283 réponses à ce sujet

[cruc1al]

Tirigon wrote...

cruc1al wrote...

Now lets look at your incest example. Yes. You consider it amoral. The rest of the straight thinking world might consider it amoral. But a whole lot of folks consider it perfectly fine.

Exactly where did I say I consider incest amoral? 

Why is it that 99% consider it wrong, and 1% consider it right? Because the culture tells us it's wrong, or because the 1% is an environmental anomaly, while the 99% are thinking exactly what their genes "predicted"?

That is a VERY BAD example.

After all, 100 years ago homosexuality was punishable by death; now it´s ok because most people (except a few asses) have understood that sexuality is a private matter. Who´s to say the common view on incest is not to change in the same way?

Atm, most people consider incest to be wrong because they have old-fashioned views and live in an old-fashioned society, not beause their genes are opposed to sex with relatives. They´re not.

Uh, no.

Why did old-fashioned societies have the views they did? Because their views were derived more from genetic factors, and less from cultural enlightenment.

How do you know the view that homosexuality is immoral doesn't have a genetic component? After all, people who have sex with the same sex could be more susceptible to some sexually transmitted diseases (as was with AIDS originally), or not having babies could have a negative effect on the society, or any number of other reasons that might make the view that homosexuality is wrong a genetically beneficial trait.

Modifié par cruc1al, 14 mai 2010 - 12:03 .

[Tirigon]

Cruc1al, no offense, but that´s just wrong. Human´s views and morales aren´t influenced by genes, only by society and (in the ideal case) your own thoughts.



Genes define the body and things like Hair color etc... but not the mind.

[iharal5]

Genes define the mind too. But the envioronment forms them.

[cruc1al]

Tirigon wrote...

Cruc1al, no offense, but that´s just wrong. Human´s views and morales aren´t influenced by genes, only by society and (in the ideal case) your own thoughts.

Genes define the body and things like Hair color etc... but not the mind.

Huh, so you just decide that "no, genes don't influence the mind". The mind evolved. Human behavior evolved. That's why it's inevitable that genes influence the way we think. If you fail to see that, you don't understand evolution.

Modifié par cruc1al, 14 mai 2010 - 12:52 .

[Wildecker]

cruc1al wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Cruc1al, no offense, but that´s just wrong. Human´s views and morales aren´t influenced by genes, only by society and (in the ideal case) your own thoughts.

Genes define the body and things like Hair color etc... but not the mind.

Huh, so you just decide that "no, genes don't influence the mind". The mind evolved. Human behavior evolved. That's why it's inevitable that genes influence the way we think. If you fail to see that, you don't understand evolution.

Homosexuality was quite acceptable in Ancient Greece. It is not in modern-day Greece. So did Greek evolve or Greek culture?

[cruc1al]

Wildecker wrote...

cruc1al wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Cruc1al, no offense, but that´s just wrong. Human´s views and morales aren´t influenced by genes, only by society and (in the ideal case) your own thoughts.

Genes define the body and things like Hair color etc... but not the mind.

Huh, so you just decide that "no, genes don't influence the mind". The mind evolved. Human behavior evolved. That's why it's inevitable that genes influence the way we think. If you fail to see that, you don't understand evolution.

Homosexuality was quite acceptable in Ancient Greece. It is not in modern-day Greece. So did Greek evolve or Greek culture?

What? Greek culture of course. Why? I never said culture doesn't influence the way we think. Of course it does, in a thousand different ways. I've never contested that. But genes influence it too. Why is it that in every society (afaik), from technological civilzations to primitive tribes that have lived in separation for thousands of years, incest is viewed as immoral by the vast majority? Hmm?

[cruc1al]

Adriano87 wrote...

cruc1al wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Cruc1al, no offense, but that´s just wrong. Human´s views and morales aren´t influenced by genes, only by society and (in the ideal case) your own thoughts.

Genes define the body and things like Hair color etc... but not the mind.

Huh, so you just decide that "no, genes don't influence the mind". The mind evolved. Human behavior evolved. That's why it's inevitable that genes influence the way we think. If you fail to see that, you don't understand evolution.

I mostly accept your view on this matter, but the evolution itself takes thousand of years. we are not so different with a man from 1st dynasty of Egypt at more than 5 thosand years ago, genetically (I mean overally - like our simillarity to other people currently). maybe evolving from that time be 0.1 % or less and this cant influence our morality much ... but the knowledge we have and our 'Nihilistic-Hedonistic Culture Revolution' (WTF!) of these last 2 hondred years made the morality of our time CHANGED (or in other words Crushed)

Yes, genetically modern day humans are very similar to humans that existed tens of thousands of years ago. Cultures began to properly evolve after the invention of agriculture (though there had been clear cultural differences before that). I am not saying that differences between morality in modern or historical cultures is the result of genetic differences. I'm saying that similarities in our morality have roots in the fact that we all share human genes. We're all social animals.

[Tirigon]

cruc1al wrote...

Huh, so you just decide that "no, genes don't influence the mind". The mind evolved. Human behavior evolved. That's why it's inevitable that genes influence the way we think. If you fail to see that, you don't understand evolution.

Humans have the ability to decide freely. They are not slaves to their genes.

[ILIAS R]

Adriano87 wrote...

@Wildecker, Greek Morality was week as their Republic. I can imagine that without Socrates, Aristotle, Zeno and other thinkers the Greece was just an inefficient crap republic.
I'm a son of the Great Persia Empire, at that time we have the best morality (Zoroastrianism) after Buddhism of India in the world and I'm really proud of that. maybe you cant know but the real civilizations of that time were Persia, India and China.
nevertheless Greece has served well in Sciences like Mechanic and Medicine ... but the real worth of this ancient country is philosophical thought and their republic (just a Heritage for more recent era - Renaissance). the people of ancient Persia had high freedom and Rights in comparing to other countries of that time. (so such films like 300 are piece of crap, just to change the history and attract more viewers).

First of all i would like to say that i am not arguing with you in general ( I am Greek ) .
In many things you say you are right . But ( and that's not an argument against you personally ) you're  lack of objectivity ( and mine of course ) leads you to false assumptions and conclusions .
Greek morality was an obscure pile of religion social place and heritage for  each city state .Different things and morals were applicable in different time frames .
China India and Ancient Persia are contemporary with Ancient Greece ,so is the (and a bit older) Hebrew state/religion .
Now about Democracy/republic ( Democracy = demos wich means The People  and Kratos = State Law ) its not just a physical element , it was invented in Ancient Athens by Kallikratis not a Philosopher a  General , as a temporary measure.
To assure the rights and the morals of the Athenians after a rebellion against a tyrant.
Now about  the Battle at thermopylae it's not so much a fiction as you think it is a true  historical event ( yes the movie was just over a bit or chunk  but the story in general isn't ).   

[cruc1al]

Tirigon wrote...

cruc1al wrote...

Huh, so you just decide that "no, genes don't influence the mind". The mind evolved. Human behavior evolved. That's why it's inevitable that genes influence the way we think. If you fail to see that, you don't understand evolution.

Humans have the ability to decide freely. They are not slaves to their genes.

Could you please quote me disagreeing with what you just said?

[Tirigon]

cruc1al wrote...

Could you please quote me disagreeing with what you just said?

Saying the genes are responsible for our morales DOES disagree with what I said.

[Dethateer]

Tirigon wrote...

Dethateer wrote...

Morality is purely subjective. Let's take you and Hitler for example: you both want what's best for the world, but you see everyone as equal human beings, he didn't, he tried to make the world better by killing those he deemed inferior so that mankind would end up made of stronger individuals. You might try to make the world better by convincing everyone to get along. Both are perfectly valid points of view, only yours is evil in his view, his is evil in yours.

To the bolded: NO!

Killing "inferior" people is not a "valid point of view", it´s stupid and cruel and people who want hat should be imprisoned in a N@zi death camp like Auschwitz themselves. Let´s see if they still think so afterwards.

A radical muslim kills innocent civilians because from his point of view the civilians worship the devil, and he brings the justice of god to them, plus he prevents them from infecting his own people with their godlessness. From his point of view, what he does is not evil, it's the epitome of good. And don't you f**king dare call me a n@zi.

[cruc1al]

Tirigon wrote...

cruc1al wrote...

Could you please quote me disagreeing with what you just said?

Saying the genes are responsible for our morales DOES disagree with what I said.

Quote me.

[cruc1al]

Dethateer wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Dethateer wrote...

Morality is purely subjective. Let's take you and Hitler for example: you both want what's best for the world, but you see everyone as equal human beings, he didn't, he tried to make the world better by killing those he deemed inferior so that mankind would end up made of stronger individuals. You might try to make the world better by convincing everyone to get along. Both are perfectly valid points of view, only yours is evil in his view, his is evil in yours.

To the bolded: NO!

Killing "inferior" people is not a "valid point of view", it´s stupid and cruel and people who want hat should be imprisoned in a N@zi death camp like Auschwitz themselves. Let´s see if they still think so afterwards.

A radical muslim kills innocent civilians because from his point of view the civilians worship the devil, and he brings the justice of god to them, plus he prevents them from infecting his own people with their godlessness. From his point of view, what he does is not evil, it's the epitome of good. And don't you f**king dare call me a n@zi.

He didn't call you a n@zi, mr. readingcomprehension.

The reason the radical muslim's point of view is wrong is because with almost absolute certainty his presumption that the civilians worship the devil is false. End of story.

Modifié par cruc1al, 14 mai 2010 - 03:45 .

[Dethateer]

-sneaky, sneaky, cruc1al, I c wut u did thar-
At any rate, see below reply.

Modifié par Dethateer, 14 mai 2010 - 04:00 .

[mosor]

Adriano87 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

cruc1al wrote...

Huh, so you just decide that "no, genes don't influence the mind". The mind evolved. Human behavior evolved. That's why it's inevitable that genes influence the way we think. If you fail to see that, you don't understand evolution.

Humans have the ability to decide freely. They are not slaves to their genes.

so why are you defending homosexuality? is it in your genes to be a ****** or it is your choice?
if the first one is true, then you have the mind to avoid it (your choice) and if it is your choice to be a ******, then you're fighting with your Gens and the Nature ...

False Dilemma. It could be nether genes nor choice. Could be chemical exposure during fetal develeopment. Nothing wrong with the genes, just the brain wired differently during development.

[Dethateer]

cruc1al wrote...


The reason the radical muslim's point of view is wrong is because with almost absolute certainty his presumption that the civilians worship the devil is false. End of story.

Last I checked, radical theists of all religions consider people of all other religions (and in some cases atheists) to be devil-worshipers. It is false because you and I are atheists and according to us the devil doesn't exist, not to the radical muslim. To him it's as true as his god.

[cruc1al]

Dethateer wrote...

cruc1al wrote...


The reason the radical muslim's point of view is wrong is because with almost absolute certainty his presumption that the civilians worship the devil is false. End of story.

Last I checked, radical theists of all religions consider people of all other religions (and in some cases atheists) to be devil-worshipers. It is false because you and I are atheists and according to us the devil doesn't exist, not to the radical muslim. To him it's as true as his god.

Yes, and he's wrong.

[Dethateer]

According to you.

[mosor]

Dethateer wrote...

cruc1al wrote...


The reason the radical muslim's point of view is wrong is because with almost absolute certainty his presumption that the civilians worship the devil is false. End of story.

Last I checked, radical theists of all religions consider people of all other religions (and in some cases atheists) to be devil-worshipers. It is false because you and I are atheists and according to us the devil doesn't exist, not to the radical muslim. To him it's as true as his god.

They are a minority even among radical theists. Misguided, not following the true path? Sure. It gets thrown around, especially by Iranian Mullahs, but I think thats fuelled more by geopolitical competition than religious dogma.

As for atheists. I think they're hated by american religious conservatives more than muslims. Deep down they feel the secular wind, see the future and see them as the biggest threat to their religion.

[cruc1al]

Dethateer wrote...

According to you.

According to the fact that he doesn't have any objective evidence to support his conclusion that everyone else is a devil worshipper. He's either brainwashed, stupid, uneducated, delusional or all of the above, and therefore he cannot be trusted as a reliable source of morality.

[Dethateer]

mosor wrote...

They are a minority even among radical
theists. Misguided, not following the true path? Sure. It gets thrown
around, especially by Iranian Mullahs, but I think thats fuelled more by
geopolitical competition than religious dogma.

As for atheists. I
think they're hated by american religious conservatives more than
muslims. Deep down they feel the secular wind, see the future and see
them as the biggest threat to their religion.

Erm... that was just an example. I'm fully aware at least 90% of muslims watch the news horrified by what the extremists do.

cruc1al wrote...

Dethateer wrote...

According
to you.

According to the fact that he doesn't have any
objective evidence to support his conclusion that everyone else is a
devil worshipper. He's either brainwashed, stupid, uneducated,
delusional or all of the above, and therefore he cannot be trusted as a
reliable source of morality.

You tryin' to make
me play the devil's advocate and support religion? Fine. Here's how it
goes: your religion is the only true one. Everyone else is either
deceived by the devil into worshipping him, or follows a heretical
version of your own religion. Comprehend now?

Modifié par Dethateer, 14 mai 2010 - 04:07 .