Typical levisft reaction to any argument, which cannot be responsed. "be to tolerant" but "you suck, you nazi, rasist" "not worth my time" "not make any sense" "i shout louder"
To be fair my sources say Baghadi, the ISIS leader has just been killed!
Funny how a major terrorist act on the West triggers the world leaders to finally act huh?
De able. Especially since they remained cheering for ISIS even after the Russian plane was bombed.
The French and US and UK leaders should be ashamed of themselves. All these years and pretending to fight ISIS. The Russian and French blood is on their hands
Nevermind my sources just said it was the wrong Baghdadi. Carry on
Has the US won any war after WWII???
France24: France allies with Russia to fight ISIS
Hollande got his hand caught in the cookie jar. Running to Putin to make it go away
lavrov going HAM
"US deliberately not attacking ISIS to weaken Assad"
"US like a cat that wants to eat a fish but didn't want to get its feet wet"
Yes. They are probably near the top of wars won. By the way, same is true for now peaceful countries like Sweden and Denmark which fought each other constantly until they became more or less democratic. Some people just have no clue.
Also, the people of France can be sure of sympathy and strong support from the rest of Europe, at least that is my feeling and hope.
The US have saudi arabia and israel to please. Israel benefits from ISIS because it causes confusion. Israel attacked assad already a couple times, if i am not mistaken. Saudi is obviously pisssing their pants right now because they're obviously worried about the possibity of ISIS taking over SA.
Yes Israel bombs Damascus at will. Of course you wont see that in the news.
They also have paid jihadi mercenaries fighting Hezbolla and aassad from the south of Syria
Lol.. teaching creation in public schools? Denying evolution? Glossolalia? Tell Galileo that main stream religion doesn't make a mockery out of learning.
Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation myth in the Book of Genesis and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution. (yeah that's not a mockery)
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that religion practiced fundamentally is religion proper? The fringe would be those who hybrid religion to fit their current comfortable world view, but make no mistake, religion hasn't changed. You can read and interpret any text how you see fit, but the overwhelmingly large percentage of religious folk believe in a deity and the Christians believe a man rose from the dead, that his blood washes away sins and that a voice in your head you call God is carte blanche to commit any act under the sun. Only God can judge, but God is in your head and oddly all of the movements and judgments are by man, speaking in place of god through divine inspiration.
It's all bull .
Absolute truth doesn't need to exist for society to collectively form a set of standards that benefit us, that we can agree upon and that we teach our children. For example, it's not an absolute truth statement to say killing a baby is wrong. It feels wrong and it can have negative consequences, but if you are going to arbitrarily define right and wrong, then you can define away any act. We are a product of a society that has adopted standards, and the scientific method is what we use to provide proof of truths that are not as subjective as moral right and wrong. The Earth being 6000 years old, that's wrong, because it's quan ative and falsifiable. The Earth being good isn't quantifiable, it's not falsifiable.As for reason, again, how can you build a foundation for reason if absolute truth doesn't exist? Someone's "reason" is someone else's "irrationality." By appealing to scientific facts? How do you do that? And why would you want to do that? They tried at the turn of the century, and it led to such monstrous movements as eugenics and Social Darwinism. How can science "tell us" what is morally "right" in regards to the death penalty, animal rights, etc? A coldly rational moral philosophy is utilitarianism (any act is justified if it creates more total well being than suffering). I'm sure I don't have to elaborate on the potential pitfalls of that philosophy.
So here you took a quantification of scientific method and tried to make it contingent upon quantification of a qualitative aspect like "good" or "bad". You're falsely equivocating reason with opinion. The term "beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't about a quan y of reason, but a quan y of doubt. It's accepted that we have the ability to reason, and then we are told to not allow an attorney to plant the seed of doubt where it's not reasonable to be planted. That boils down to quantification. Guy left home at 3am, he's shown on an ATM camera in his vehicle at 3:14am withdrawing 400 dollars. He claims he was at home in bed asleep when an alarm sounded at a nearby residence at 3:25am. Reasonable doubt doesn't get him out of that lie. You know you cannot make it home in the same 13 minutes and be in bed asleep. You don't need absolute truth to know that, because numbers aren't subjective and they don't add up.
Either way, if absolute truth exists, it has nothing to do with a sky daddy. Morality can exist without divine edict, else it's no better than just law.
No.Humanity needs to grow out of dogmatism and thinking one way, and one way only (whether that ideology be reason, science, philosophy, or religion based) is the path to moral certainty, or at the very least, good moral behavior. You probably think I'm just defending religion in spite of science, but no, I see value in them all, and I think the valuable tenants of every one (although science is neutral and just a tool, but it doesn't stop people from appealing to it to build ideologies) should be emphasized and the negative tenants phased out. I see no problem with the Christian who visits the doctor but then turns to God in times of grief and metaphysical uncertainty (as I told you before, there's existential dilemmas that science can't satisfy). , I actually see praying a more rational and healthy response to a death in the family than going on a drinking binge.
Religion has no place in society. Metaphysical uncertainty is no different than pink magical unicorn on Mars uncertainty. It's not something we should investigate, much MUCH less accept as true unless shown otherwise.
I see no problem with the Christian doing any of those things either, just don't come to my door or don't try to teach my children that your invisible sky buddy created the world in 6 days. You seem to think none of that actually happens, that religious folk are just a peace loving group of hippies living out in the sticks.
The drinking equivalence to praying would be pretending to drink. If pretending to drink made you feel better about someone dying, like pretending to talk to an invisible man who didn't give a that your loved one died while he was dying, then there's nothing rational about you in the first place.
Last edited by DMC; 11-17-2015 at 04:30 PM.
Lol great wall of text
great opinion piece.
Again, you're referring to fringe examples and then using then using those to demonize religion wholesale. Is creationism the official evolutionary theory in the science departments at Notre Dame, Boston College, Gonzaga, Georgetown, Loyola, etc, etc? And how many public schools have been forced/allowed to teach creationism?
Considering all of the public schools in the United States, it's a very, very small minority that's restricted to the Bible Belt.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health...ernatives.html
Like I said, I'm a pragmatist in this case, and if believing a man rose from the dead inspires you to be a better person (as it usually does, evidenced by the societal good religious organizations have done throughout history), I have no issues with it.Why do you keep ignoring the fact that religion practiced fundamentally is religion proper? The fringe would be those who hybrid religion to fit their current comfortable world view, but make no mistake, religion hasn't changed. You can read and interpret any text how you see fit, but the overwhelmingly large percentage of religious folk believe in a deity and the Christians believe a man rose from the dead, that his blood washes away sins and that a voice in your head you call God is carte blanche to commit any act under the sun. Only God can judge, but God is in your head and oddly all of the movements and judgments are by man, speaking in place of god through divine inspiration.
It's all bull .
Yes, science simply tells us facts about nature. And your example of reason is based on what the facts (which are absolute) tell us about a situation, but "reason" breaks down when it get into the qualitative (i.e. morality) because moral truths do not exist in nature. In a court of law, "reason" is only good for determining/estimating if a person is innocent or guilty, but reason then becomes arbitrary when used for sentencing (you can't appeal to facts to tell us what the "correct" sentence is for a thief). It's arbitrarily based on a social contract (as is all morality), as you implied, and since that's the case, sentencing a thief to 1 year in prison or 3 years in prison (we know different states have different sentencing guidelines) is equally "right." And that's why a moral framework based on either religion or science (in the Harris mold) is equally "rational." The latter has no more access to the absolute than the former, despite its weak appeals to "science." I see no false equivocation between reason and opinion since opinions are informed by a person's reason. Furthermore, I think it's prudent here to differentiate between the types of "reason." You have reason in the following the facts to where they lead you; and a "personal" reason based on point-of-view. I'm discussing the latter. Again, a moral framework based on a "scientific" point-of-view is no more truthful than one based on religion.Absolute truth doesn't need to exist for society to collectively form a set of standards that benefit us, that we can agree upon and that we teach our children. For example, it's not an absolute truth statement to say killing a baby is wrong. It feels wrong and it can have negative consequences, but if you are going to arbitrarily define right and wrong, then you can define away any act. We are a product of a society that has adopted standards, and the scientific method is what we use to provide proof of truths that are not as subjective as moral right and wrong. The Earth being 6000 years old, that's wrong, because it's quan ative and falsifiable. The Earth being good isn't quantifiable, it's not falsifiable.
So here you took a quantification of scientific method and tried to make it contingent upon quantification of a qualitative aspect like "good" or "bad". You're falsely equivocating reason with opinion. The term "beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't about a quan y of reason, but a quan y of doubt. It's accepted that we have the ability to reason, and then we are told to not allow an attorney to plant the seed of doubt where it's not reasonable to be planted. That boils down to quantification. Guy left home at 3am, he's shown on an ATM camera in his vehicle at 3:14am withdrawing 400 dollars. He claims he was at home in bed asleep when an alarm sounded at a nearby residence at 3:25am. Reasonable doubt doesn't get him out of that lie. You know you cannot make it home in the same 13 minutes and be in bed asleep. You don't need absolute truth to know that, because numbers aren't subjective and they don't add up.
Either way, if absolute truth exists, it has nothing to do with a sky daddy. Morality can exist without divine edict, else it's no better than just law.
Why doesn't it have a place in society? It seems you think this because it offends your personal taste (i.e. them not believing in something that doesn't exist or being "weak-minded" in the face of "harsh" reality, etc)? I agree that religion need not try to inform science (which I take is your biggest problem) and stay on its theological turf, but that's more the effort of politicians with agendas, and it really is limited to the Bible Belt and not the problem the new atheist camp makes it out to be. But if you think religion has no place in society for turning people toward what you think are irrational beliefs, then you have to level that same criticism toward philosophy (many scientists have already. Hawking, DeGrasse, Lawrence Krauss). I've read countless philosophical ideas, written by supposed "intellectuals," trained in "logic" and "reason," with Dr. beside their name that are more bonkers (to me, offending my personal taste) than believing in invisible sky daddies. But I don't think you'd agree that philosophy has no place in society?No.
Religion has no place in society. Metaphysical uncertainty is no different than pink magical unicorn on Mars uncertainty. It's not something we should investigate, much MUCH less accept as true unless shown otherwise.
Metaphysical uncertainty is an uncertainty about the "who, what, where, when, and whys" of reality. "Why" do bad things happen to good people? Science can't even begin to answer those questions nor offer comfort. This is the realm of theology and philosophy, and they are as effective in that regard as science is at revealing facts. Basically, my point is that I see a harmony here where others see a divide, and I think that harmony should be emphasized rather than the "culture war" that seems to be brewing between science and the humanities. Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria and all that.
There's dogmatists in every cultural ins ution. Like I said before, science has informed some of the most monstrous ideas in human history.I see no problem with the Christian doing any of those things either, just don't come to my door or don't try to teach my children that your invisible sky buddy created the world in 6 days. You seem to think none of that actually happens, that religious folk are just a peace loving group of hippies living out in the sticks.
If pretending to drink actually made someone feel better during that time of need, then I see it as a rational behavior.The drinking equivalence to praying would be pretending to drink. If pretending to drink made you feel better about someone dying, like pretending to talk to an invisible man who didn't give a that your loved one died while he was dying, then there's nothing rational about you in the first place.
Anyhow, good convo, brother. I'll let you have the last word. This kind of debate can have us writing novels at each other, so we'll end it and get back to ting on Kobe and the Lakers
Yet all believe that an invisible deity had his own son slaughtered so that he may forgive his creation (who slaughtered him) for their transgressions against him (namely the original sin) and they build their lives, policy and teachings around the book of Revelations and Armageddon. Yeah that's not archaic lunacy.
Truth be damned, being delusional as long as it produces results favorable to you, is perfectly acceptable. You're sounding more and more religious with every post.Like I said, I'm a pragmatist in this case, and if believing a man rose from the dead inspires you to be a better person (as it usually does, evidenced by the societal good religious organizations have done throughout history), I have no issues with it.
If a person needs to think there's eternal reward for their behavior in order to not maim, murder, rape and torture other humans, how good is that person, really? Also, the very permission and in fact the edict to to just that to other humans is laid out quite clearly in the Bible. Those were some really good people who shot the out of all those evil party goers in France. Those people have faith stronger than yours.
Delusional people are not well adjusted, no matter how you spin that.
We are part of nature, like it or not, and moral truths don't exist, peroid.Yes, science simply tells us facts about nature. And your example of reason is based on what the facts (which are absolute) tell us about a situation, but "reason" breaks down when it get into the qualitative (i.e. morality) because moral truths do not exist in nature.
Don't confuse "right" with "allowed".In a court of law, "reason" is only good for determining/estimating if a person is innocent or guilty, but reason then becomes arbitrary when used for sentencing (you can't appeal to facts to tell us what the "correct" sentence is for a thief). It's arbitrarily based on a social contract (as is all morality), as you implied, and since that's the case, sentencing a thief to 1 year in prison or 3 years in prison (we know different states have different sentencing guidelines) is equally "right."
Why do you put science in quotations? Science isn't a myth. Science provides a foundation for truth that science prac ioners can all agree on, based on scientific method. If the ethical/moral code is unscientific because it's based on old, uniformed paradigm, then moving forward means shifting to truth based moral code and ethics. This is why sexuality is morally no more wrong than heterosexuality today. 100 years ago it was deemed immoral to be Gay and the church still sees it as such, but the non-religious folk who still use a set of moral standards don't subscribe to the 2000 year old writing as a guideline for morally acceptable behavior. That's where science and religion have resulted in diametrically opposed moral outcomes.And that's why a moral framework based on either religion or science (in the Harris mold) is equally "rational." The latter has no more access to the absolute than the former, despite its weak appeals to "science."
Opinion: That coffee is too bitter. Reason: It's bitter because I haven't put enough sugar in it. One is a quality statement, one is a quan y statement. Reason is a quan y based concept. We reason things based on how the evidence stacks up in our minds. Person A sees a flash of light in the sky, sees some streaks, concludes it was an airplane. Person B sees the same thing, concludes it was an alien craft. Which is more reasonable? Obviously person A because there's simply no reason to believe an alien craft exists, and by extension no reason to stack the error in reasoning by assigning the alien craft to that particular event. So yes, there is false equivocation. You need to differentiate between your opinion and your ability to reason.I see no false equivocation between reason and opinion since opinions are informed by a person's reason.
That's more an indictment of religion that of science. Religion has had how many thousands of years to illustrate and prove that morality comes from the mind of God, yet you just stated that religious morality is no different than scientific morality. If there's no benefit to religious morality, if it's not commanded by a God, then it's moot.Furthermore, I think it's prudent here to differentiate between the types of "reason." You have reason in the following the facts to where they lead you; and a "personal" reason based on point-of-view. I'm discussing the latter. Again, a moral framework based on a "scientific" point-of-view is no more truthful than one based on religion.
You just said philosophy polices itself. There are no moral edicts being issued by philosophy. Religion does not police itself, it does not change its viewpoint because its central theme and tenet is immovable by design. You cannot simply compare two ins utions as if they have the same outcomes. I am critical of philosophy all the time. I am also critical of scientists who make fantastic proclamations without peer review and the proper testing. Can't say the same about religion though. You ever see one pastor get up and criticize the Bible? Nope.Why doesn't it have a place in society? It seems you think this because it offends your personal taste (i.e. them not believing in something that doesn't exist or being "weak-minded" in the face of "harsh" reality, etc)? I agree that religion need not try to inform science (which I take is your biggest problem) and stay on its theological turf, but that's more the effort of politicians with agendas, and it really is limited to the Bible Belt and not the problem the new atheist camp makes it out to be. But if you think religion has no place in society for turning people toward what you think are irrational beliefs, then you have to level that same criticism toward philosophy (many scientists have already. Hawking, DeGrasse, Lawrence Krauss). I've read countless philosophical ideas, written by supposed "intellectuals," trained in "logic" and "reason," with Dr. beside their name that are more bonkers (to me, offending my personal taste) than believing in invisible sky daddies. But I don't think you'd agree that philosophy has no place in society?
If you look at the nations who practice their religion fundamentally moreso than any other nations, they are by and large 3rd world nations. If something cannot be practiced fundamentally, if you need to dilute it to make it palatable to the new worldview tastebuds, then it's bad from the vine. Religion doesn't allow itself to be diluted. Those who dilute Christianity are considered to be "luke warm" and they will be spat out. The Qu'ran cannot be altered or interpreted differently, ever. The goal of both major religions is the end of all mankind. That has no place in society. I find it appalling that you can ignore that aspect of religion with handwavium and focus on the warmness of the fellowship. That's been going on for centuries, and look where it's gotten them.Metaphysical uncertainty is an uncertainty about the "who, what, where, when, and whys" of reality. "Why" do bad things happen to good people? Science can't even begin to answer those questions nor offer comfort. This is the realm of theology and philosophy, and they are as effective in that regard as science is at revealing facts. Basically, my point is that I see a harmony here where others see a divide, and I think that harmony should be emphasized rather than the "culture war" that seems to be brewing between science and the humanities. Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria and all that.
Like the cure for polio, radio, television, computers, automobiles, space travel, longer human life expectancy.. all that monstrous stuff? What has religion done? Prayed?There's dogmatists in every cultural ins ution. Like I said before, science has informed some of the most monstrous ideas in human history.
Then you should never be one to make the judgement when issuing a CHL.If pretending to drink actually made someone feel better during that time of need, then I see it as a rational behavior.
Rgr thatAnyhow, good convo, brother. I'll let you have the last word. This kind of debate can have us writing novels at each other, so we'll end it and get back to ting on Kobe and the Lakers
Last edited by DMC; 11-18-2015 at 02:33 AM.
Since you reply lengthily and sincerely, I feel I owe you a reply. I'll try to keep it shorter, because we know this is a debate that can go on forever.
Like I said, I'm a pragmatist. If irrational beliefs don't lead to bad behavior, I don't have a problem with them. If someone needs belief in God to deal with the tragic loss of a loved one, I think it'd be heinous to disabuse of them of that belief. How a person deals with emotional issues is up to them.
Unless we access to the minds of believers, you nor I can know if they do good works out of empathy or out of fear of damnation. That said, either way works. Means serving a positive end.If a person needs to think there's eternal reward for their behavior in order to not maim, murder, rape and torture other humans, how good is that person, really? Also, the very permission and in fact the edict to to just that to other humans is laid out quite clearly in the Bible. Those were some really good people who shot the out of all those evil party goers in France. Those people have faith stronger than yours.
They aren't delusional in the psychological sense, since their belief doesn't divorce them from every day reality. "God" is a metaphysical object, like any other qualitative concept that doesn't exist in nature (aesthetics, morality, etc).Delusional people are not well adjusted, no matter how you spin that.
That's exactly my point, which is why science can have no say about what is and what isn't moral or rationally moral.We are part of nature, like it or not, and moral truths don't exist, peroid.
I put science in quotes in that instance because certain writers (the Harris's of the world) are trying to shoehorn science in where it doesn't belong, and what they appeal to (like Harris's idea of human flourishing) is yet another arbitrary moral construct based on their personal value system, yet they pass it off as "empirical." Yes, I disagree with mainstream religion's opinion on sexuality, but there's moral guidelines in religion that I find better than the secular alternative. I think adultery is highly immoral. I think abstinence is the superior moral sexual choice for teens/people not ready to have kids than safe sex/sexual promiscuity. But don't think I'm a hardline social conservative here. I don't want to see those behaviors criminalized and I endorse sexual education and the passing out of contraceptives in schools and other hotzones of sexual promiscuity, but too many irresponsible people who are too young/not financially secure are having kids, and the only way to 100% prevent that is abstinence. Yeah, you don't need religion to act moral in those cases, but a lot people ground themselves in their faith in that regard.Why do you put science in quotations? Science isn't a myth. Science provides a foundation for truth that science prac ioners can all agree on, based on scientific method. If the ethical/moral code is unscientific because it's based on old, uniformed paradigm, then moving forward means shifting to truth based moral code and ethics. This is why sexuality is morally no more wrong than heterosexuality today. 100 years ago it was deemed immoral to be Gay and the church still sees it as such, but the non-religious folk who still use a set of moral standards don't subscribe to the 2000 year old writing as a guideline for morally acceptable behavior. That's where science and religion have resulted in diametrically opposed moral outcomes.
I think we're talking past each other here. Maybe logic or rationality is the more proper word. I'm talking of the process someone employs to back a philosophical argument, and to my knowledge, it's usually called "reason" (or logic). For example, a utilitarian would argue that his philosophy is "reasonable" because it makes logical sense to endure a minor cost to promote more total well being (i.e., the trolley experiment, or justifying stealing from the rich to give to the poor). And yes, you're right, his line of thinking based on his opinion (but an opinion backed by reason). My essential point is that his opinion in that case is no better or more morally sound than someone who bases moral behavior on the Bible. That's the kind of "reason" I'm defining as arbitrary, since it isn't based on any kind of fact, and appeals to science can't make that kind of reason any more philosophically sound (as Sam Harris thinks he's achieved). In fact, I think the cold logic of the utilitarian is more divorced from common sense reality than moral opinions based on the Bible.Opinion: That coffee is too bitter. Reason: It's bitter because I haven't put enough sugar in it. One is a quality statement, one is a quan y statement. Reason is a quan y based concept. We reason things based on how the evidence stacks up in our minds. Person A sees a flash of light in the sky, sees some streaks, concludes it was an airplane. Person B sees the same thing, concludes it was an alien craft. Which is more reasonable? Obviously person A because there's simply no reason to believe an alien craft exists, and by extension no reason to stack the error in reasoning by assigning the alien craft to that particular event. So yes, there is false equivocation. You need to differentiate between your opinion and your ability to reason.
It's all "moot" in the absolute sense, since we can't prove God exists nor can we prove that moral truth exists in nature as a measurable, testable thing. You got my point. Neither is better than the other, and as long as the science based moralist (which is an impossibility in mind and an irrational, unreasonable line of thinking) isn't endorsing Eugenics experiments and race realism, he can base his morality on science all he wants, as long as it leads to good behavior. Just like I have no problem with people believing in sky daddies if it leads to good behavior.That's more an indictment of religion that of science. Religion has had how many thousands of years to illustrate and prove that morality comes from the mind of God, yet you just stated that religious morality is no different than scientific morality. If there's no benefit to religious morality, if it's not commanded by a God, then it's moot.
I agree that religion's checks and balances aren't as stringent as those in science (philosophy can get very dogmatic, though. Much like how a believer and atheist argue, you see philosophical schools of thought arguing that their epistemology is superior and right, no side giving an inch). But I think religion has improved itself overtime, becoming less dogmatic, even though its design doesn't allow it, because its prac ioners are essentially good, well meaning people, who emphasize the peacenik aspects of their faith.You just said philosophy polices itself. There are no moral edicts being issued by philosophy. Religion does not police itself, it does not change its viewpoint because its central theme and tenet is immovable by design. You cannot simply compare two ins utions as if they have the same outcomes. I am critical of philosophy all the time. I am also critical of scientists who make fantastic proclamations without peer review and the proper testing. Can't say the same about religion though. You ever see one pastor get up and criticize the Bible? Nope.
The goal of religion isn't the end of all mankind, though. The end of mankind comes when God says it does. There's no biblical command telling man to bring about the apocalypse and then roll out a red carpet for Jesus. Besides, there's many different ways you can interpret Revelations. I don't ignore it, I just don't take it literally. And why can't we focus on the good in religion? That's what we do with our political and economic systems, despite those two ins utions being responsible for more human suffering than all religions combined. Capitalism practiced fundamentally is destructive. Communism practiced fundamentally is destructive. My thought is to take the good and cull the bad, and like I said, I think a variety of human cultural ins utions have aspects to them of practical value.If you look at the nations who practice their religion fundamentally moreso than any other nations, they are by and large 3rd world nations. If something cannot be practiced fundamentally, if you need to dilute it to make it palatable to the new worldview tastebuds, then it's bad from the vine. Religion doesn't allow itself to be diluted. Those who dilute Christianity are considered to be "luke warm" and they will be spat out. The Qu'ran cannot be altered or interpreted differently, ever. The goal of both major religions is the end of all mankind. That has no place in society. I find it appalling that you can ignore that aspect of religion with handwavium and focus on the warmness of the fellowship. That's been going on for centuries, and look where it's gotten them.
I'm talking about when thinkers have tried to use science to inform morality or policy. Like this:Like the cure for polio, radio, television, computers, automobiles, space travel, longer human life expectancy.. all that monstrous stuff? What has religion done? Prayed?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eugenics
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization
During the height of the Eugenics movement in the US, some 62K people were sterilized (400K in Nazi Germany). You might say they were just practicing bad science, but they thought their understanding of genetics was 100% solid. Again, not demonizing science (just a tool, it can't be "demonized,"), just illustrating that when thinkers bring science out of its morally neutral realm and use it to inform value judgments, things go horribly wrong (don't misconstrue that as scientific facts have no use in policy [global warming, etc], but science can't tell us whether a fact is bad or good. That's up to us to determine).
great day, i live near 100m near the big police operation this morning in Saint Denis, can go out big explosions youpi
It looks like the ISIS fantasy of End Times in Dabiq ain't gonna happen.
I'd love to have another meal at Le Roi de Couscous. One of these days ....
At least they are doing something to prevent future attacks.
I saw that, I understood operation is now over
stay safe
Saw some reporting from France streets. Holy its basically Istanbul out there. No white ppl
France reaping the fruits of bombing Gadaffi to oblivion. And for what just so French companies can make a buck
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
