So you're basically telling me that you agree they did the wrong thing, but you don't want to remedy it because you like it and folks are used to it. So I guess then if someone does something wrong, but it's good for us, then we shouldn't seek to remedy it. Nice principle to have that, no? — Agustino

I believe abortion is moral up to the end of the second trimester. I spent 7 years working in neonatal intensive care. My principles on the issue are firm and informed.

I don't care what is "American" or not. I care what is right and just. — Agustino

Then you have my respect even if we disagree.

. And no - my problem with abortion is that it's a MURDER which is used to justify sexual immorality - which is even worse than it just being murder. Killing a thief who attacks you is also murder, and yet that's in self-defense and clearly not a moral tragedy. So the fact that it's murder alone is not sufficient. — Agustino

Native Americans performed abortions before white people got here. They used one of my favorite plants to do it: mayapple. I doubt it had anything to do with justifying sexual immorality. More likely it was about what the tribe could support. Anyway.. there's not much point in our trying to come to agreement on this because you aren't likely to ever have any influence in my part of the world and I won't have any influence in yours. So we can definitely agree to disagree.

Ehmm nope, I don't think that follows at all :D — Agustino

I do. And this is where politics comes into play... or it would if we were in the same country. If we were both in the US, I'd tell you that I agree with Hanover that the SCOTUS overstepped its authority with Roe V Wade. But the ultimate effect is that abortion is now normalized in the US. When the vote comes to amend the constitution (and I could see that happening in the next 50 years or so), most Americans will agree that abortion is a right because they're used to it. I think if they held the vote today that's what the majority would vote.

I gather from what you've said that your main concern is not that abortion is murder, but that it seems to you to have something to do with sexual freedom. By and large, this isn't an American attitude. It exists here, but it's lunatic fringe.

how they can go on living in shame is beyond me, but I'll give you that it's hilarious. — Agustino

Cool. It's hilarious. Government has no role to play in it.

Well it is less controversial for sure I tend to think. For one, promiscuity is known in our Western heritage as a vice. Pretty much until the Sexual Revolution it was known in the modern world as a vice as well. — Agustino

Not really. Puritanism comes and goes. The oldest known literary work graphically details a sex act that went on for seven days. Woo Hooo!

The sexual revolution was one of many where we realized... oh yea, we're animals. No big deal. It does require some fortitude from men to accept a world where feminine power is not veiled (whether it's coming from a drag queen, a bona fide woman, or just some regular male feeding his kids or whatever).

Men who have psychological problems about women will be afflicted. I'm a woman, so I don't know what it's like to have that kind of problem, but I feel for anybody who struggles with mental illness.

But the basics are precisely what is controversial. Look at Michael for example. He disagrees because he doesn't agree there is any such thing as soul/spirit/psyche. That is more basic than abortion. The root of everything - in this case God - is even more controversial. — Agustino

And 'women shouldn't be promiscuous' isn't controversial? Move to Saudi if you feel that way, dude.

Stop worrying about what other people think and get straight what you think. That's what I was saying. Then just let what you say come from your heart. If it convinces, great. If it doesn't.. so be it.

New arguments aren't necessarily better. I'll say it again: your starting point is superficial. You come across as morally ambiguous. Start with basics. What is the foundation of your morality?

Does that imply that I am? — Agustino

No. I'm sure you're very sincere. But your explanation of a rightist attitude toward abortion doesn't strike me as having anything to do with the religious right nor mainstream rightism. Do what you will with that information. Peace :).

What do you mean? By necessary evil I meant a situation where all the choices one can make, lead to evil/harm. Do you not think there are such situations? — Agustino

Yes. I think there are, and that's the appropriate circumstances for using "necessary evil." It's tongue in cheek. But I assumed you were talking about the religious right's viewpoint. They aren't usually flippant about evil when addressing something as serious as murder (which is how they deem abortion.)

I don't know any moderate Republicans who favor outlawing abortion. It's usually religious people who do and they aren't necessarily rightist (although they may throw their lot in with rightists as a way to influence events.)

While both killings are immoral, one of them screams to the Heavens for justice, and the other one is just a necessary evil. — Agustino

Just as one human to another (as opposed to some ridiculous political crap), there is no such thing as a necessary evil. It's psychologically precarious to endorse such a thing.

And as for the religious right, their view involves something called "God centered." It means that everything in life should be approached with a sense of sacredness.

I'd advise that you not start with superficial stuff and work your way down to the basics. Start at the basics and come upward. That way you'll be more likely to get what's really cool, genuine, and meaningful about the right. I'm not very rightist, myself, but I have a lot of respect for what they bring to human life. I don't like to see that smeared with shit.

What's the stickiness of memes? I agree that Christians put some effort into reinforcing the Christian identity, but the religion had been around for centuries before that happened.

You're looking at a Gothic structure for which I'm insanely jealous. Ever read Otto Georg von Simson's book on Gothic architecture? I had a weird experience of that book.

Yes, I can't help imagining a a group of monkeys, or primitive humans sitting on a ridge in the Rift Valley, dreaming up complex patterns of grunts and interpretations of grunts, becoming gradually more sophisticated until they are organising themselves into religious and political groupings. Each pattern of grunts becomes a competing ideology with the most effective and persistent outliving the others and corralling the groups. And that we are still continuing the tradition, while imagining we are superior to this in some way. — Punshhh

But Christianity didn't exactly outlive the other worldviews that existed in its infancy. It absorbed them. I think that's generally how conversion works. If I want to convert you, I find out what's important to you and just swap names. Voila. You're converted.... maybe dunk you in water and then call you converted.

In that way, when people convert, they change the religion they're converting to. Chinese Buddhism has Taoism in it because Taoist words were used to translate it. Those words already had meaning in Taoism.

I think that Nietzsche did believe "reality" is chaos. It is becoming, not being. He believed that based on philosophical and scientific views he took from others. — Πετροκότσυφας

Why do you think this? I'm asking because I tend to be heavily reliant on a Schopenhauerian outlook when I'm interpreting N. I occasionally wonder if I'm taking that too far.

So is this a survival of the fittest in ideology, or perhaps survival of the most ingenious? — Punshhh

That's an interesting question. Metaphilosophy directed at Nietzsche, Freud, Marx, and Darwin as a group.

You might be right. It's a long time since I read Zarathustra. If God is for Nietzsche a product of the human psyche, then the historical event would presumably be the exorcism. Or else the moment in history when the zeitgeist of the thinking person can no longer take the 'sky-father' myth seriously. — John

It has to do with the topic of that Camus thread that was recently on the board. It's why positive atheism needs only a one word response: "Nihilism."

I figured you'd have a particular appreciation for Thus Spoke Zarathustra... part of it is like a play where all the characters are tarot trumps.

I don't know what Bayman is talking about. Divine Lawmaker? What?

I agree with the Hart quote.

just as he is rejecting with his "God is dead" any crude, objectivistic idea that the popular Judaeo-Christian religion of the "sky-father" reveals any transcendentally 'objective' truth or order. — John

I thought "God is dead" was supposed to be about an historical event.

I see what you mean. The need to be good blinds people. I think N's philosophy is multi-dimensional.

Apparently Bannon stated that darkness is good. He mentioned Darth Vader and Satan as examples. He's talking about power... but oddly he didn't mention Adolph. I think N would say Bannon is almost there.

I don't think so. His metaphysics is closer to Schopenhauer's. Did he equate life-giving with true? Of course not. That doesn't even make any sense. He had a mundane usage...basically what Wosret described and a transcendent truth that we reach for. As we lift off trying to grasp that greater truth we look down and see our selves in a vaster context. As we go to describe what we see we spout myths.

Along those lines...

I know of outlooks that equate the Good with the Beautiful. The True as well?

A work out for what I think is going on: global warming.

Bernie Sanders recently stated that unless we do something about global warming the planet will be "less healthy." This is an example of an imperative a reformer like Sanders would embrace with conviction. It's a belief recommended to the herd which is made of folks who want to be free of shame.

This is a case where the conviction formed by the desire to escape shame is powerful enough to block wonder. People can't question it because they'd risk losing the key to their shame-free status. Thus conviction is worse than a lie.

I'm not quite sure how determinism fits into it. I think that might be the truth that people don't want to face... or it's that truth which is potentially destructive (that N talked about.)

.

I was responding to what you said. You're either being disingenuous or you have multiple loose screws. I didn't really expect either of those from you. Weird.

Yep.

"But to stand in the midst of this rerum concordia discors and all the marvelous uncertainty and ambiguity of existence, and not to question, not to tremble with desire and delight in questioning, not even to hate the questioner -- perhaps even to make merry over him to the extent of weariness -- that is what I regard as contemptible..." -- Gay Science.

Our convictions will see us claim truth to a lie when it is right in front of us boldly proclaiming its dishonesty. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Could be. He seemed to think that losing your sense of humor is the worst thing that can happen.

Here Nietzsche calls his own conviction about the impossibility of not willing 'truth' and thereby gets it wrong — mcdoodle

Could you expand on this? Would that be called conviction?

Thorough answer, TS. Thanks!

Again, I don't think that he holds to this view, particularly not as a conviction, lol. — Wosret

Cool.

Earth to Hanover. Bannon is tolerant of intolerance. Why is he? Who cares? The president is a figurehead. He represents the US. People who object to Bannon's position object to the message it sends about what is and is not acceptable here. That's pretty obvious.

Liberals are unkind to Israel? No. Netanyahu is unkind to his own culture by presenting its ass to the world. Israel actually did victimize Palestinians in the 20th Century. To behave as if Israel is now the victim is a betrayal of those Palestinian victims and it's blatantly absurd.

Nietzsche denied the reality of universals, so that all concepts, or ideas were metaphors, which equate things that are inherently unequal, and are alive and useful only to the extent that they have sensuous power, or point to things in your own experience. — Wosret

Universals are dependent entities. That's kind of like saying they aren't real. But what about truth?

It became unhealthy — Bitter Crank

But the ideal never changes. It's just that we always end up falling short of it.

I was really happy when the SCOTUS opened the way for gay marriage. Some things about Trump disgust me. Those feelings are proximity-to-the-ideal detectors. The youthful are more likely to be burned alive by those feelings because they were just born and they still have a little bit of eternity to them... poetically speaking.

That "unquestionable dominance" remark was a joke. — Wosret

I know. My question came out of left field.. it's vaguely related to atheism,

All of the strength in the world won't bring you any closer to someone's heart. — Wosret

You're saying that what matters finally is love.

Okey doke. So far I love it.

What in particular (about either yourself or the world) draws your attention as you go to understand?

"Men go and come, but earth abides." Got the Kindle version. Thanks!

Do you know what Google is, and how to use it? ;) — Sapientia

I do. But it doesn't take the place of getting recommendations from real people. Best science fiction book you've read lately?

a particular pair of identical twins was born, and I was one of them. — Sapientia

You're an identical twin? Does your twin ever hang around this forum? If not, why not?

Well.. I'm guessing I know what you'd say about this, but I've never asked you before. It has to do vaguely with new atheists..

There are elements of D. Trump's background and that of some of his associates that relates to a sort of social application of the principle of survival of the fittest: It's the notion that if we help the down-trodden, we're screwing with human genetics in a bad way. Therefore, we should let people float or drown. It's some philosophy that mingles with whatever else underpins libertarianism.

What are your thoughts on that? Or was I too vague?

What the heck is SJW?

I found it hilarious earlier coming from Frankie Boyle (and guests). Frankie Boyle's American Autopsy on the BBC. Well worth a watch, in my opinion.

Oh, and I can answer the question you've been asking with a single word: curiosity. — Sapientia

I don't know who Frankie Boyle is. More power to him though.

Are you from a small town? From a big one? Large family? Orphan? What's the Sapientia tale?