Then your ideal living situation should be a fundamentalist Mormon compound in which 1st world luxuries such as... literacy, are a rare find, and grown men having 10 kids each with their ten 14-year old wives, were they were engaged to at the age of 10, should be your ideal of "civilization" and progress.
(snip)
Basically, if the premise of your idea is that "civilization" is measured by sheer numbers or rates of procreation, sans any other legal, moral, cultural, or philosophical notions, to me that seems to be a bad overall measure of a "civilization" and as well as it's "existence" or cessation thereof could or should be measured. — IvoryBlackBishop

I said nothing of the sort. Why do you put words in my mouth, like Kathy Newman in her famous "so you are saying...." interview with Jordan Petersen?
I simply pointed out the biological foundation of our sex drive. And that society depends on people having children... ideally 2.1 per couple. And that couples (i.e. monogamy) are a better choice to organize society than polygamy. I did not claim that there is no individual variety and room to accomodate that.
But at the current birthrates of e.g. 1.3 (Italy) and 1.5 (Japan), compared to what, 8 in Africa, just random examples, it is easy to see how Oswald Spengler is right. Human life span is about 80 years, depending on how we recreate society changes very rapidly indeed.

There is not need to get hysterial and make up exaggerated misquotes.

So again, this falls back on the monogamy argument, and how most relationship desires aren't reducible solely to the biological or purely 'physical', but are predicated on higher mental wants and institutions which make a 1st world country or civilization possible.

(For example, using birth control or "not cheating" on your spouse or partner, would be conscious mental or intentional efforts or goals which may ironically run contrary to the purely 'biological' ones, given that couples may still want to 'have sex' even when they're using birth control and the primary goal is physical intimacy rather than 'survival and procreation', or may decide not to cheat or have an affair, even though the "sex drive" does not distinguish between a man or woman one is married to, or physically attractive stranger, rather the mind does). — IvoryBlackBishop

I did not say that there not all sorts of psychological overlays, which is given since we are complex mammals. But none of this would exist without the sex drive being there in the first place, which is the basis for it all, and which is purely biological.
And by the way, as you correctly say, a lot of this self-oriented behaviour like using birth control etc. runs counter to the biological basis, and will lead to the self-elimination of the more complex societies, as we stop to reproduce.

Like Oswald Spengler said: "When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard 'having children' as a question of pro's and con's, the great turning point (for a civilization) has come."

Yes, that is correct. And I am entirely serious. I believe the received wisdom about Trump among the "intelligentsia" is completely wrong, as wrong as wrong can be. The hysterical opposition to him is literally insane, a mind-virus. — gurugeorge

TDS. Scott Adams had predicted that by now it would have been abated.... pretty much the only issue about which he has been wrong. If anything, it has gotten stronger. We are talking about a full-blown mass hysteria now. Orangeman baaaaad!

Slavery cant be outlawed by sharia law. — frank

Oh, you mean "can`t". Yes that is correct. So if slavery is really outlawed in Saudi, I assume the Wahabi clerics found an elegant way around it. Maybe they base it on the fact that is enslavement of muslims is illegal under shariah, and since Saudi citizens are muslim by law, that would appy for them.

Slavery cant be outlawed by sharia law. You're kind of clueless. — frank

Maybe, but you´d have to do a lot of interpretation for that. Can you show the source in the Koran, Sunna, or Haddith where it is forbidden?

And can we do without name-calling?

In practice, it's a subjective decision and innate. — IvoryBlackBishop

In what practise? You are talking about jail? In a normal situation, absolutely not. Sex drive is biological, it is survival of our (any any other) ambisexual species. XY needs to combine with XX to produce the next generation.... it is a fact, as un-PC as that might be regarded today.

What are the opinions on Trump's Tweets?
Do you think he writes them himself, or does have a paid campaign staff do it? — IvoryBlackBishop

Himself. Staff would produce something more slick and less effective.

You might want to check out Scott Adams on that topic, he has an interesting perspective.

Actually you asserted that there are places where sharia law is used alone. You pointed to Saudi as an example. Slavery is illegal in Saudi, so that tells you they aren't using sharia alone. — frank

They ARE using Sharia alone. As you busily and eloquently proved, Sharia is of course based on interpretation of the Koran, Sunna, and Haddiths by Sharia judges. If slavery is codified as illegal in Saudi, do they use another source for that than Sharia? If you know one, tell us.

Homosexuality. That takes care of 15% of the overflow of testosterone. Natural homosexuality. — god must be atheist

That is around 3% naturally, so not much of a solution, I am afraid.

For that matter, not every man or woman has the same 'sex drive' — IvoryBlackBishop

I did say that I was speaking about society a large. Of course there are large individual differences.
Are you saying that you think there is no basic difference between male and female sexuality?

The sources from which the Hanafi madhhab derives Islamic law are, in order of importance and preference: the Quran, and the hadiths containing the words, actions and customs of the Islamic prophet Muhammad (narrated in six hadith collections, of which Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are the most relied upon); if these sources were ambiguous on an issue, then the consensus of the Sahabah community (Ijma of the companions of Muhammad), then individual's opinion from the Sahabah, Qiyas (analogy), Istihsan (juristic preference), and finally local Urf (local custom of people). — Hisham M. Ramadan (2006), Understanding Islamic Law: From Classical to Contemporary, Rowman Altamira, ISB


The four main schools are all like that. No cleric needs to rule on it. The practice of codifying is a British intrusion.

Why is this important to you, anyway? — frank

That is not ijitihad. He is simply saying that they interpret the scriptures for a Sharia decision, which I also said. So why are you arguing? Ijitihad goes deeper, it is questioning the sources fundamentally.

And why is this important to you? I simply pointed out that there indeed are places where Sharia is the law today.

Even then, as per the higher mental wants notion, I don't totally buy that, I honestly believe any male who "has" to be a virgin is a pretty rare phenomenon, and that in the case of 'incels' it's some type of mania or mental disturbance (e.x. such as thinking he's entitled to marry Hollywood actresses instead of a more 'ordinary' girl' or whatnot). — IvoryBlackBishop

No. It is simply demographics. If the more powerful males all appropriate several females, that leaves a large number of incels in the population by definition. That does not mean they are all virgins (after all, there will always be prostituion), and that does not mean they all react the same. But on average, a surplus of unanswered male sex drive in society is not a good thing, unless the society is at war.

There really is no disagreement about this amont sociologists. I am not stating something original here. (Rather something pretty obvious, once look at society instead of just your personal life.)

I would abhor a system of slavery, per se, but to southern cotton farmers in the USA this posed no moral or ethical dilemmas whatsoever. — god must be atheist

I am always scratching my head about this American obsession with their slavery history. They did not invent slavery, their history is relatively short, and they ended it themselves. Why not address slavery where it exists in real life today, like in the slave markets in Libya, created by Hillary Clintons ill-advised destruction of the Gaddafi regime?

From societal perspective, monogamy is preferred, for it promotes stability. Of course andriarchies are stable too, when the ruling male has a stable of wifes and concubines. That's a form of polygamy. — god must be atheist

The natural birthrate being roughly 50/50, that by definition leaves a number of male incels, unless you limit the polygamy to the ruler only. And as I pointed out, male incels are source of aggression and instability i a society. You don´t want large amount of testosterone sloshing around, if you want stability.

From a personal perspective, polygamy or philandering, is preferred because you have a chance to produce offspring which has a chance to propagate your genes (the basic idea behind procreation). — god must be atheist

Sure, that the personal perspective. Obviously, you are male. We can´t escape our biolo

I don't know what the age of ijtihad is, and I'm not a Muslim, so I dont really care how they do it.
I just know that the predominant legal schools in Islam see ijtihad as essential to Sharia. — frank

I do not know where you "know" that from, but I have not seen that statement from any current leading cleric, either Sunni or Shia. Unless they define ijitihad in a very shallow way.

Traditionally by way of ijtihad. I'm not too interested in debating it. — frank

In both Sunni and Shia doctrine, the age of ijitihad is over. Again, I don´t know where your confusion is. Wishful thinking perhaps?

Much as from a cultural perspective with or without specifically invoking "religion" most would find that monogamy is superior to polygamy or 3rd world marital practices (often associated with ills such as lack of legal rights for women, child marriages, and things of that nature). — IvoryBlackBishop

Monogamy is preferrable to polygamy, because it promotes a stable society. Polygamy by definition leaves society with a lot of incels, which mean aggression and instabiliy, which is not something you want. (Unless you want a warrior society bent bent on external aggression, in which case large amounts of incels are desirable.)
The "llegal rights for women" and "child marriage" issues are related to modern, enlightened values like equality in front of the law.

Sharia isn't the Koran or Hadiths. It's a practice. Codifying bypasses this practice. — frank

Shariah is the practise of law based on the Koran, the Haddiths and the Sunna. When you base your legal system on Koran, the Haddiths and the Sunna, you have Shariah. Codifying that does not change that, it simply formalizes it. I don`t know where your confusion stems from.

a clear question (a few actually) was asked, in simple english — DingoJones

Post your "clear question in simple English".

Well, I read Benedict's book on Japan: The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. She didn't speak much about Christianity. — David Mo

No, but the context of her book was to contrast Japan`s society vs American one. And in the West, the moral system is linked to Christianity of course. Benedict was not comparing Japan to i.e. India or China, in which case she would have written the book slightly differently.

"Bernie" is unacceptable to the swamp, so he will of course be ditched. I don´t know why you people even debate this.... TDS again?

Afaik, I keep the popcorn ready for the show of furious Bernie supporters raising hell when he is sidelined.

This news today about Russian meddling in favor of Bernie just makes no sense whatsoever if Russia wants Trump to win. Unless the move is being made to offer plausible deniability. That's a stretch though... I mean... quite the stretch. — creativesoul

It makes completely sense if they prefer Bernie. And why wouldn´t they?
In the event, everybody is meddling in everybody elses affairs, so the this fake meddling hysteria is complete nonsense.

Slavery is moral then? It fits both those categories. — DingoJones

Depending on the moral system. I.e. in islam, yes slavery is completely moral.
All you do is underlining that it is society-dependent.

Guilt and shame are moral emotions. They happen inside man. But shame has an external source. Even imagined, you suppose an external observer that triggers your shame. You feel as if you were observed.
This is probably the most debated feature of the shame/guilt distinction. But it is generally considered useful. — David Mo

Agree.

Internal and external are also in the common definition I have provided here makes some comments. I would like not to introduce God here. — David Mo

"God" here is simply meant as something that you can not hide from or lie to. I did not imply Yahweh, Allah, or any of that sort, although in the context of Benedicts book she obviously referred to the Christian god.

They began codifying in 2010. See here — frank

It is still Shariah, and Shariah only. That they began codifying it does not change that. Your Wiki article does not reference any other sources than the Koran, Sunna, and Haddiths (i.e. Sharia) for the codified Saudi system. ISIS also "codified" Sharia, i.e. in their instruction manuals of how to handle sex slaves. Since the Koran, Sunna, and Haddiths (the sources for Sharia) are not structured as legal books, of course a Sharia judge will have to codify them.

Lol, ok. So an answer to my question? — DingoJones

I did not see a question. All I saw was that you changed your metaphor from "vanilla ice cream" to "cookies". You can change it to pickled fish if you want... that does not turn it into an argument.

the candidate with the most votes should receive the nominatio — Maw

Depends on if you define majority or plurality as "most votes". The Bernie fans take one position, the swamp the other.

Whatever happens, one thing is sure: American election circus is always interesting. I have stock up on popcorn.

Also, Im not arguing for or against free will. We can discuss that if you want but its not what Im getting at. — DingoJones

Do you read before posting? I simply pointed out that omniscience and free will are mutually incompatible.

Saudi doesn't use sharia alone. — frank

What else does Saudi use? Any reference?

Nobody uses sharia alone. — frank

Incorrect. Saudi Arabia and ISIS use Sharia alone. The Koran is the constitution there.

Are you restricted to a one paragraph reading limit? Respond to the rest of what I said. — DingoJones

The "rest of what you said" was:
For example, if offered vanilla or chocolate ice cream and I choose chocolate cuz I hate vanilla, thats my exercise of free will (if you believe we actually have it to start with). Foreknowledge doesnt change that, how would it (unless you share your foreknowledge with me and that effects my choice but then thats MY foreknowledge of my choice effecting things.)?

As I said, that is simply a re-statement of the claim, and not proof of anything. You san"Foreknowledge doesnt change that" and I say yes it does.

By the way, this question has been argued many times before (see Wikipedia entry on "argument from free will"), and I think you see which side I find convincing and which not. And trust me, others have presented your view better than you with your vanilla ice cream.

How about you address the rest of my post? The part you quoted is my claim, what follows is the reasoning for that claim. That reasoning is what you need to address. — DingoJones

The "reasoning for the claim" is a repetition of the same claim, not proof of any sort.
So again: Yes, me knowing what you are going to choose by definition means that what you going to chose is already determined, ergo no free will.

No they arent. Knowledge of what someone is going to choose to do doesnt effect whether or not they have a choice — DingoJones

Come again? If it is predetermined what you chose, how is it still a choice? Think!

I've been seeing a bunch of insults, so I cut and pasted all the names from the last few days. Apologies if I tarred you with a broad brush. — EricH

OK, but please try to do in future without making false attribution, like "alcontali" is so fond of. It really makes communication impossible.

Well, no, I just thought that Artemis objection was more interesting than your disconnected remark about (Barrack Obama's and Aung San Suu Kyi's ridiculous) Nobel prizes. — alcontali

I never said anything about Barrack Obamas and Aung San Kyuis ridiculous Nobel prizes. What are you talking about? Please try to do without misquotes and strawmen.

I should be used to it by now, but I continue to be dismayed at the level of personal invective in these conversations. There are no stupid people out here. Please criticize the ideas, not the person — EricH

Hey, hold the horses! What "personal invective" am I guilty of? Not been calling anybody names here, afaik. I am not into that. If you want say I am guilty of un-PC wrongthink, then yes I plead guilty.

Sorry, meant to say "not recognized". The Ahmediyya had the temerity of adding another spiritual leader after Mohammed, which makes them unacceptable for the others.

Well, Alcontali is quiet on the question of STEM Nobel prizes by muslim scientists, so let me answer..... drum roll..... the answer is 2 (TWO!).
And one of them is Ahmediyya, a sect which is recognized by either Sunni or Shia as "muslim".

Yep, obviously a trememdous love for STEMM in those pious societies!

If I define guilt as responsibility towards others based on a moral code, I do not know how I can be understood to be avoiding my responsibility in a social context.
And if I define shame as the de-valuation of self, I don't know how it can be moral. — David Mo

Well yes, you can do that. What I pointed out is that Ruth Benedict uses a different definition, which I find more useful. In her definition, guilt is internal and shame is external. To put it simply, you feel guilt towards a god figure, wheres you fell shame towards society.