The Pope

[Pure]

R, re (mis)treatment of rape victims:
R You have no standard by which you can say this is wrong

P: Ah, the old bait and switch. No thanks. You have your answer to your first question. If you believe i'm in a state of moral disarmament, just focus on that text with your razor sharp mind.

Best,
J.

PS. The strategy of trying to show everyone that you have clearcut answers, of which you're certain, to all mankind's moral dilemmas will at some point, undercut itself. Whether it be the Pope, or the Ayatollahs, or Ms. Rand, or you, I have found the "I have an answer and it's easy' folks' positions philosophically questionable, and usually ineptly defended (though that doesn't fit the present pope.)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Just a really stupid question for everyone. How many of you have read the Koran?

I haven't. That's part of the reason I resist the occassional temptation to pluck really vile-sounding passages posted on some web sites to score points in political debates. The main reason I don't do this is because in a sense it doesn't matter if a particular faith's "holy book" contains some nasty stuff - Lord knows the Christian and Jewish Bibles do. What matters is how the practitioners of that faith regard that material. Notwithstanding the intolerance of some fundamentalist Christian preachers, I don't know of any who argue that all the strictures in Leviticus should be followed to the letter, so it really wouldn't be fair to condemn present day Christianity for that stuff. On the other hand, at this time there certainly are some Imams who urge their followers to follow some of the Koran's nastier nasties to the letter. I therefore reserve my condemnation for those Imams and their "enablers" and apologists, rather than the book itself.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

R, re (mis)treatment of rape victims:
R You have no standard by which you can say this is wrong

P: Ah, the old bait and switch. No thanks. You have your answer to your first question. If you believe i'm in a state of moral disarmament, just focus on that text with your razor sharp mind.

Best,
J.

PS. The strategy of trying to show everyone that you have clearcut answers, of which you're certain, to all mankind's moral dilemmas will at some point, undercut itself. Whether it be the Pope, or the Ayatollahs, or Ms. Rand, or you, I have found the "I have an answer and it's easy' folks' positions philosophically questionable, and usually ineptly defended (though that doesn't fit the present pope.)

I don't claim to have "clearcut answers to all of mankind's moral dilemmas." I do have a standard by which I can confidently say, "Jailing woman who comlain when they have been raped is wrong - you should not do it." You have no such standard.

 

[Pure]

on the Koran,
---a wise policy, roxanne. avoids the 'glass houses' problem the present pope has gotten himself into.

 

[Pure]

R //You have no such standard//

P: ho hum. see my recent posting today, 9-18, 9:45 am EDT, #56, about a similar accusation of yours, re 'force.'

deal with it.

 

[Pure]

jenny,

J How many of you have read the Koran?

P: i've systematically read passages on certain topics--Jews, unbelievers, women, but very little of it overall.

hate to sound biased, and maybe it's the translation (some say it sounds great in Arabic) but, to me, it's mostly unreadable. to be fair, however, the OT book of Numbers is often not captivating, either.

i might add that its organization thwarts a rational approach: the surahs are arranged by SIZE (number of words), and the chronology of Mohammad's teaching is utterly obscured. again, the Xtian NT blurs chronology by having late stories, like Matthew, first, and burying the earliest docs (like Thessalonians). maybe it's something about scripture having a logic not apparent to reason.

 

[S-Des]

I haven't. That's part of the reason I resist the occassional temptation to pluck really vile-sounding passages posted on some web sites to score points in political debates. The main reason I don't do this is because in a sense it doesn't matter if a particular faith's "holy book" contains some nasty stuff - Lord knows the Christian and Jewish Bibles do. What matters is how the practitioners of that faith regard that material. Notwithstanding the intolerance of some fundamentalist Christian preachers, I don't know of any who argue that all the strictures in Leviticus should be followed to the letter, so it really wouldn't be fair to condemn present day Christianity for that stuff. On the other hand, at this time there certainly are some Imams who urge their followers to follow some of the Koran's nastier nasties to the letter. I therefore reserve my condemnation for those Imams and their "enablers" and apologists, rather than the book itself.

And that doesn't count the "schools" where Muslim children are taught that Jews drink the blood of Muslims. Anyone comparing the White House or Christianity of the present day to the nightmare of Muslim extremists (where they are told by their religious leaders that blowing themselves up while killing men, women, and children guarantees them a trip to heaven and 70 virgins), is just being ridiculous. Everyone brings up sins of Christianity (including Catholocism) of the past, but it's just that...the past.

Right now, there are people at war with everyone who doesn't adhere to their specific beliefs (that includes other muslims who are often killed for not being of the same sect). Comparing Karl Rove to someone ordering children to murder indescriminantly is a joke (and should be beneath anyone with a IQ above room temperature). I would not be surprised if in 50, 100, or 200 years, Islam is considered a wonderful, peaceful religion. Right now, it is used as an excuse to dominate women, keep children ignorant and uneducated, and as a call to violence against everyone from every country. That might not be the fault of Islam (although I haven't read the Koran, so I can't make a judgement about it), but it's being done in the name of Islam.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

J How many of you have read the Koran?

P: i've systematically read passages on certain topics--Jews, unbelievers, women, but very little of it overall.

hate to sound biased, and maybe it's the translation (some say it sounds great in Arabic) but, to me, it's mostly unreadable. to be fair, however, the OT book of Numbers is often not captivating, either.

i might add that its organization thwarts a rational approach: the surahs are arranged by SIZE (number of words), and the chronology of Mohammad's teaching is utterly obscured. again, the Xtian NT blurs chronology by having late stories, like Matthew, first, and burying the earliest docs (like Thessalonians). maybe it's something about scripture having a logic not apparent to reason.

You are quite right. Most of it is very unreadable, Pure. I've read parts of it too. And those parts are not really much different than the Old Testiment. In fact, much of it is the early chapters of the Old Testiment. The parts that are difficult are the later chapters where Mohammad is carrying on a conversation with God. However, we mortals cannot hear God's part of the conversation. Mohammad asks him questions, but you don't get to hear God's answer. You get Mohammad's responses to God's answer. That leaves much to inturpret from what Mohammed says. That's one of the major places in the Koran the Iman's use to exploit the masses.

I have friends here who are moslems. They argue the same versus exactly the opposite way the Iman's argue them. One told me, "It's sick. They use the Koran for their own political adjunda. God wouldn't say those things." I don't see the majority of Moslems any different than Christians in their understanding or belief in God.

And it goes for both sides. Our government twists, withholds and manufactures facts to support their own adjunda. One is not better than the other.

As far as the order of the New Testiment. I believe that was set by a Catholic Conclave in the early centuries. I agree the order is somewhat mistifying.

 

[Pure]

with all due respect, s-des, that last posting [#82] was horse puckey.

the statements and actions of some present day (last 65 years) Xtians, including some Xtian leaders, are still--some progress notwithstanding-- in the same moral ball park as those of militant or fundamentalist muslims. and indeed, in terms of lives lost, probably the former have more black in their record. IMO.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne: I don't claim to have "clearcut answers to all of mankind's moral dilemmas." I do have a standard by which I can confidently say, "Jailing woman who comlain when they have been raped is wrong - you should not do it." You have no such standard.

ho hum.
deal with it.

I am dealing with it, Pure. I am fighting pernicious moral relativism with all my might, in every arena in which I operate, on line and off. I am calling it what it is, exposing its contradictions, and pointing out the black hole into which it is taking our civilization, loudly and with every tool at my command

 

[shereads]

I'm not the president of the Pope Fan Club, but as I understand this latest global controversy, he didn't make a statement that connected violence with Islam; he quoted a historic text that he considered relevent to the topic of violence and religion.

It's been bizarre to see people threatening violence in retaliation for having been insulted by the inference that their religion promotes violence.

This planet is so doomed. The only hope is an epidemic of some virus that infects everyone with a sense of humor.

 

[Pure]

R: I am fighting pernicious moral relativism with all my might, in every arena in which I operate, on line and off.

P: if you're so active, effective--nay mighty--then deal with the following already posted:

my recent posting yesterday, 9-18, 9:45 am EDT, #56, about a similar accusation of yours, re 'force.' "
---

as to the fighting the good fight, i prefer to fight evil, as i see it; much of it wrought by you folks with your arrogant certainties.

check the mote in your own eye: the evils of laisser faire capitalism and militarism in your own society, and let the iraqis deal with their husseins.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

R: I am fighting pernicious moral relativism with all my might, in every arena in which I operate, on line and off.

if you're so active, effective--nay mighty--then deal with the following already posted.

my recent posting yesterday, 9-18, 9:45 am EDT, #56, about a similar accusation of yours, re 'force.' "
---

as to the fighting the good fight, i prefer to fight evil, as i see it; much of it wrought by you folks with your arrogant certainties.

check the mote in your own eye: the evils of laisser faire capitalism and militarism in your own society, and let the iraqis deal with their husseins.

Evil? Why Pure, by what standard do you judge something to be "evil?" Evil for who? Your evil and my evil might be two completely different things - who can say which is true? Isn't "evil" just a purely social construct? One society's evil might be another society's good, and who are you to say that one is right and the other wrong?

 

[Pure]

to R.

you always were a cutie!

 

[O'Mac]

with all due respect, s-des, that last posting [#82] was horse puckey.

the statements and actions of some present day (last 65 years) Xtians, including some Xtian leaders, are still--some progress notwithstanding-- in the same moral ball park as those of militant or fundamentalist muslims. and indeed, in terms of lives lost, probably the former have more black in their record. IMO.

Please show some respect to those of faith. We don't really like to be reffered to as "Xtians". I don't recall any one here reffering to any atheists or agnostics as "God-haters" or whatever.

And I do happen to agree with this sentiment in a lot of ways, I was just hoping for a more reasonable choice of words. Look at the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, for example. I think all religions in some way have blood on their hands, but I don't think it's the work of the mainstream believers, mostly the extremists on opposing sides.

 

[past_perfect]

Just a really stupid question for everyone. How many of you have read the Koran?

I read it - twice actually. It makes much more sense if you read about the historic background of its creation as well. Same goes for the Old Testament btw. Most religious texts of that region are trying to address social, cultural and ethical problems of their specific timeframe.

 

[Pure]

note to Omac

see the merriam webster dictionary

Main Entry: xtian
Function: abbreviation

Usage: often capitalized

Christian

---
The word "Christ" in Greek begins with what looks like the letter "X,"
which Greeks call "chi."

Hence "X" or chi [X with wavy downward crossing line] are longtime symbols for Christ.

So the term "X-mas"--for instance-- is not a heathen, pagan, or atheist invention or intended insult.

See, for instance, this discussion at a language history website:

http://www.languagehat.com/archives/002217.php

December 20, 2005

THE HISTORY OF X.

Suzanne of Abecedaria has an interesting post on the history of the abbreviations ΧΡ and Χ for Χριστος 'Christ'; her speculations on the history of omitting the final ς make sense to me:

Χριστος has been represented by Χρς, or Χς, and by ΧΡ in art and other representation. I have not found the ΧΡ in manuscripts and would not expect it since the manuscript form always includes the grammatical ending.

A quick glance at some facsimiles of Greek manuscripts shows that the words ιησους, χριστος, θεος, ανθρωπος, πατερ, ματερ, πνευμα and some other words were represented by their initial and final one or two letters which represent the grammatical ending. This could be ς,υ,ν,οι, ι &c.

For this reason, I am assuming that the transition from Χς to Χ happened with the beginning of the use of the vernacular languages in Europe, when the ending was no longer relevant. There would be no reason to retain the last letter and X alone came to represent Christ. There is also no reason to see a sign of disrespect in the transition from Χς to Χ. And so Xmas first appeared in English texts in the 16th century.

I've always been amused by people who find Xmas a disrespectful abbreviation; all they're doing is showing their own ignorance of history.

Posted by languagehat at December 20, 2005 10:06 AM

Posted by: Ray Davis at December 20, 2005 02:22 PM
[…]
Well, the OED has a citation for "X'temmas" from 1551. Its first cite for "Xmas" is from c1755. (A full-text search of the OED on "Xmas" finds a couple of uses in the titles of mid-17th century works. Oh, and Coleridge used "Xstmas" in 1799 in a letter to Southey, but he went with "Xmas" in another letter two years later.)

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I triedto make my own feelings on morality clear in the last go 'round we had on this issue, but guess I feel strongly enough about it that it woke me up in the middle of the night.

I'm a moral relativist and proud of it, and yet I'd say, for me and all of my moral relativist friends, that our own internalized, personal sets of morality are probably stronger than most of those who obey the laws of moral absolutism, at least when it comes what's important to us, like the sanctity of human life, it's inherent value, and the equality of all people.

For some reason, it doesn't seem to be the absolutists who protest against the killings of innocents in Iraq, or the massacre of hundreds of thousands in Darfur. It seems to be the moral relativists who are stricken with an internal conscience. I suppose your logical system of judging good and evil against some absolute standard allows you to justify the rightness of what to us are absolute atrocities.

As far as religious morality, I have to think that any system that has to use the promise of reward or the threat of punishment in the afterlife as a tool to enforce morality is pretty much operating on a third-grade level. The adherents to such a system aren't moral; they're just scared shitless.

So it's not moral relativism that's hurting this country. If anything, it's the moral absolutism of the values of the marketplace - that people are worth nothing more than their ability to produce goods and services, and that making profits is the ultimate good, the be-all and end-all of life. Right there is your end to civilization as we know it.

My belief is that morality is an emotion based on love and the ability to empathize. It's no more rational than love or caring are, emotions that are built into us and not logically derived from any set of axioms. I don't have to sit down and run through some syllogisms to know that I should save a kitten from a tree when I already know that doing so risks my safety and that logic tells me my well-being is more important than that kitten's life. I don't rely on any religious system to tell me to do it. I just feel it, and I do it, and I'd hate to live in a world where people acted otherwise.

Because ultimately, the most important things in life don't yield to logical analaysis. Love, happiness, justice - even the idea that it's better to be alive than dead - are all emotional judgments. "Reason" enters into them, and helps as best it can, but as Homer Simpson says (one of my favorite Homerisms) "Facts are uselsss. They can be used to prove anything." Every logical system is based on axioms - assumptions we take to be so obvious that we feel we don't need to prove them. That "feeling" of obviousness is emotional as well, and so even the most logical system comes down to emotions in the end.

So if you were to ask me how I could tell if something was right or wrong without a criterion to judge against, I'd answer that I do have such a criterion. The difference is, mine in internal while yours is external. I rely on my own moral emotions. Does that allow us to arrive at an objectve truth? No. But neither does moral absolutism, otherwise we wouldn't still be arguing about the morality Iraq and abortion and gay rights. But don't tell me that moral relativism leads to amorality, because that's only true for someone who has no connect8ion with their own moral sense. My judgment of "it's wrong" is every bit as valid as your logical derivation from your absolutes. Th job of the moral relativist is not to convince everyone of their position through argument - that never works, which is why arguments about religion are so futile - but through empathy.

Which is exactly the lesson Jesus taught. He cut through the highly legalistic and sophistic moralistic knot of Phariseic thinking with the blade of moral relativism: Judge not lest you be yourself judged, and Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Pure moral relativism.

Which brings me to the Pope and Catholics in general. It is, of course, easy to hate groups of people in the abstract, be they Catholics, Jews, Mexican, Blacks, Muslims, gays, or whatever. That's Technique #1 of hate-mongering - rob people of their identities and make them members of a group. Groups are easy to disparage and hate. And it's easy to work yourself up into a froth seeing Catholics as poor benighted ignoramuses shuffling in lock-step under the lash of a despotic Pope and his evil cabal, like so many galley slaves.

But the truth is that Catholics do have faces and each of them struggles with their understanding of the faith and the pronouncements of the Pope just as most of the members of any other religion struggle with their own. That, at least, has been my experience. They choose to do it in a church that has a history that's as long and as alternately glorious and sordid as any other human institution that's been around for 2000 years (of which there are how many?), and they tend to pick and choose from it what works for them and play down what doesn't.

You don't like the Pope? Fine. I don't like George Bush either, but that doesn't mean I hate all Americans or think they're all dumb, uneducated war-mongerers either.

And with that, I'll have to leave this conversation. I'll be away for a few days and unable to respond, but I had to get this stuff off my chest. Now maybe I can go back to sleep.

 

[O'Mac]

see the merriam webster dictionary

Main Entry: xtian
Function: abbreviation

Usage: often capitalized

Christian

---
The word "Christ" in Greek begins with what looks like the letter "X,"
which Greeks call "chi."

Hence "X" or chi [X with wavy downward crossing line] are longtime symbols for Christ.

So the term "X-mas"--for instance-- is not a heathen, pagan, or atheist invention or intended insult.

See, for instance, this discussion at a language history website:

http://www.languagehat.com/archives/002217.php

December 20, 2005

THE HISTORY OF X.

Suzanne of Abecedaria has an interesting post on the history of the abbreviations ΧΡ and Χ for Χριστος 'Christ'; her speculations on the history of omitting the final ς make sense to me:

Χριστος has been represented by Χρς, or Χς, and by ΧΡ in art and other representation. I have not found the ΧΡ in manuscripts and would not expect it since the manuscript form always includes the grammatical ending.

A quick glance at some facsimiles of Greek manuscripts shows that the words ιησους, χριστος, θεος, ανθρωπος, πατερ, ματερ, πνευμα and some other words were represented by their initial and final one or two letters which represent the grammatical ending. This could be ς,υ,ν,οι, ι &c.

For this reason, I am assuming that the transition from Χς to Χ happened with the beginning of the use of the vernacular languages in Europe, when the ending was no longer relevant. There would be no reason to retain the last letter and X alone came to represent Christ. There is also no reason to see a sign of disrespect in the transition from Χς to Χ. And so Xmas first appeared in English texts in the 16th century.

I've always been amused by people who find Xmas a disrespectful abbreviation; all they're doing is showing their own ignorance of history.

Posted by languagehat at December 20, 2005 10:06 AM

Posted by: Ray Davis at December 20, 2005 02:22 PM
[…]
Well, the OED has a citation for "X'temmas" from 1551. Its first cite for "Xmas" is from c1755. (A full-text search of the OED on "Xmas" finds a couple of uses in the titles of mid-17th century works. Oh, and Coleridge used "Xstmas" in 1799 in a letter to Southey, but he went with "Xmas" in another letter two years later.)

Interesting article, Pure. My apologies. I thought it was just a case of textual laziness, but yeah, it seems like you're absolutely right.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I'm a moral relativist and proud of it, and yet I'd say, for me and all of my moral relativist friends, that our own internalized, personal sets of morality are probably stronger than most of those who obey the laws of moral absolutism, at least when it comes what's important to us, like the sanctity of human life, it's inherent value, and the equality of all people.

For some reason, it doesn't seem to be the absolutists who protest against the killings of innocents in Iraq, or the massacre of hundreds of thousands in Darfur. It seems to be the moral relativists who are stricken with an internal conscience. I suppose your logical system of judging good and evil against some absolute standard allows you to justify the rightness of what to us are absolute atrocities. You cite "things that are important to me" - the sanctity of human life, it's inherent value, and the equality of all people. Important to you, perhaps, but maybe not to someone else, and who are you to tell that person he is wrong - everything is relative, don't you know.

So it's not moral relativism that's hurting this country. If anything, it's the moral absolutism of the values of the marketplace - that people are worth nothing more than their ability to produce goods and services, and that making profits is the ultimate good, the be-all and end-all of life. Right there is your end to civilization as we know it.

Ah yes, your own "internalized, personal sets of morality." You forgot an important modifier: Unique. Each of you has a different set. Actually, Mab, I'm totally confident that whatever yours is it guides your own actions quite well. A guy who posts a thread that is essentially "Talmud for Dummies" is obviously a thoughtful person who takes these issues seriously.

But as I said to Pure, by what standard do you condemn the things that you describe in your post as "absolute atrocities?" I mean, your definition of atrocity may be different from mine, and who are you to impose your version on me? "Atrocity" is "just a social construct" - one society's atrocity is another society's glorious accomplishment, and who are you to imperialistically declare that one is right and the other wrong?

This is from that "go round" last year you cited:

I met a woman from Lalastan who was describing her nation’s new policy of exterminating the Lulu minority. I felt an urge to say, "That’s wrong, it’s not good to commit mass murder!” But who am I to assert that something is good or evil? I mean, her “good,” might not be the same as my “good.” I can’t know for certain that my version is true, because all such notions are purely social constructs. Who am I to imperialistically impose my society’s version?

Instead I urged her to be reasonable and responsible. She assured me that wiping out the Lulus was a supremely rational act, and the Lalas took very seriously their responsibility to get them all.

That didn’t quite feel right, and sensing my discomfort she sought to reassure me: “You must understand, life is cheap to Lulus – they’re not like you and me. In the last war their young men jostled each other in their eagerness to charge the machineguns.”

I almost exclaimed, “But they’re human beings, they just want to live and enjoy life, the same as you and me!” But I remembered the infinite permutations of human societies, and that the only thing we share across them is our basic physical structure. While there seems to be much evidence that in all societies people do want to live and be happy, I can’t disprove that there might be one where they don’t – maybe the Lulus are it?

At this point you cited your "morality is an emotion we feel inside," and Cant added, "ethics are not rational in origin." I responded:

Reading these last two posts I thought, “Oh, here is the answer!”

I phoned the woman from Lalastan and explained with earnest sincerity that the Lalas should not kill the Lulus, because I had a very strong emotion inside that doing so was immoral. She sympathized, but explained that she and the Lalas felt a very strong emotion inside them that it was very moral, for the reasons explained earlier.

So here we are back in the same place, except this time you have a few specific things that you would like to condemn as "atrocities" - and you have no basis for doing so. Maybe that's what's waking you in the middle of the night.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Pure's answer to the conundrum the moral relativists face is essentially, "you don't need morality or a standard by which to say something is right or wrong, just follow the law."

Pure: "Societies, be they bees or chimps or humans operate by a kind of 'compact'--routine procedure or rule-- NOT to severely harm one another in a number of ways; though sometimes a number of exceptions are allowed. For instance in our society, one prizefighter *in the ring* may strike another in the head and kill him.

"The present society is which you and I live, Jane, has agreed in its penal code that rape is not tolerated; that it's a serious harm that 'we' don't want. I'm not much subject to rape outside or prison, but my wife and daughter are, so I strongly disapprove. That disapproval is reflected in the law, not caused by it. Indeed 'we' would think it wrong were the law repealed, because of the social harm.

"Now if you ask, why follow what this society says, i say, 'your life will be pretty miserable if you don't; i.e. there's a good chance of prison, for serious harms.'"

Ah, but where does the law come from? I suppose we simple folk must just trust the philospher kings who are politicians, lawyers and judges to take care of those messy details of determining what is right and wrong for us. That seems pretty thin gruel, though. Also, as I pointed out in a subsequent post, it leaves us morally disarmed in the face of another society whose law requires the jailing of women who complain when they have been raped. 150 years ago it would have said to the abolitionists, "Sit down and shut up." Pure says that last is a straw man - this is now, not 150 years ago. Yes, and raped women are being jailed now.

 

[Pure]

reply to roxanne,

roxanne said, regarding an emotion or feeling based approach to ethics, as proposed by mab:

R Reading these last two posts I thought, “Oh, here is the answer!”

I phoned the woman from Lalastan and explained with earnest sincerity that the Lalas should not kill the Lulus, because I had a very strong emotion inside that doing so was immoral. She sympathized, but explained that she and the Lalas felt a very strong emotion inside them that it was very moral, for the reasons explained earlier.

P: this was a cute debate move at the time, but it contains a highly misleading implication that you Roxanne are in a superior position,
whereas in fact, the next conversation about *your* 'solution' would run as follows.

"Remembering my Ayn Rand studies, I called back the woman and let her know that Reason and the Laws of Nature forbade Lalas from wantonly killing Lulus. Asked to explain further, I said Lalas were, based on my rational analysis, innocents and it is irrational to kill innocents.

She responded, "That's where you're wrong, they've behaved like sewer rats in our society. Further, I've consulted my local religious leader on the subject of 'cleansing' of Lulus.

"He pointed the following out to me: 'Not only do the Laws of Nature and of Reason permit such cleansing, but they make it obligatory. The preservation of the true Lala religion and of the highest forms of life, the Lalas, dictates 'cutting off' diseased instances of life and decaying parts of the social organism, just as doctors amputate a gangrenous limb. The doctors' amputation is dictated by Reason, just as our cleansing is.' "

I asked her, "What about the Lulu children and babies. They cannot be treacherous. Such a claim is irrational."

She replied, "But they grow up into treacherous Lulu adults."

I told her Ayn Rand's view of the laws of nature was not the same as hers. I explained her that Reason informed me, and all persons of Reason, of the equality of Lalas and Lulus.

She said, 'Had you grown up here, and experienced the treachery of Lulus that is basic to their nature, you would not be saying that.'

She asked me is I had known any Lulus personally, and I said, "no, but my Reason informs me about them, just as it tells me that Frenchmen and Englishmen are inherently equal."

She said, "Without direct experience of the matter, your Reason naturally has false premises to go on, hence its mistaken conclusion."

Then she rang off, and I had to call the Rand institute for debating advice. They informed me that you can't debate Evil and Irrational people.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

roxanne said, regarding an emotion or feeling based approach to ethics, as proposed by mab:

R Reading these last two posts I thought, “Oh, here is the answer!”

I phoned the woman from Lalastan and explained with earnest sincerity that the Lalas should not kill the Lulus, because I had a very strong emotion inside that doing so was immoral. She sympathized, but explained that she and the Lalas felt a very strong emotion inside them that it was very moral, for the reasons explained earlier.

P: this was a cute debate move at the time, but it contains a highly misleading implication that you Roxanne are in a superior position,
whereas in fact, the next conversation about *your* 'solution' would run as follows.

"Remembering my Ayn Rand studies, I called back the woman and let her know that Reason and the Laws of Nature forbade Lalas from wantonly killing Lulus. Asked to explain further, I said Lalas were, based on my rational analysis, innocents and it is irrational to kill innocents.

She responded, "That's where you're wrong, they've behaved like sewer rats in our society. Further, I've consulted my local religious leader on the subject of 'cleansing' of Lulus.

"He pointed the following out to me: 'Not only do the Laws of Nature and of Reason permit such cleansing, but they make it obligatory. The preservation of the true Lala religion and of the highest forms of life, the Lalas, dictates 'cutting off' diseased instances of life and decaying parts of the social organism, just as doctors amputate a gangrenous limb. The doctors' amputation is dictated by Reason, just as our cleansing is.' "

I asked her, "What about the Lala children and babies. They cannot be treacherous. Such a claim is irrational."

She replied, "But they grow up into treacherous Lala adults."

I told her Ayn Rand's view of the laws of nature was not the same as hers. I explained her that Reason informed me, and all persons of Reason, of the equality of Lalas and Lulus.

She said, 'Had you grown up here, and experienced the treachery of Lulus that is basic to their nature, you would not be saying that.'

She asked me is I had known any Lulus personally, and I said, "no, but my Reason informs me about them, just as it tells me that Frenchmen and Englishmen are inherently equal."

She said, "Without direct experience of the matter, your Reason naturally has false premises to go on, hence its mistaken conclusion."

Then she rang off, and I had to call the Rand institute for debating advice. They informed me that you can't debate Evil and Irrational people.

Dodging and weaving, weaving and dodging. When you are disarmed that really all you can do, I guess.

 

[Pure]

dear roxy,

you've not demonstrated the strengths of your 'rational' and 'objective' approach on any of the issues. mere assertions of your certainty, clarity and might, simply do not 'cut it.'

hell, roxanne, you can't even tell why the following are wrong, based on your Randish principles. so who are you to lecture others on their moral armament?

1. paying adult full time workers less than a living (survival) wage.

2. the government leaving to mining companies decisions about what levels of pollutants their plants emit.

3. giving workers no recourse in the law where they are fired for undisclosed reasons, or based of race, religion, sex.

4. evicting tenants in an apartment building when the owner doesn't like their pets

5. lending money at a rate of 1%/day.

===
PS At least the Vatican's 'objective position' addresses and has a coherent stand on such social issues. Your position utterly lacks this.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

you've not demonstrated the strengths of your 'rational' and 'objective' approach on any of the issues. mere assertions of your certainty, clarity and might, simply do not 'cut it.'

hell, roxanne, you can't even tell why the following are wrong, based on your Randish principles. so who are you to lecture others on their moral armament?

1. paying adult full time workers less than a living (survival) wage.

2. the government leaving to mining companies decisions about what levels of pollutants their plants emit.

3. giving workers no recourse in the law where they are fired for undisclosed reasons, or based of race, religion, sex.

4. evicting tenants in an apartment building when the owner doesn't like their pets

5. lending money at a rate of 1%/day.

===
PS At least the Vatican's 'objective position' addresses and has a coherent stand on such social issues. Your position utterly lacks this.

You're making assertions of "right" and "wrong" again, Pure? By what standard do you say that a thing is right or wrong? Who are you to impose your version of right or wrong on anyone else?

Are you offering a standard? Or is it all just politics and power - I have it, you don't, you lose, too bad. Or vice-versa. Perhaps this is your standard: If you agree with me on issues of public policy, you're good. If you disagree, you're evil. Then comes the politics and power part.