation that is unconscionable and you come up with a "keeping pets" example?


The definition has to apply for all cases or it does not apply to any. You are trying to make your case based on emotions of what you believe are "unconscionable" actions, which is a logical fallacy and fails you when cruelty is to be defined for all. The "unconscionable" is also subjective based on the same criteria.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, because for those people keeping pets is unconscionable too. It is all perspective, which is why it is a subjective view.


But you contrast my example with something so benign. At least come up with a better example! A pet, if properly cared for, does not compare.


Why not? They call it cruel because they believe it is so. You seem to disagree because you do not believe. Thus if you believe something else is cruel and another does not, how are you correct in both cases and the others not?

Quote:
There is nothing quite as subjective as being the subject of torture. The pain experienced is not dependent on the views of society.


Pain does not make something cruel nor does being cruel have to involve pain.

Quote:
Quote:
The society does not share this view, so for our society keeping pets is not cruel regardless of what those folks may think. If the situation were reversed and society believed that keeping pets was cruel and the few fringe folk disagreed the reverse would be true and keeping pets would be cruel for that society.


Keeping pets? Let's move on .....
Sorry, we are not talking about "keeping pets". You are avoiding.


No, you are avoiding the recognition of you flawed logic. Why are YOUR definitions of cruel more acceptable than those of anyone else? Other than your view being self-centered, that is. You trot out the extreme case and try to ignore all else because you cannot defend the position unless you have a huge emotional tie to assist. The problem is that emotional support does not make your case either, but it allows you to fool yourself into believing you have a defensible point.


Quote:
Quote:
No, I am trying to show you the flaw in your logic, which you are trying to avoid seeing.


I don't avoid. It's not my style .... obviously (?!)


So that is why you try to avoid the discussion of any but the extreme of wht you call cruelty? It appears to be more than a bit hypocritical if that is the case.

Quote:
Rather than trying to show the flaw in my logic, how about engaging in the spirit of discussion and exploration. We both might learn something.


You want me to "forget" your flawed logic and continue in the spirit you choose so that we both might learn something? I have learned you do not wish to learn about your flawed logic, but you want to to continue as if you had made valid points.


Quote:
Quote:
"Cruelty is a subjective determination"


Especially if you happen to be the subject!


No, and thanks for repeating the same flawed claim.

Quote:
Quote:
Which has no bearing on the determination of whether it is subjective or not. The fact that it is subjective as defined gy the English language means that the view can and will change from person to person.


Being the subject has no bearing on the determination of whether it is subjective or not?


That is correct.


Quote:
You are more concerned with the definition written on a page in the dictionary than a real person's experience as the actual subject?


You seem to be more concerned with making a case and ignoring the English language in the attempt to do so. A "real person's experience" does not change the definition of the term nor does it make it any less subjective.


Quote:
And we are all the subjects. We all experience the same pain, hunger, heat, cold, fear, loneliness, depression and exaltation, joy ... sometimes, for some of us.


No we do not. We all experience the same sensations differently. Some have high levels of tolerance for pain while others have almost no tolerance, for example.

Quote:
Quote:
No, we do not. Pain tolerence is also very variable between individuals. We may experience similar feelings but even that is variable.


I am not talking about tolerance; I am speaking about the "experience" of pain ..... hunger, heat, cold, fear, loneliness, etc. There will always be variability, but the experience is common to all of us.


You do not understand at all. We do NOT experience pain the same way. When I broke a bone in my hand the orthopedic surgeon who exampled me told me I did not have a broken bone based on my reaction to his manipulation of the area. It did not trigger the pain response he expected so he thought it was not broken until he finally did an X-ray of the hand. I did not feel the same pain he expected for a broken bone.

Quote:
We are all the subjects. I am not religious but I understand Jesus's teaching that we treat each other as ourselves. The truth is that we ARE each other.


No, if we were all each other there would be no differences and we would all treat each other as we want to be treated ourselves.

Quote:
Quote:
No, we are ourselves. Each of us adds to the society, but we are individuals who see things differently from each other and similarly with each other and those views change over time.


And in being ourselves, we understand that when a baby cries, it is doing so because it needs something.


Or it is upset over something.

Quote:
How do we know this? How do we recognize another's loneliness, fear or pain, unless we have experienced it ourselves?


If we knew this we should know what the infant needed, but that is not always the case.

Quote:
When my husband sneezes, I know the tickle that has caused the sneeze because I have experienced it myself. When someone bashes their head against the wall and says "ouch", I recognize that "ouch". This is where empathy comes from. My need for security, food, shelter, etc, is not different from yours. Everybody needs it. And we know this, because we know this for ourselves. In this way, I am not different from you and we are not different from each other.


So you do not exhibit a pain response to broken bones? Odd that so many do that for us all to be the same as you claimed.

Quote:
Quote:
Again you start off on a tangent which will confuse you by trying to redefine the terms and take your view as the "one true" definition even if it does change over time.


You have asserted over and over that I am confused. I am not. And to be clear, I do not, and have never, taken my view to be the "one true" definition of anything.


Yes, you are confused and you do claim your view is the correct one given you argue cruelty is not subjective, and then it is, but not really ..... while the true definitions are clear that it is subjective.

Quote:
Quote:
So, when you claimed borders were subjective you knew you were wrong, but wanted to present a flawed argument?


Of course not. Who would want to present a flawed argument? I am simply presenting a different one than the one you might expect.


As I expect to be presented a correct argument, to present one that is unexpected would by definition be a flawed one

Quote:
I am simply having a chat with you and happen to be quite amazed with your insistence and seeming dependence on the majority view (yes, numbers and math) as a kind of panacea for right action.


What is right is not an objective determination so the numbers of those who agree or disagree do make the difference between what is right and what is not for a society.

Quote:
Quote:
As opposed to judging others based on personal experiences and beliefs? How can you view of "right action" be considered correct over anyone else's view of "right action"? Two equal views with all else the same will counter each other. It is when more accept one view over the other that moral codes are created. The code is created for that society and is correct for that society regardless of what other individuals may believe.


Don't get confused about "right action". It's just a term.


It is a term with specific meaning. If the meaning is not intended a differetn term should be used.

Quote:
See through the words. You will know this so called "right action" when you know that someone else's pain could also be your own.


No. "Seeing through the words" when all there are are words, means you are expecting something unrelated to what you can write.

Quote:
Moral codes can be, and often are, quite flawed.


Not for those who follow the specific code. You may believe it to be flawed based on comparison to a different moral code, but that is what caused you to be wrong in the beginning.

Quote:
Many of these codes seem to be based on the understanding that the other is oneself, while others are based on selfishness, greed and even convenience.


Who is to say which is right and which is not for the individual societies?

Quote:
You seem to have no individuality or individual thinking of your own.


Of course I do. What I believe is or is not correct does not make a difference in the beliefs of the society. I can believe all assets should belong to be to be right, but that does not make any difference to the others within my society.


Quote:
Quote:
But I do. My views are not the absolute moral code though. I cannot hold others to my code if they do not believe it and there is no other group that believes as I do.


My views are not the absolute moral code either. There is no absolute moral code. On this, I think we can both agree.


Which means morals and moral codes have to be subjective as a result.

Quote:
Are you an individual or a "citizen" who follows?


Why can't I be both or neither?


Quote:
Quote:
Both. I have my own beliefs and I must conform to the beliefs of my society or suffer the consequences if I diverge from those societal beliefs in my actions. All of us are dually tasked. That is part of the basis of the saying, When in Rome do as the Romans do"


Yikes. You mean feed the Christians to the lions?


Either that or be prepared to be lunch for the lions yourself.


Quote:
If you are a citizen, Roman or otherwise, you will allow lions to maul people. But if you are an individual, BEFORE you are a citizen, you will question the code of the society in which you live.


Why? If I as an individual make such a determination and others follow that code, how is that not a criteria in your beliefs?

Quote:
We ARE dually tasked, but first as individuals .... and then as citizens. One must first stand alone and apart if need be and absolutely NOT do what the Romans are doing if what the Romans are doing does not take into account the very simple understanding that pain is subjective when one is the subject .... and we are all subjects.


HUH? A case of circular logic with a twist of fales premise....

Quote:
I am STILL hoping to have a conversation with you .... and not the state or the math or the accepted practices.


You still hope that I will somehow agree with your flawed logic or confused musings?

Quote:
Quote:
That would be a discussion of what could be as opposed to what is then.


What is ..... our current state .... the state of the planet .... is. Shouldn't we question it?



You can question everything, but in doing so you should not believe anything, which makes discussion moot.

Quote:
Quote:
In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.



If the majority follows along with what the majority is doing, it must therefore be logical?


If the majority believes in something, then that belief is logically the correct one for the society. That is logical progression.

Quote:
Quote:
You are trying too hard to twist things here. Of course the majority will make the determination FOR THE SOCIETY. This is because there is NO absolute code which determines such things, which is why it is SUBJECTIVE.


Of course there is no 'absolute code'. And thank god there is no absolute code. How could there be one? People and governments who have tried to establish "absolute codes" have lead to destruction and mayhem.


So what you may believe to be cruel may or may not be so since the code may be variable at that point.

Quote:
Quote:
So your statements of what are and are not "right" are possibly incorrect? What you believe may be as wrong to others as the keeping of slaves is to you?


Think genocide. Mao and Pol Pot an Hitler.


So you are saying these people believed genocide was "wrong" according to their moral code but they still followed that course of action?

Quote:
We cannot control human behavior .... not through religion and not through government.


So why try? Could it be that many of the people can be controlled by such a position?

Quote:
Quote:
Actually, we can to a certain degree, which is why religions and governments created moral and legal codes. They are not perfect controls, but they do control the majority of the society.


Ahhhh, but they have created chaos, because neither religions nor governments can do it.


So, you are saying that it cannot be done then?

Quote:
Thinking for oneself, with the necessary "insight" into the actuality might create a different situation though
.

Or not, that is a basic assumption of an outcome.

Quote:
But this takes individuality with the understanding that other individuals are not unlike yourself.


Do not individuals make up the governments and religions?

Quote:
Take away the belief structures of religion and political ideologies, and what are we left with?


The same belief stucture any individual may have.

Quote:
Food, shelter, and basic physical security is what everyone needs in order to fully individuate.


HUH? If one does not have sufficient food, shelter, or basic physical security they are not full individuals?

Quote:
This is all we need and everyone needs it. Pol Pot tried to control, the Catholic religion and other religions (Isis, Al Queda, etc.), Hitler, all attempt to control people. Yet people, especially when they are truly thinking for themselves, will not be controlled. Such individuals are the most likely to be jailed and tortured in fact. Neither Nelson Mandela nor Gandhi were able to be "controlled". What are we to do with such individuals who will not conform to the state or to the majority consensus?


Punish them to change their view or remove them. That is also what we currently do to those we view as criminals because they do not conform to the laws of the society.

Quote:
We cannot make any determinations through religion, government, or society.


Nor can we make a determination for another, which means there can be no determinations if this is true. .

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, we can. That is how we all make determinations. The society, government, and religion indoctrinate us from birth on what we should see as correct.


Only if you are willing to be indoctrinated.


Everyone is indoctrinated. We learn the language and customs fo our parents and peoplw with which we interact.

Quote:
If you are a "citizen", you will take that indoctrination laying down.


Especially if you are an infant, but even if you are an adult. Unless you are saying we should question your contentions as well.

Quote:
An individual will not be indoctrinated.


So an individual will not follow any of the norms for the society? Interesting. How about if the society believs as you do concerning cruelty? The individual should refuse to be so indoctrinated and refute that contention.

Quote:
An individual will be free of that conditioning because such a person will have questioned it. I am quite astonished that you have made this statement.


That is probably due to you not really thinking your position through very well.

Quote:
Which is why we must embody our individuality .... not as a reaction to the conformity, but as a true and authentic response to what religions, government and this abstract term we call "society" which is only real because we adhere to the tenants of ...... have insisted on.


So if too many people come to believe as does the individual that person has to chang etheir view? Interesting take on the subject. Foolish, but interesting.

Quote:
Do you really think that "society, government, and religion indoctrinate us from birth on what we should see as correct." ???


Yes. You wear clothes if the society believes they are correct do you not?

Quote:
You mean we should all just lay down and accept this indoctrination?


No, you can work to change it, but that does not make the changes valid for your society unless the society grows to also hold that same belief.

Quote:
We should allow these institutions to see for us? Can we not see for ourselves? I'm sure you did not mean this!


Yes, we cannot progress if everyone is a contrarian.

Quote:
Quote:
Really? even if that individuality was the belief in having sex with people even if they did not want to and had to be forced? That is also a true and authentic response to the codes our current Western society has given us.


No, of course not.


So the individual is the decision base as long as you agree with the decision determined .....

Quote:
I am talking about an individuality that realizes the other as the same self as you.


But you just said the example was wrong and if the individual held that belief for both themselves and others you would hold it as being true if you were being honest in this dtermination.

Quote:
An individual who does not realize this must be locked away for the benefit and the security of people who understand the other is the same as you.


So if the individual does not conform the the beliefs you say they should, they shold be removed form society?

Quote:
But society as we know it does not seem to realize this basic fact. Hence the existence of torture practices, slavery, and feeding people to lions.


Even if the individuals hold such a belief separate from that of the society?

Quote:
If you follow "society", you may as well follow religion.


That is an option an individual might choose or not.

Quote:
Quote:
Or you may follow the rest of the prisoners who have violated the code of the society in which you live ... unless that society has a death penalty for such actions.


If you read the full conversation, this statement becomes redundant .....


Not if you actuall use consistent logic.

Quote:
But you are still an individual, are you not?


You can always be an individual in all cases, but you seem to accept some but not others.


Quote:
Quote:
Yes, for better or for worse.



Is the 'majority', because it is the bulk of the population, logical and therefore the logical basis for "any claim"? I wonder what this "majority" that you speak of will do next.


Whatever they decide to do ....

Quote:
Quote:
No, the majority (which can be quantified so there is no need to place it within quotation marks) does not have to be logical in the determination. They can be just like you. O:) What IS logical is to use the majority view to determine what is and is not acceptable for that society.


Nelson Mandela, and others who were able to stand apart from the "majority" would disagree.


So are you saying the current majority disgrees with the views of Nelson Mandela? Or are you missing the simple fact that he convinced the majority to make a change in beliefs over time?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 1:44 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1341
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Yes, it is a claim. Cruelty is a subjective determination so what you believe may be cruel is not what the consensus of the society believes is cruel. In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.



A scenario: What if you were captured and tortured? You had your finger nails ripped out, you were burnt and whipped, you were slowly starved of food and water. You were contained within concrete walls with no sunlight and no chance of human contact other than your torturers. And what if you lived in a society where this was accepted practice? In such a scenario, you would suffer, both physically and psychologically. But you are saying you would be okay with this if the society consensus agreed on it? Is your subjective experience of 'cruelty' .... the pain you suffer as you are being tortured, not relevant because this society has come to a consensus that it's just fine? And if your brother was in the next cell, would his suffering not be the same as yours as his finger nails were being ripped out?


Wayne Stollings wrote:
If I grew up in that society, it is very possible that I would accept this as the norm. I may not like it and I may call it cruel, but my opinion of what is and is not cruel does not define the society's view.




animal-friendly wrote:
If you grew up in and lived in such a society, you would experience pain, both psychologically and physically. Your life would be hellish. You would be wishing your mother would have aborted you. You would not want to live. If someone came along and offered you relief through euthanasia, you would gratefully accept it.


Possibly, but not probably as evidenced by the history of abuses throughout the world. A lot of the view one holds is based on previous experience and what can be determined from the experience of others. If all you know is slavery as a norm, it is unlikely you will view it the same as we do now.

I asked how you might feel if your finger nails were ripped out, and you were burnt and whipped, you were slowly starved of food and water. You were contained within concrete walls with no sunlight and no chance of human contact other than your torturers. And you say you would be okay with such a situation.

liar liar pants on fire.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:23 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Yes, it is a claim. Cruelty is a subjective determination so what you believe may be cruel is not what the consensus of the society believes is cruel. In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.



A scenario: What if you were captured and tortured? You had your finger nails ripped out, you were burnt and whipped, you were slowly starved of food and water. You were contained within concrete walls with no sunlight and no chance of human contact other than your torturers. And what if you lived in a society where this was accepted practice? In such a scenario, you would suffer, both physically and psychologically. But you are saying you would be okay with this if the society consensus agreed on it? Is your subjective experience of 'cruelty' .... the pain you suffer as you are being tortured, not relevant because this society has come to a consensus that it's just fine? And if your brother was in the next cell, would his suffering not be the same as yours as his finger nails were being ripped out?


Wayne Stollings wrote:
If I grew up in that society, it is very possible that I would accept this as the norm. I may not like it and I may call it cruel, but my opinion of what is and is not cruel does not define the society's view.




animal-friendly wrote:
If you grew up in and lived in such a society, you would experience pain, both psychologically and physically. Your life would be hellish. You would be wishing your mother would have aborted you. You would not want to live. If someone came along and offered you relief through euthanasia, you would gratefully accept it.


Possibly, but not probably as evidenced by the history of abuses throughout the world. A lot of the view one holds is based on previous experience and what can be determined from the experience of others. If all you know is slavery as a norm, it is unlikely you will view it the same as we do now.

animal-friendly wrote:
I asked how you might feel if your finger nails were ripped out, and you were burnt and whipped, you were slowly starved of food and water. You were contained within concrete walls with no sunlight and no chance of human contact other than your torturers. And you say you would be okay with such a situation.

liar liar pants on fire.


Please highlight the quote where I said I would be "okay with such a situation" before indicating I am a liar.

I may not like it and I may call it cruel

A more recent example of surviving the type of torture you believe would result in death by choice.

http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=5395&

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:44 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1341
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Yes, it is a claim. Cruelty is a subjective determination so what you believe may be cruel is not what the consensus of the society believes is cruel. In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.



A scenario: What if you were captured and tortured? You had your finger nails ripped out, you were burnt and whipped, you were slowly starved of food and water. You were contained within concrete walls with no sunlight and no chance of human contact other than your torturers. And what if you lived in a society where this was accepted practice? In such a scenario, you would suffer, both physically and psychologically. But you are saying you would be okay with this if the society consensus agreed on it? Is your subjective experience of 'cruelty' .... the pain you suffer as you are being tortured, not relevant because this society has come to a consensus that it's just fine? And if your brother was in the next cell, would his suffering not be the same as yours as his finger nails were being ripped out?

Wayne Stollings wrote:
If I grew up in that society, it is very possible that I would accept this as the norm. I may not like it and I may call it cruel, but my opinion of what is and is not cruel does not define the society's view.




animal-friendly wrote:
If you grew up in and lived in such a society, you would experience pain, both psychologically and physically. Your life would be hellish. You would be wishing your mother would have aborted you. You would not want to live. If someone came along and offered you relief through euthanasia, you would gratefully accept it.


Possibly, but not probably as evidenced by the history of abuses throughout the world. A lot of the view one holds is based on previous experience and what can be determined from the experience of others. If all you know is slavery as a norm, it is unlikely you will view it the same as we do now.

animal-friendly wrote:
I asked how you might feel if your finger nails were ripped out, and you were burnt and whipped, you were slowly starved of food and water. You were contained within concrete walls with no sunlight and no chance of human contact other than your torturers. And you say you would be okay with such a situation.

liar liar pants on fire.


Please highlight the quote where I said I would be "okay with such a situation" before indicating I am a liar.

I may not like it and I may call it cruel

A more recent example of surviving the type of torture you believe would result in death by choice.

http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=5395&[/quote]

That you "may not like it and may call it cruel" does NOT mean you would also then be okay with it? (And therefore does not mean that your pants are aflame?) Please clarify. If you don't like it and it is cruel ..... are you okay with it or not? And if so, you would be okay with it because society is okay with it? This makes little sense to me which is why I am asking for clarification. Palden Gyatso, this incredible monk from the article you posted, who survived in spite of horrible cruelty, probably has an opinion about borders, nationalism, and cruelty as it is doled out by society. I would also bet his story is an anomaly amongst other monks who told the Chinese what they wanted to hear in order to avoid the torture he endured. This is why torture as a method of gaining confessions, does not generally work. People under torture will generally simply agree to what their tormentors want them to say. Palden is an exception, and I'm sure there are many more. But generally speaking, people do not wish to be tortured and their confessions are suspect.

This all leads back to our discussion about society vs. the individual. I have said, and will say again, that society exists for the individual and not the other way around. Society is meant to be in service to the well being of individuals/people. We are not meant to be in service to it. WE have created society .... and Palden Gyatso's experience is a stark reminder of the monster we have inherited from our tribal ancestors and continue to feed with our belief in nationhood, nationality, nationalism .... which must also include political borders, all of which are conceptual. We made them up Wayne.

So when you say that "Cruelty is a subjective determination so what you believe may be cruel is not what the consensus of the society believes is cruel. In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim." Are you saying that Palden Gyatso's experience is irrelevant because the Chinese people needed more resources?

Now, you also said that, if you believe you should be allowed to molest children you should not be swayed by the views of the majority? That too is the path you are proposing in the belief the majority belief is not the proper moral code for a society,

Torturing people because the society says it's okay .... in this case the Chinese society .... is akin to molesting children if that society says it's okay to molest children. Which is exactly why I am pointing out that the majority, which one could also call 'society", cannot be the deciding factor in one's behavior. It used to be .... but we have clearly lost tract.

It's so weird that you would defend "society" when , for instance, In Russian society now, they are beating and imprisoning gay people. The abusers are fortified by the laws there. What is the individual to do about that? What is a gay person to do? Is he or she simply to say what you did? .... " In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim." ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:55 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:

http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=5395&

That you "may not like it and may call it cruel" does NOT mean you would also then be okay with it? (And therefore does not mean that your pants are aflame?)


No, it does not. If I am okay with something I either like it somewhat or am at least neutral. To not like it would clearly not be the same. I could accept it as being beyond my ability to change, but again that is not being okay with it.

Quote:
Please clarify. If you don't like it and it is cruel ..... are you okay with it or not?


Generally anyone who does not like something is not okay with it. This is such an example.

Quote:
And if so, you would be okay with it because society is okay with it? This makes little sense to me which is why I am asking for clarification. Palden Gyatso, this incredible monk from the article you posted, who survived in spite of horrible cruelty, probably has an opinion about borders, nationalism, and cruelty as it is doled out by society. I would also bet his story is an anomaly amongst other monks who told the Chinese what they wanted to hear in order to avoid the torture he endured. This is why torture as a method of gaining confessions, does not generally work. People under torture will generally simply agree to what their tormentors want them to say. Palden is an exception, and I'm sure there are many more. But generally speaking, people do not wish to be tortured and their confessions are suspect.


None of which has any bearing on the discussion where you claimed people would welcome death rather than torture .... and you were wrong.

Quote:
This all leads back to our discussion about society vs. the individual. I have said, and will say again, that society exists for the individual and not the other way around. Society is meant to be in service to the well being of individuals/people.


That is your belief but history refutes your belief repeatedly.

Quote:
We are not meant to be in service to it. WE have created society .... and Palden Gyatso's experience is a stark reminder of the monster we have inherited from our tribal ancestors and continue to feed with our belief in nationhood, nationality, nationalism .... which must also include political borders, all of which are conceptual. We made them up Wayne.


And in theory we all live together in harmony singing in a circle, but in the real world, your theory fails every test.

Quote:
So when you say that "Cruelty is a subjective determination so what you believe may be cruel is not what the consensus of the society believes is cruel. In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim." Are you saying that Palden Gyatso's experience is irrelevant because the Chinese people needed more resources?


No, You keep trying to restate what I say incorrectly in the vain attempt to make it fit your beliefs. The society decides for itself what is acceptable to it. The Chinese, for example, at one time decided women with small feet were desirable and it followed that female children had their feet bound. We think that is cruel now BASED ON OUR CURRENT SOCIETAL BELIEFS, but in their society it was normal and sought after. It was for them at that time "right".

Quote:
Now, you also said that, if you believe you should be allowed to molest children you should not be swayed by the views of the majority? That too is the path you are proposing in the belief the majority belief is not the proper moral code for a society,


I am not proposing a "proper moral code", as you try to do, but pointing out the moral codes for different societies are different. What is "proper" for one is not considered "proper" for another. Unless you have some absolute moral code written by some entity that will enforce said code throughout history, there is none.

Quote:
Torturing people because the society says it's okay .... in this case the Chinese society .... is akin to molesting children if that society says it's okay to molest children.


If that is what that society believes is moral then it is okay FOR THAT SOCIETY.

Quote:
Which is exactly why I am pointing out that the majority, which one could also call 'society", cannot be the deciding factor in one's behavior.


Who is then? You? If the society does not determine for itself what is and is not moral who does? None have that power.


Quote:
It used to be .... but we have clearly lost tract.


When? When slavery was accepted even by the major religions?

Quote:
It's so weird that you would defend "society" when , for instance, In Russian society now, they are beating and imprisoning gay people. The abusers are fortified by the laws there. What is the individual to do about that?


The individual changes the view of the majority over time. We have the conservatives here trying to prevent same sex marriages, benefits, and general acceptance, how is that different? The level of abuse is different but the abuse is still there.

Quote:
What is a gay person to do?


Try to change the view of the society, adapt, or leave.

Quote:
Is he or she simply to say what you did? .... " In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim." ???


Perhaps they can appeal to the creator of the "proper" moral code to force the Russians to change their ways? If that does not work, the only course for change would be, GASP, trying to change the view of the majority and thus the moral code for the society.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:45 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1341
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:

http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=5395&

That you "may not like it and may call it cruel" does NOT mean you would also then be okay with it? (And therefore does not mean that your pants are aflame?)


No, it does not. If I am okay with something I either like it somewhat or am at least neutral. To not like it would clearly not be the same. I could accept it as being beyond my ability to change, but again that is not being okay with it.

Quote:
Please clarify. If you don't like it and it is cruel ..... are you okay with it or not?


Generally anyone who does not like something is not okay with it. This is such an example.

Quote:
And if so, you would be okay with it because society is okay with it? This makes little sense to me which is why I am asking for clarification. Palden Gyatso, this incredible monk from the article you posted, who survived in spite of horrible cruelty, probably has an opinion about borders, nationalism, and cruelty as it is doled out by society. I would also bet his story is an anomaly amongst other monks who told the Chinese what they wanted to hear in order to avoid the torture he endured. This is why torture as a method of gaining confessions, does not generally work. People under torture will generally simply agree to what their tormentors want them to say. Palden is an exception, and I'm sure there are many more. But generally speaking, people do not wish to be tortured and their confessions are suspect.


None of which has any bearing on the discussion where you claimed people would welcome death rather than torture .... and you were wrong.

I was neither right nor wrong. It is my guess, that most would not like to be tortured. And if the torture was severe, and especially if it was a life full of suffering, most wouldn't want such a life.

Quote:
This all leads back to our discussion about society vs. the individual. I have said, and will say again, that society exists for the individual and not the other way around. Society is meant to be in service to the well being of individuals/people.


That is your belief but history refutes your belief repeatedly.

I am not so interested in history as I am present day relationships. Do we exist in order to fulfill the need of society which is some independent entity not connected to us? Are we feeding a monster of our own creation Or have we created a network of relationships and organizations which support individuals?

Quote:
We are not meant to be in service to it. WE have created society .... and Palden Gyatso's experience is a stark reminder of the monster we have inherited from our tribal ancestors and continue to feed with our belief in nationhood, nationality, nationalism .... which must also include political borders, all of which are conceptual. We made them up Wayne.


And in theory we all live together in harmony singing in a circle, but in the real world, your theory fails every test.

Actually, its not a theory. It' an actual inquiry. How can an investigation fail? Is the real world the one we have created? Is it written in stone, like the 10 commandments? Is it irrefutable?

Quote:
So when you say that "Cruelty is a subjective determination so what you believe may be cruel is not what the consensus of the society believes is cruel. In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim." Are you saying that Palden Gyatso's experience is irrelevant because the Chinese people needed more resources?


No, You keep trying to restate what I say incorrectly in the vain attempt to make it fit your beliefs. The society decides for itself what is acceptable to it. The Chinese, for example, at one time decided women with small feet were desirable and it followed that female children had their feet bound. We think that is cruel now BASED ON OUR CURRENT SOCIETAL BELIEFS, but in their society it was normal and sought after. It was for them at that time "right".

You mean feet binding didn't hurt? You mean torture doesn't hurt, even for one with as much fortitude as Palden Gyatso? It's just what what happening at the time (and is still happening now), but it's okay for those people being tortured because it's just what's happening now?

Quote:
Now, you also said that, if you believe you should be allowed to molest children you should not be swayed by the views of the majority? That too is the path you are proposing in the belief the majority belief is not the proper moral code for a society,


I am not proposing a "proper moral code", as you try to do,
but pointing out the moral codes for different societies are different. What is "proper" for one is not considered "proper" for another. Unless you have some absolute moral code written by some entity that will enforce said code throughout history, there is none.

I have not proposed a moral code. In fact, I made the point that there cannot be a moral code while it was you who responded that religions and governments are good agents for controlling human behavior. I made the point that such attempts to control only create chaos and oppression.


Quote:
Torturing people because the society says it's okay .... in this case the Chinese society .... is akin to molesting children if that society says it's okay to molest children.


If that is what that society believes is moral then it is okay FOR THAT SOCIETY.

Quote:
Which is exactly why I am pointing out that the majority, which one could also call 'society", cannot be the deciding factor in one's behavior.


Who is then? You? If the society does not determine for itself what is and is not moral who does? None have that power.

Yes. We all have that power. Do you really think you cannot resist raping 8 year olds because society has sanctioned the abuse and everyone is doing it? Of course we all have that power. It's innate. It requires the understanding that you are responsible. If you would like to abdicate that responsibility, you may easily do so ..... as you are doing .... by saying that society has all the power over your behavior, choices, will, responsibility, etc.


Quote:
It used to be .... but we have clearly lost tract.


When? When slavery was accepted even by the major religions?

EVEN by the MAJOR religions? Wow. What if it had been accepted by the minor religions? EVEN the minor ones? Interesting how conditioned we are to give our discernment and intelligence away to religions, society, government, etc. I'm not blaming here because we are all conditioned. Just find it interesting. It's an observation.

Quote:
It's so weird that you would defend "society" when , for instance, In Russian society now, they are beating and imprisoning gay people. The abusers are fortified by the laws there. What is the individual to do about that?


The individual changes the view of the majority over time. We have the conservatives here trying to prevent same sex marriages, benefits, and general acceptance, how is that different? The level of abuse is different but the abuse is still there.

What of it? You do know that clocks are useful when we want to meet the bus on time. But in reality, there is no other time but now. We either get it now, or we don't get it now.

Quote:
What is a gay person to do?


Try to change the view of the society, adapt, or leave.

You mean leave the planet? Even little revolutions are constricted to time and place. And once they are accomplished there is need for more .... for ever and ever. The only real revolution must be the individual one.

Quote:
Is he or she simply to say what you did? .... " In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim." ???


Perhaps they can appeal to the creator of the "proper" moral code to force the Russians to change their ways? If that does not work, the only course for change would be, GASP, trying to change the view of the majority and thus the moral code for the society.


The creators are us. We are society and society is us. Take it further .... we are the world and the world is us. The macrocosm is the microcosm. It's just us and the chickens. It's up to us. We are responsible. Entirely. Bur we cannot change the world. We simply have insight into the situation and act accordingly. We effect our own sphere ... our relationships with our families, friends and neighbors. The insight will move us when appropriate. We will speak up if need be. We will observe the absurdity of it all as we plant our gardens or hug our children or swap stories with our neighbors. There is no proper moral code. There is no solution and no goal. There is just insight into what is. Society will do what it will ..... I am not beholden to it and neither are any of us. And since it is largely cruel anyway ..... I am happy to think for myself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:31 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:

Wayne Stollings wrote:
None of which has any bearing on the discussion where you claimed people would welcome death rather than torture .... and you were wrong.


I was neither right nor wrong. It is my guess, that most would not like to be tortured. And if the torture was severe, and especially if it was a life full of suffering, most wouldn't want such a life.


Not wanting a life of torture is far different from giving up life to prevent torture.

Quote:
Quote:
This all leads back to our discussion about society vs. the individual. I have said, and will say again, that society exists for the individual and not the other way around. Society is meant to be in service to the well being of individuals/people.


That is your belief but history refutes your belief repeatedly.


animal-friendly wrote:
I am not so interested in history as I am present day relationships.


Then you ignore the basis for the present day relationships which is probably why you are so confused about things.

Quote:
Do we exist in order to fulfill the need of society which is some independent entity not connected to us? Are we feeding a monster of our own creation Or have we created a network of relationships and organizations which support individuals?


Since you wish to ignore history, I suspect you will never really know.

Quote:
We are not meant to be in service to it. WE have created society .... and Palden Gyatso's experience is a stark reminder of the monster we have inherited from our tribal ancestors and continue to feed with our belief in nationhood, nationality, nationalism .... which must also include political borders, all of which are conceptual. We made them up Wayne.


And in theory we all live together in harmony singing in a circle, but in the real world, your theory fails every test.

Actually, its not a theory. It' an actual inquiry. How can an investigation fail? Is the real world the one we have created? Is it written in stone, like the 10 commandments? Is it irrefutable?

Quote:
Quote:
So when you say that "Cruelty is a subjective determination so what you believe may be cruel is not what the consensus of the society believes is cruel. In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim." Are you saying that Palden Gyatso's experience is irrelevant because the Chinese people needed more resources?


No, You keep trying to restate what I say incorrectly in the vain attempt to make it fit your beliefs. The society decides for itself what is acceptable to it. The Chinese, for example, at one time decided women with small feet were desirable and it followed that female children had their feet bound. We think that is cruel now BASED ON OUR CURRENT SOCIETAL BELIEFS, but in their society it was normal and sought after. It was for them at that time "right".


Quote:
You mean feet binding didn't hurt?


No, I mean what I said not what you try to restate. Pain does not matter as it is also relative.

Quote:
You mean torture doesn't hurt, even for one with as much fortitude as Palden Gyatso? It's just what what happening at the time (and is still happening now), but it's okay for those people being tortured because it's just what's happening now?


Again, this distraction attempt is unrelated to what I said.

Quote:
Quote:
Now, you also said that, if you believe you should be allowed to molest children you should not be swayed by the views of the majority? That too is the path you are proposing in the belief the majority belief is not the proper moral code for a society,


I am not proposing a "proper moral code", as you try to do,
but pointing out the moral codes for different societies are different. What is "proper" for one is not considered "proper" for another. Unless you have some absolute moral code written by some entity that will enforce said code throughout history, there is none.


Quote:
I have not proposed a moral code.


Yes, you have. You have claimed actions were immoral which were acceptable to the societies related to them. That IS proposing a moral code for these people.

Quote:
In fact, I made the point that there cannot be a moral code while it was you who responded that religions and governments are good agents for controlling human behavior. I made the point that such attempts to control only create chaos and oppression.


Odd, if there cannot be a moral code nothing is immoral even those things which are considered cruel. If that is what you want to say then there is nothing to prevent the random torture of animals or people.


Quote:
Quote:
Torturing people because the society says it's okay .... in this case the Chinese society .... is akin to molesting children if that society says it's okay to molest children.


If that is what that society believes is moral then it is okay FOR THAT SOCIETY.


Quote:
Which is exactly why I am pointing out that the majority, which one could also call 'society", cannot be the deciding factor in one's behavior.


No, but it can judge your indiviual actions and attempt to force you to comply with their moral code.

Quote:
Quote:
Who is then? You? If the society does not determine for itself what is and is not moral who does? None have that power.


Yes. We all have that power. Do you really think you cannot resist raping 8 year olds because society has sanctioned the abuse and everyone is doing it?


You can resist, but if you do not there is no problem either since there is no moral code according to you.

Quote:
Of course we all have that power. It's innate. It requires the understanding that you are responsible. If you would like to abdicate that responsibility, you may easily do so ..... as you are doing .... by saying that society has all the power over your behavior, choices, will, responsibility, etc.


You ingore the influence society does have. If it were mandatory that you rape 8 year olds and you would be severely punished if you did not, the number of those who choose to not rape would drop significantly. Just like in our society where the inverse is true, the incidence of 8 year olds bign raped is far from common partly due to the societal influences, which include severe punishment for the offense against the moral code.


Quote:
Quote:
It used to be .... but we have clearly lost tract.


When? When slavery was accepted even by the major religions?


Quote:
EVEN by the MAJOR religions? Wow. What if it had been accepted by the minor religions? EVEN the minor ones?


It was accepted by many of the minor religions too.

Quote:
Interesting how conditioned we are to give our discernment and intelligence away to religions, society, government, etc. I'm not blaming here because we are all conditioned. Just find it interesting. It's an observation.


Yes especially since there is no moral code too.

Quote:
Quote:
It's so weird that you would defend "society" when , for instance, In Russian society now, they are beating and imprisoning gay people. The abusers are fortified by the laws there. What is the individual to do about that?


The individual changes the view of the majority over time. We have the conservatives here trying to prevent same sex marriages, benefits, and general acceptance, how is that different? The level of abuse is different but the abuse is still there.


Quote:
What of it? You do know that clocks are useful when we want to meet the bus on time. But in reality, there is no other time but now. We either get it now, or we don't get it now.


HUH? :eh:

Quote:
Quote:
What is a gay person to do?


Try to change the view of the society, adapt, or leave.


Quote:
You mean leave the planet?


That or leave the country.

Quote:
Even little revolutions are constricted to time and place. And once they are accomplished there is need for more .... for ever and ever. The only real revolution must be the individual one.


That really makes no sense in relation to the discussion either.

Quote:
Quote:
Is he or she simply to say what you did? .... " In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim." ???


Perhaps they can appeal to the creator of the "proper" moral code to force the Russians to change their ways? If that does not work, the only course for change would be, GASP, trying to change the view of the majority and thus the moral code for the society.


Quote:
The creators are us.


So now you are in agreement until you change the line?

Quote:
We are society and society is us. Take it further .... we are the world and the world is us. The macrocosm is the microcosm. It's just us and the chickens. It's up to us. We are responsible. Entirely. Bur we cannot change the world. We simply have insight into the situation and act accordingly. We effect our own sphere ... our relationships with our families, friends and neighbors. The insight will move us when appropriate. We will speak up if need be. We will observe the absurdity of it all as we plant our gardens or hug our children or swap stories with our neighbors. There is no proper moral code. There is no solution and no goal. There is just insight into what is. Society will do what it will ..... I am not beholden to it and neither are any of us. And since it is largely cruel anyway ..... I am happy to think for myself.


So anything goes as long as we believe in it ourselves? Really?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:23 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1341
Torturing people because the society says it's okay .... in this case the Chinese society .... is akin to molesting children if that society says it's okay to molest children.


If that is what that society believes is moral then it is okay FOR THAT SOCIETY. (your words) ?


Really? You would conform to that society?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:38 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Torturing people because the society says it's okay .... in this case the Chinese society .... is akin to molesting children if that society says it's okay to molest children.


If that is what that society believes is moral then it is okay FOR THAT SOCIETY. (your words) ?


Really? You would conform to that society?


Possibly. You keep ignoring the fact that anyone growing up in that society would be only exposed to the beliefs of that society unless for some reason they were to travel. That is why slavery, female genital mutilation, child marriage, lack of religious freedom, etc., were and in some cases still are normal for some societies.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group