Monday, July 29, 2013

Death of a woman

Greeve St is a pick up zone in St Kilda and the site of the murder.

Tracy Connelly is dead.  She was murdered at her work place last week. Few are surprised for her work place is frightening and dangerous.  No, Tracy did not fight in Afghanistan or walk a tight rope traversing the Grand Canyon.  She was a street sex worker in St Kilda.  And so another avoidable murder of a street sex worker occurred to apparent public indifference.  Her relatives will mourn the bubbly character taken too soon.  The rest of us, however, will shrug our collective shoulders, and many will think but not say out loud, “well what can one expect” and move on. 
Ms Connelly was murdered in a street across the road from mine.  It is a street where violence is not unknown and I am aware of several murders in the past decade.  These were not the quick clinical killings by bullet or lethal injection.  These were the slow, agonizing, awful murders by bashing or knife. 
It is a pick up zone for the street sex workers. Street sex work is illegal and this sets up these often vulnerable women for violence and sexual assault.  The police cannot easily protect a group in an illegal vocation.  I am sure that the police will vigorously pursue this murder investigation but there are ways bloodshed could be minimised. 
In 2002, I served on the Port Phillip Council and we finished a law reform process with the State government via the Attorney Generals’ Street Prostitution Advisory Group (AGSPAG) which included police, residents and one worker.  That law reform process was motivated ostensibly by activists in the community sick of the detritus of sex litter, the constant leering of the men and the public sex.  But there was another less publicised reason. In 2000 there were a string of unspeakable assaults, rapes and the occasional murder.  The situation was out of control and no council could abide such ferocity without trying to do something.  Remember that street sex workers are really vulnerable.  Street sex workers are often (but not always) drug dependent and that dependency is frequently seeded by sexual assault as kids.  So I sat on AGSPAG cognisant of both the concerns of the residents and the terror of the women.
People outside Melbourne might have heard of the rape and murder of Jill Meagher.  That murder has now exposed what was happening.  Her murderer was the main culprit.  In 2002, Adrian Bayley was prosecuted regarding 16 counts of rape committed between September 2000 and March 2001. He pleaded guilty to the charges, all of which were committed against prostitutes working in St Kilda.  Bayley had driven his victims to a lane behind a group of shops in Elwood, before parking against a fence so they could not open the passenger door.  http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bayleys-life-of-brutal-crime-20130611-2o1c1.html#ixzz2ZwpzTi3w
This information closed the circle for me. It was a partial explanation why there was such violence at the time of the AGSPAG process. Even though the Bayleys of the world may come and go, there is still an endemic culture of violence that rules street sex work. It needs to be addressed. And moreover, Bayley showed that those who assault prostitutes easily alter their MO to visit violence upon the wider community.  Women at large are not safe if they rely on the “Ripper Rationale” – murderers of sex workers are gentle with and respectful of the rest of the gender.  
This man has terrorised women in St Kilda and across Melbourne.
 The AGSPAG group chose the concept of “tolerance zones”.  (Remember in NSW, street sex work is lawful as long as it is not near or within view of a dwelling, school, church or hospital) Many other reforms were implemented but AGSPAG is known for the one infamous idea that failed to get up.  The rationale for these zones, places where street prostitution would be tolerated, was to limit the areas of prostitution, increase the monitoring and safety of the women and lessen the impact of the litter, public servicing and perceived intimidation from pimps.  There was a sense of unanimity when AGSPAG reported. http://www.popcenter.org/problems/street_prostitution/PDFs/Victoria_prostitution_2002.pdf
That unanimity dissolved in an instant when the community was consulted.  We made errors in the process but it was clearly controversial. If the bipartisan support at the State had stayed intact, the proposal might have been modified to an acceptable extent.  That did not occur. The Liberal Opposition went opportunistically ballistic and the Labor Government went weak at the knees. Moralistic hypocrisy prevailed and the flawed prohibition model is still with us today with all of its cruelty and inefficacy. The one chance we had to have a fundamental rethink of the safety both of the community and the sex workers has probably been lost for decades.  And so more lives will be lost and many women will be bashed and/or raped because sex workers apparently don’t matter.
It will not surprise you, but I blame the Abrahamic religions of the Judaeo Christian tradition.  These are faiths which are punitive.  They set up moralistic schemes where the evil are punished in some afterlife.  Sin is dealt with by prohibition not sophisticated harm minimisation techniques needed in a modern time where the prohibition exacerbates harm.  Drugs, prostitution and some socially stigmatised practices like abortion have their harms increased by legal prohibition.  These are biblical in their nature.  They are wrong.  I know that Mary Magdalene was perhaps a sex worker and that in St Kilda, churches do wonderful things for street sex workers.  But the ideology of the creeds still inform those who cannot cope with law reform.
The time has come to revisit this issue.  I know that the world will not mourn Tracy Connelly like we mourned Jill Meagher but they are both blameless women victims of appalling violence.  The Jill Meagher case, though not involving a sex worker, reminds us of the need to organise our community in such a way as to make it safer for sex workers.  Bayley has shown, those who assault sex workers can cross over and assault (and murder) the general public.  Thus this is an issue for both a vulnerable sub group and the whole female population.
 Tolerance zones are probably out of the question. At the last Council election, the notion of the zones was used as means criticising candidates.  The incumbents at State and local levels will not go near the idea.  A review is needed. The current prohibition model fails our most vulnerable and indeed the female gender.   

220 comments:

  1. As I said last time this issue came up - sex work should be legal but the reason for this is not harm minimisation.

    Certainly there will be harm minimisation when this happens and I trust that, despite setbacks, it will. Hopefully in time the criminal element, the manipulation and the violence will fade away as the job gets normalised. Nobody should be forced into the job any more than they should be prevented from doing it if they choose.

    But if you make "harm minimisation" the reason then you imply that there is something wrong with the profession and basically are supporting the same morality that you blame for the situation.

    As I said, sex work should be legal for the same reason that your profession and mine are legal. Because people should be free to pursue a profession as they choose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Robin,

      Yes I suppose you are right (in the sense of being correct not your political leaning). You are one of those people, I suspect a minority, who draw NO adverse inference on the vocation of prostitution. I think that is very progressive. I however argue harm minimisation to persuade not only progressives but people who do draw a moralistic inference on the profession. But that does not diminish the power of your point. Thanks.

      Dick

      Delete
  2. But I would be interested in hearing the nature of the objections. Do you have any link to the reasons the Liberal Opposition gave for turning against the idea? Or that the Labor Government gave for abandoning it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Robin,

      This is the most interesting question of all. There was not really a Lib/Lab divide but more an inner urban versus the rest divide. The Labour and Liberal inner urban members of Parliament were fine with reform. They were used to the complex social issues of the inner urban area. But the suburban MPs were absolutely opposed. Particularly the Bible Belt MPs from the swinging seats in Melbourne's outer east were shocked at the suggestion (notwithstanding that organised crime run illegal brothels in the suburbs). So I think that the Lib/Lab divide on social issues is redundant and that the inner urban / outer urban divide is more stark on the issues that face State governments.
      Dick

      Delete
    2. Yes, it is ironic isn't it that the thing the social conservatives effectively are working for is not to stamp out prostitution but to leave it in the hands of organised crime?

      Delete
    3. The same thing happens with the illicit drugs, and it all started with alcohol prohibition.

      Delete
    4. MalcolmS3:31 AM

      Prohibition is the cause of crime in both prostitution and drugs.

      No government regulations[minors are an exception] in prostitution and drugs = no criminals.

      The nanny state has been a disaster.

      Delete
    5. It wasn't the nanny state that thought of prohibition.

      Delete
    6. MalcolmS7:07 AM

      "It wasn't the nanny state that thought of prohibition"

      Yes, it was.

      It was the transition from a free society, where citizens were responsible for their own lives, to a statist society, where the state violated every aspect of a citizen's life that enabled prohibition.

      In the former prohibition was impossible and in the latter prohibition was mandated.

      Delete
    7. So help me out here - give me an example of a state where there was no prohibition.

      Delete
    8. 8x
      It was the transition from a free society, where citizens were responsible for their own lives...
      x8

      And now you know alllllll about the mythological land of lollypop where toolsheds were free to roam.

      Sleepy times now snookums. Would oo wike oor teddybear? ;) lol

      Delete
    9. Or, for that matter, any human society that we know of there there was no prohibition.

      Delete
    10. MalcolmS8:13 PM

      "So help me out here - give me an example of a state where there was no prohibition"

      ....

      "Or, for that matter, any human society that we know of there there was no prohibition"

      You have done so perfectly well yourself [Robin 1:22 PM].

      "Prostitution was legal in the Russian Empire [Christian] and when it became the Soviet Union [atheist] it became illegal" - [] my inclusions.

      Delete
    11. Hmm.. Malcolm does the lack of a particular prohibition in a society imply that there is no prohibition in that society?

      I think that you will find that in Imperial Russia quite a lot was prohibited - being Jewish and living in certain places for example.

      I asked for an example of a state or human society where there was no prohibition.

      Delete
    12. MalcolmS9:10 PM

      Robin: "I asked for an example of a state or human society where there was no prohibition"

      The closest was 18th/19th century USA.

      Delete
    13. "It was the transition from a free society, where citizens were responsible for their own lives, to a statist society, where the state violated every aspect of a citizen's life that enabled prohibition."

      There never was a 'free society' as you describe. There have always been prohibitions, even in hunter-gatherer tribes.

      Delete
    14. MalcolmS wrote: "The closest was 18th/19th century USA."

      Yes, the early libertarian settlements in the USA was a very interesting phenomenon.

      Delete
    15. MalcolmS10:03 PM

      Stranger: "There never was a 'free society' as you describe"

      I agree. But the freer the society the fewer the "prohibitions."

      "There have always been prohibitions, even in hunter-gatherer tribes"

      There were so many "prohibitions" in hunter-gatherer tribes that they stagnated for eons. A "tribal" culture is thoroughly collectivist. Everyone is completely answerable to "tradition" as interpreted by the chief or tribal elders.

      Delete
    16. "Everyone is completely answerable to "tradition" as interpreted by the chief or tribal elders."

      That didn't stop with farming.

      Delete
    17. MalcolmS10:15 PM

      Robin: ".. the early libertarian settlements in the USA was a very interesting phenomenon"

      True but, more importantly, so was the writing of the constitution and the formation of the USA as history's freest country.

      It was a product of the ideas of the Enlightenment - including belief in the efficacy of reason and individual[inalienable] rights. Essentially capitalism was the greatest political gift of the Enlightenment.

      Delete
    18. MalcolmS10:25 PM

      Stranger: "That didn't stop with farming"

      No, it didn't - it would even include the USSR.

      They simply replaced "tradition" with "class struggle."

      Modern forms of collectivism are just as barbaric and primitive as ancient tribal societies but without the excuse.

      Delete
    19. " Essentially capitalism was the greatest political gift of the Enlightenment."

      Capitalism was invented thousands of years ago.

      Delete
    20. MalcolmS6:43 AM

      No, it wasn't. In fact I would bet you don't know what capitalism is.

      Delete
    21. 8x
      Modern forms of collectivism are just as barbaric and primitive as ancient tribal societies but without the excuse.
      x8

      Just like the nobjectivist collective?

      Delete
    22. 8x
      The closest was 18th/19th century USA.
      x8

      lol
      Surely - given your proclivities - surely you would prefer the central american banana republics of the time? Far more in accord with your lubertarian values...


      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic

      Delete
    23. "No, it wasn't. In fact I would bet you don't know what capitalism is."

      Yes it was and it's a fact you don't know what capitalism means.

      Delete
  3. Oh and this bothered me a bit:

    "The current prohibition model fails our most vulnerable and indeed the female gender."

    I have been friends with few sex workers and they were not women. People forget that sex workers are not just female. Men on the streets are just as vulnerable when their work is illegal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once again you are correct. In my area there are women, transvestites and boys. The "trannies" seem to be the safest but I am sure there is heaps of violence. Ostensibly too they seem relaxed, laughing and having fun. But if a car load of hoons is looking to torment street sex workers, then I am sure the trannies get more than their fair share.
      Thanks again Robin.
      Dick

      Delete
  4. MalcolmS9:26 AM

    So the AGSPAG wants to encourage prostitution in some areas and prosecute it in others!!

    ROFLMAO

    Governments have not "solved" the alleged "problem" in the past.

    In fact the main problem is governments who think prostitution is a problem which should be solved!

    In a profession which dates back almost to the metaphorical Eve all I can say is good luck with that one Dick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS8:10 PM

      Read my first line.

      On one hand you are *opposing* prohibition.

      On the other hand you are *advocating* prohibitions to allegedly solve the problem.

      Delete
    2. 8x
      On the other hand you are *advocating* prohibitions to allegedly solve the problem.
      x8

      Oh, that must have been you I saw driving on the footpath the other day then twerplet?
      The funny part though was when you stopped at that cafe and had a dump on the table.

      What was that thing you were chanting? Something like "down with prohibitions"?

      Delete
  5. MalcolmS10:36 AM

    "It will not surprise you, but I blame the Abrahamic religions of the Judaeo Christian tradition. These are faiths which are punitive. They set up moralistic schemes where the evil are punished in some afterlife. Sin is dealt with by prohibition"

    So the ancient Egyptians, Persians, Chinese or pagan Greeks didn't have prostitutes?

    Also, prohibition of prostitution was practised in the "workers' paradise" of the [atheist] USSR with prostitutes being sent to the Gulags. They didn't manage to stop it there either!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255693/Last-pictures-life-iron-curtain-collapse-USSR.html

    Prostitution is eschewed by J/C traditionalists and atheists alike.

    Best you rethink that one Dick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You really don't get propaganda (oops sorry. P.R ) at all do you twerplet?

      Maybe that's why you've swallowed so much of it?

      Delete
  6. The breeding instincts of humans are still fairly primitive

    For instance, I've noticed that "controlling" the "carnal lusts" of others is the "carnal lust" of choice for many of the perpetually offended.
    And this reactionary lust is so much more intense when the immorality in question is happening "just outside the window"

    Add some juicy murders for icing and you get some sweet sweet lurrrve cake.

    Sex AND death? Yowsa!

    Nope. "Reality" porn aint going away

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS4:48 PM

      I don't think participants are in it for "breeding" toolshead.

      Although it's a great opportunity for idiotcatfetishists to earn a little pocket money :)

      Delete
    2. Would you like a banana?

      Delete
    3. MalcolmS8:06 PM

      Nah... don't like the taste of bananas.

      Although "toolshead" is a great name for a hooker :}

      Delete
    4. Silly.

      I didnt think - even for a second - that you were going to EAT it...

      Delete
    5. MalcolmS5:19 AM

      With a name like toolshead, I didn't expect - even for a second - that you did... :)

      Delete
    6. I just realised why you are so obsessed with toolsheds.

      Toolshed [n]
      A place where nobjectivists are cloned - See also lobotomy

      Look it up - its in your granddads dictionary

      Delete
    7. MalcolmS7:27 PM

      "Toolshed"[sic]??

      At no stage have I mentioned such a word.

      Handy hint: Extracting the banana may help ease your cognitive issues :)

      Delete
    8. Hmm.. More randy clones than Randian clones as I was always given to understand.

      Delete
    9. 8x
      At no stage have I mentioned such a word.
      x8

      Probably Just a little Freudian slip on your part. Nothing to worry about.

      8x
      Hmm.. More randy clones than Randian clones as I was always given to understand.
      x8

      ohhhh yeahhhhh.... Forgot about that..

      DEFINITE freudian slip then...

      So... Hows yer mum toolshed? ;)

      Delete
    10. Of course I am far too respectable to even know what I meant by my last comment.

      Delete
    11. MalcolmS9:28 PM

      I'm not respectable but have no idea either.

      Delete
    12. 8x
      I'm not respectable but have no idea either.
      x8

      Bit short of "tools" in the ol' "toolshed" are ya huh toolshed?

      No surprise there... ;)

      Delete
    13. Possibly I am showing my age. Are there still clones?

      Delete
    14. MalcolmS7:13 AM

      "Possibly I am showing my age. Are there still clones?"

      Er... is there a connection?

      Delete
  7. " I know that Mary Magdalene was perhaps a sex worker "

    No, all you know is the propaganda told by the Church.

    " The incumbents at State and local levels will not go near the idea. "

    Of course not, they are conservatives, and the others pander to conservatives.

    "The current prohibition model fails our most vulnerable and indeed the female gender. "

    Politicians don't care if prohibition doesn't work, they just want to remain in power and the idiot electorate wants prohibition because they are idiots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OH STRANGER YOU PUT THE CASE STRONGLY AND PERSUASIVELY. DICK

      Delete
  8. Sex is one of the major social engineering tools of the pious.

    That is why a lot of these unfortunate incidents are blown out of all proportion by the media.

    Scare the bejesus out of the sheep so that they stay in their pens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. goblin shark wrote: "Sex is one of the major social engineering tools of the pious"

      That certainly seems to be gross simplification.

      Take a look at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_by_country and see how the largely pious South American countries compare to officially atheistic regimes like China.

      Prostitution was legal in the Russian Empire and when it became the Soviet Union it became illegal.

      Delete
    2. Robin: Take a look at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_by_country and see how the largely pious South American countries compare to officially atheistic regimes like China.

      You’ve made the same error that Mal is fond of making. It would have made the same sense had you replaced the word ‘atheistic’ with ‘vegetarian’. Whatever China’s policy on sex may be, it has as little to do with its population’s atheism as with their diet.

      And I’m wondering what point you’re trying to make by directing us to this link. Are you suggesting that the more religious a population is the more liberal-minded it will be about sex?

      Delete
    3. MalcolmS8:17 PM

      Terry: "Whatever China’s policy on sex may be, it has as little to do with its population’s atheism as with their diet"

      How do you know?

      You are the one who claimed that "evidence can’t prove a thing true, it can only prove it false."

      It applies to your own statements too.

      On the basis of your own premises the above assertion can simply be dismissed without further discussion.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Terry, as I am always having to point out to you it is helpful to read what I said.

      It is also helpful to not pretend I said things I didn't say.

      If you read what goblin shark said and what I said in reply to him my point is clearly that the claim that "Sex is one of the major social engineering tools of the pious" is a gross simplification.

      Again I have to ask by what bizarre process of illogic did you get from that statement to "...the more religious a population is the more liberal-minded it will be about sex?"

      I mean for crying out loud, that is an absolutely insane interpretation of what I said.

      Delete
    6. Robin: ... as I am always having to point out to you it is helpful to read what I said.

      Don’t flatter yourself. You have yet to write anything that I’ve found helpful.

      Robin: It is also helpful to not pretend I said things I didn't say.

      I’m not pretending. I meant what I said.

      Robin: ... my point is clearly that the claim that "Sex is one of the major social engineering tools of the pious" is a gross simplification.

      No, your point is not clear, which is why I asked you to clarify. And when you have clarified, I will be able to interpret, and only then can you decide if my logic is bizarre or my interpretation insane.

      I note, by the way, that your shrill response excluded any reference to the main point of my post which was to draw attention to your error in thinking atheism has anything to do with China’s policy on prostitution.

      Delete
    7. Mal: On the basis of your own premises the above assertion can simply be dismissed without further discussion.

      Yes, so you’ve said, repeatedly, but with little effect. Feel free to dismiss this and anything else I have to say. I’ll try not to lose any sleep over it.

      Delete
    8. Terry wrote: "Don’t flatter yourself. You have yet to write anything that I’ve found helpful"

      Which does not mean anything because I have yet to write something that you have given any indication of having read.

      Terry wrote: "I note, by the way, that your shrill response excluded any reference to the main point of my post which was to draw attention to your error in thinking atheism has anything to do with China’s policy on prostitution. "

      Yes Terry, I excluded any reference to what you *pretended* I said and instead pointed out what I *actually* said.

      What part about that don't you get? Really?

      Delete
    9. Are you seriously asking me to respond to your straw man as though it was what I actually said?

      Delete
    10. Let's see if we can get some focus here.

      The claim under consideration is:

      "Sex is one of the major social engineering tools of the pious."

      I have said that the above is a gross simplification. That is all.

      To support this I showed data that many religious countries have and historically have had more liberal laws regarding prostitution than atheist countries.

      Delete
    11. Robin:

      You’re fooling yourself. Why did you include the word ‘atheistic’ in your description of China if you didn’t want us to infer a link between it and China’s policy on prostitution?

      Now you’re evading the main point of my second post, which was to get you to answer the question I asked in the first post.

      You’re slippery, aren’t you?

      Delete
    12. MalcolmS10:31 PM

      Terry: "Feel free to dismiss this and anything else I have to say"

      Yes, I have done so.

      "I’ll try not to lose any sleep over it"

      Your sleeping habits are of no concern either.

      Delete
    13. Terry wrote: "You’re fooling yourself. Why did you include the word ‘atheistic’ in your description of China if you didn’t want us to infer a link between it and China’s policy on prostitution?"

      Again, you will have to show me what part of this you are having trouble with.

      Have you read goblin sharks original claim?

      Terry wrote: "Now you’re evading the main point of my second post, which was to get you to answer the question I asked in the first post."

      The main point of your post was to get me to answer a claim I have clearly never made.

      Terry wrote: "You’re slippery, aren’t you?"

      How is patiently sticking by what I originally said in the face of attempts to claim I said otherwise "slippery"?

      I mean for crying out loud what don't you get about it?

      Delete
    14. Trying to pin down your misunderstanding here Terry.

      Say there is a claim of a link between X and Y.

      The claim is doubted because often X happens without Y and that Y happens without X.

      Does that represent, to you, a counter claim of a negative link between X and Y?

      Delete
    15. Robin: To support this I showed data that many religious countries have and historically have had more liberal laws regarding prostitution than atheist countries.

      No, what you presented were data showing where in the world prostitution is legal or not. They say nothing about ‘religious’ or ‘atheist’. That's your interpretation of the data. And the question is what do you mean by this interpretation? Are you suggesting that religious populations have more liberal attitudes to prostitution than atheist populations? Because if you do, it’s you who has the bizarre logic and insane interpretation.

      Delete
    16. Robin: I mean for crying out loud what don't you get about it?

      Are you always this hysterical?

      Robin: The claim is doubted because often X happens without Y and that Y happens without X.

      You’re not pickin’ up what I’m puttin’ down. The data do not show that ‘X happens without Y and Y without X’. They merely show where in the world prostitution is legal. It’s only by your addition of the words ‘religious’ and ‘atheist’ that the data appear to show X happens without Y and Y without X. That is, you have made an interpretation of the data. And it is fair to ask how and why.

      Delete
    17. Terry wrote: "Are you always this hysterical?"

      Only when debating people who are this dense.

      Delete
    18. Terry wrote: "Are you suggesting that religious populations have more liberal attitudes to prostitution than atheist populations?"

      No of course I am not suggesting that. I have never said that. I have never said anything that remotely implies that.

      Delete
    19. Terry wrote: "You’re not pickin’ up what I’m puttin’ down."

      Cos I don't have a poops scooper.

      Delete
    20. Let's see if we can pin down your misunderstanding here again:

      Terry wrote: "Are you suggesting that religious populations have more liberal attitudes to prostitution than atheist populations?"

      Now, do you understand that to suggest that there is not a link between X and Y does not in any way constitute a claim of a negative link between X and Y?

      Delete
    21. Just for example, if someone said "a watched pot never boils" and I point out that watched pots do boil, would you then accuse me of claiming a link between watching the pot and the water boiling???

      Delete
    22. Because that is basically what you keep asking me.

      Delete
    23. So let's get this clear.

      Disputing that there is a link between two things does not in any way constitute a claim of an inverse or different link between them.

      Delete
    24. And in case this is not clear, evidence against a link does not have to demonstrate an inverse or different link.

      It only needs to be evidence against a link.

      Delete
    25. "That certainly seems to be gross simplification.

      Take a look at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_by_country and see how the largely pious South American countries compare to officially atheistic regimes like China."

      Robin, as I am always having to point out to you it is helpful to read what I said.

      It is also helpful to not pretend I said things I didn't say.

      I didn't say that other ideologies don't use sex as well.

      I thought this thread was dead.
      My original post went without reply for nearly a week.

      Absence of dates does not help.




      Delete
    26. Robin: Only when debating people who are this dense.

      I’ll remind you of this the next time you bleat about an ad hominem.

      Robin: … if someone said "a watched pot never boils" and I point out that watched pots do boil …

      That’s not what you did. Goblin said the pious use sex as a social engineering tool. You presented maps showing where in the world prostitution is legal. And then you tried to force a contradiction by adding your opinion that the countries where it is legal are ‘religious’ and those where it isn’t legal are ‘atheist’. By doing that you effectively made a counter claim.

      Delete
    27. goblin shark wrote: "I didn't say that other ideologies don't use sex as well."

      But you did single one out which seems to suggest that you were implying piety was a factor, not just that there are those who use sex as a tool of social engineering who happen also to be pious.

      In that case it is reasonable to show that there are significant cases where this pattern does not hold.

      As I said in my original comment I think the situation is a good deal more complex.

      Delete
  9. Mal: Your sleeping habits are of no concern either.

    That’s no surprise. After all, you've got that banana to keep you company.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS11:54 PM

      Terry: ".. you've got that banana to keep you company"

      On the basis of your own premises the above assertion can simply be dismissed without further discussion.

      Delete
    2. This comment was removed by the United Banana Grower's Association.

      Delete
    3. Mal: On the basis of your own premises the above assertion can simply be dismissed without further discussion.

      I think you’re confusing ‘assertion’ with ‘insertion’, banana boy.

      Delete
    4. MalcolmS8:24 PM

      Terry: "I think you’re confusing ‘assertion’ with ‘insertion’"

      On the basis of your own premises the above assertion can simply be dismissed without further discussion.

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. RalphH 02/084:18 AM

    “It will not surprise you, but I blame the Abrahamic religions of the Judaeo Christian tradition. These are faiths which are punitive. They set up moralistic schemes where the evil are punished in some afterlife. Sin is dealt with by prohibition not sophisticated harm minimisation techniques needed in a modern time where the prohibition exacerbates harm. Drugs, prostitution and some socially stigmatised practices like abortion have their harms increased by legal prohibition. These are biblical in their nature. They are wrong. I know that Mary Magdalene was perhaps a sex worker and that in St Kilda, churches do wonderful things for street sex workers. But the ideology of the creeds still inform those who cannot cope with law reform.” (Dick – introductory article)

    Dick, I question that the Christian religion is “punitive” where it is guided by Christ's teachings rather than faulty human interpretations. Christ taught morality because immorality deadens and destroys the good in human minds enslaving them in behaviour that is it's own punishment. There is no imposed punishment in the afterlife, only the self chosen punishment of loving to commit sinful, immoral actions on one's fellows.

    Sin literally means 'to miss the mark' or to deviate from the path of righteousness/what is right. There is only one way to attain happiness (the opposite of discontent and harm) and that is by following the path of goodness. IMO, this is what Christ taught - not a punitive response (examples – the story of the adulteress in John 8 and Jean Valjean's kind treatment of Fantine in 'Les Miserables' ).

    When the chief priests and elders of the Jewish Church questioned Jesus' authority he told a simple story of a man with two sons and the importance of living the truth as being the way to get back on track and attain salvation. Even that “tax collectors and harlots” who believed and relented were saved. (see Mat 21:23, 27-32), Christ's way, regardless of how various people have abused his teachings, was/is the way of forgiveness and redemption, not one of “punitive” measures.

    There is nothing redemptive about prostitution. It's a dehumanising evil that creates an illusion based on external, short-term, sensual pleasures – a world of no commitment that will tend to attract other evils from jealousy to murder. Unfortunately in today's world in it's fallen state, where little is known about the purpose of sex and the purpose of life (despite what the Bible teaches about both) it has become a necessary evil in preventing worse evils like rape and sexual domination.

    I don't see any positives from legalising street soliciting but legalised brothels under strict regulation and supervision are an option. A side effect of legalising public soliciting is that it gives the false (educational) message that prostitution is OK, not a problem and not problem creating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "There is only one way to attain happiness (the opposite of discontent and harm) and that is by following the path of goodness. IMO, this is what Christ taught "

      What do you mean by 'attain happiness'? Just because it's your opinion doesn't mean we have to believe you.

      "There is nothing redemptive about prostitution."

      Judge not..

      " a world of no commitment that will tend to attract other evils from jealousy to murder. "

      A world of no commitment wouldn't lead to jealousy (in relationships) at all, it would remove it.

      "where little is known about the purpose of sex and the purpose of life"

      What ever you make up the reasons are is not based on reality.

      " it has become a necessary evil in preventing worse evils like rape and sexual domination"

      Prostitution does not stop rape, as rape is not about sex.

      " it gives the false (educational) message that prostitution is OK, not a problem and not problem creating."

      Prove it causes a problem.

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS7:38 AM

      RalphH: "I don't see any positives from legalising street soliciting but legalised brothels under strict regulation and supervision are an option"

      Why is government "strict regulation and supervision" better than free/privately run brothels? What makes the government an expert in the field? Look how the Nanny State has stuffed up education, health and the economy in one country after another.

      "A side effect of legalising public soliciting is that it gives the false (educational) message that prostitution is OK, not a problem and not problem creating"

      Laws have nothing to do with "educating" the citizens. Valid laws recognise the right of adults to live by their own values providing they don't initiate the use of force against others. That includes the right to be a prostitute, the customer of a prostitute, a pimp, brothel owner, etc. Government has no special fiat on whether such activities are moral/immoral. That concerns only those who choose to be involved.

      Only primitives would advocate Sodom and Gomorrah type "solutions" to make us follow "the path of goodness" or to correct "today's world in it's fallen state." On such issues religion is the domain of loonies.

      Delete
    3. Mal: What makes the government an expert in the field?

      You’re so 1980s. It’s cute. But it also shows your age. People have forgotten the Cold War. They’ve moved on from that free-market crap. These days we talk about ‘bounded rationality’ and how governments limit complexity in regulated markets by limiting choice and thus helping the regulated to make better decisions. Its interesting stuff but maybe a bit too interesting for you.

      Delete
    4. 8x
      ...today's world in it's fallen state...
      x8

      Thanks r-elf-ie.

      I dont need to visit the butcher now. Already a plentiful supply of tripe here

      Delete
    5. Ralph: Unfortunately in today's world in it's fallen state, where little is known about the purpose of sex and the purpose of life (despite what the Bible teaches about both) it has become a necessary evil in preventing worse evils like rape and sexual domination.

      Easy there, Ralph. Government intelligence agencies have eyes everywhere, you know. Anymore weirdness of this sort from you and they’ll send their anti-terrorist squad round to check you out.

      Delete
    6. MalcolmS8:09 PM

      Terry: "Mal... You’re so 1980s. It’s cute. But it also shows your age"

      Oh, I'm much older than you realise. My favourite historical periods are Socratic ancient Greece and 16th/17th century America. I've been around for millennia.

      "People have forgotten the Cold War"

      Then they'll repeat it.

      "They’ve moved on from that free-market crap"

      The greatest era of political freedom and raised living standards in history.

      "These days we talk about ‘bounded rationality’"

      Translation: these days we ban freedom of speech.

      ".. and how governments limit complexity in regulated markets by limiting choice.."

      As in North Korea.

      ".. and thus helping the regulated to make better decisions"

      As in North Korea.

      "Its interesting stuff but maybe a bit too interesting for you"

      No wonder you cling to your government job. It's a stepping-stone to one in a future Gestapo. We know you'll love it.

      Delete
    7. MalcolmS8:11 PM

      Terry: "Easy there, Ralph. Government intelligence agencies have eyes everywhere, you know. Anymore weirdness of this sort from you and they’ll send their anti-terrorist squad round to check you out"

      Mark, learn and inwardly digest Ralph.

      The crank means it.

      Delete
    8. "The greatest era of political freedom and raised living standards in history."

      As long as one was in charge, worker's lives weren't improved much.

      "Translation: these days we ban freedom of speech."

      Translation: I don't know what you mean so I will say something stupid.

      Delete
    9. MalcolmS9:17 PM

      Stranger: "worker's lives weren't improved much"

      Workers lives were dramatically improved.

      From: "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"

      "Never mind the low wages and the harsh living conditions of the early years of capitalism. They were all that the national economies of the time could afford. Capitalism did not create poverty - it inherited it. Compared to the centuries of precapitalist starvation, the living conditions of the poor in the early years of capitalism were the first chance the poor had ever had to survive. As proof - the enormous growth of the European population during the nineteenth century, a growth of over 300 per cent, as compared to the previous growth of something like 3 per cent per century"

      Delete
    10. RalphH 03/0810:17 PM

      “Easy there, Ralph. Government intelligence agencies have eyes everywhere, you know. Anymore weirdness of this sort from you and they’ll send their anti-terrorist squad round to check you out.” (Terry5:34 PM)

      Is that meant to be cryptic Terry. I can't see any connection to what I said. No wonder Robin has been having so much trouble trying to explain things to you.

      Delete
    11. Mal:

      Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for capitalism. It has its problems and limitations, but it’s still the best economic system ever invented. I just don’t like your version of it, free-market capitalism. And if you hadn’t had your head buried in the 16th century, and noticed that free-market ideologues almost brought the planet to its knees a few years ago, you’d most surely feel the same way.

      Delete
    12. Ralph: Is that meant to be cryptic Terry. I can't see any connection to what I said. No wonder Robin has been having so much trouble trying to explain things to you.

      No, mate, it was meant to be crystal clear. But never mind, the confusion will pass. Eventually. And I’m sure Robin feels much better now that someone with your mental acuity shares his difficulties.

      Delete
    13. MacolmS11:36 PM

      Terry: "Mal: Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for capitalism"

      That's a lie if I ever heard one. In fact you haven't a clue what it is.

      "It has its problems and limitations, but it’s still the best economic system ever invented"

      It is not an "economic system." In capitalism there is a total separation of state and economics. It has no "problems or limitations."

      Definition: Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

      "I just don’t like your version of it, free-market capitalism. And if you hadn’t had your head buried in the 16th century, and noticed that free-market ideologues almost brought the planet to its knees a few years ago, you’d most surely feel the same way"

      Totally false. The so-called "world financial crisis" was a crisis of the regulated economy and not of capitalism. There has been nothing like capitalism in any country [except maybe Hong Kong] since the 19th century. What we have had for the last century are "mixed economies" - a mixture of freedoms and controls with the controls increasing and freedoms decreasing. The actions of governments were the cause of the WFC - not business. The next one is just around the corner. Hope it cleans out your super :)

      Delete
    14. RalphH 03/0811:40 PM

      “Why is government "strict regulation and supervision" better than free/privately run brothels? What makes the government an expert in the field? Look how the Nanny State has stuffed up education, health and the economy in one country after another.” (MalcolmS7:38 AM)

      Malcolm, some things fairly obviously lend themselves to free enterprise and others don't. Would you put the police force or the army up for the highest bidder? Prostitution is not something that any sensible person intent on more than merely their own personal pleasure would want or pursue. It is something that rational, responsible people see as harmful to society at large and to those who indulge it. (Note that Dick is arguing for “harm minimisation” obviously from the belief that there is harm involved.)

      Prostitution is a tolerated behaviour, not one that is primarily for the good of society but countenanced to recognise human ignorance and weakness and to try to minimise more harmful abuses. The aim is to minimise the behaviour through education which would make it unviable as a business venture to say nothing of the potential harm from organised crime and corruption.

      “Laws have nothing to do with "educating" the citizens. Valid laws recognise the right of adults to live by their own values providing they don't initiate the use of force against others.”

      Laws are enacted by government representing (hopefully) the wisest of the citizens. There will be a range of personal values many of which will conflict. It's the job of the government to determine which values are the best for the society as a whole.

      “That includes the right to be a prostitute, the customer of a prostitute, a pimp, brothel owner, etc. Government has no special fiat on whether such activities are moral/immoral. That concerns only those who choose to be involved.”

      Everyone is involved (or affected) if immoral activity is permitted. That's why it needs to be under controlled conditions. Would you want your beautiful little girl getting the message that hooking is a great, worry-free money-spinner? Or you handsome son who desperately wants to become a real man that being a 'customer' or a pimp would help to make him so?

      “Only primitives would advocate Sodom and Gomorrah type "solutions" to make us follow "the path of goodness" or to correct "today's world in it's fallen state." On such issues religion is the domain of loonies.”

      I certainly haven't suggest any such thing. The Sodom and Gomorrah scenario is a metaphor for what happens to the mind that becomes ruled by lust and selfishness.

      Delete
    15. "Workers lives were dramatically improved."

      Not until laws were brought in to stop exploitation.

      "the enormous growth of the European population during the nineteenth century, a growth of over 300 per cent, as compared to the previous growth of something like 3 per cent per century""

      There were also other factors like medicine and population density.

      Delete
    16. "The so-called "world financial crisis" was a crisis of the regulated economy and not of capitalism"

      False, it was caused by deregulation of banks and other financial institutions.

      Delete
    17. "Prostitution is not something that any sensible person intent on more than merely their own personal pleasure would want or pursue."

      Seeing you aren't a sensible person how would you know?

      " It is something that rational, responsible people see as harmful to society at large and to those who indulge it."

      If you were rational about it you'd be able to show why it is such a danger to society.

      "Everyone is involved (or affected) if immoral activity is permitted."

      What you think is immoral may not be for everyone else.

      "The Sodom and Gomorrah scenario is a metaphor"

      Anything in the Bible that has God killing people you think is a metaphor because you can't handle the idea that your God is not the loving benevolent being you want him to be.

      Delete
    18. 8x
      As proof - the enormous growth of the European population during the nineteenth century, a growth of over 300 per cent,
      x8

      Gotta say, I really do agree with strangler. You are fucking stupid.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agricultural_Revolution
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory

      8x
      Definition: Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.
      x8

      No it isnt you fuckwit. Its based on the accumulation of surplus CAPITAL for reinvestment.

      FFS, I've met chickens with more brains than you.

      Delete
    19. MalcolmS1:10 AM

      Stranger: "False, it [World Financial Crisis] was caused by deregulation of banks and other financial institutions"

      Actually it was the other way around. I suggest you educate yourself Andrew.

      http://capitalism.aynrand.org/yaron-answers-what-should-the-government-have-done-during-the-2008-financial-crisis/

      Delete
    20. 8x
      Totally false. The so-called "world financial crisis" was a crisis of the regulated economy and not of capitalism.
      x8

      Wrong again toolshed. It was a crisis of multiple moronic misunderstandings about money and human nature of which your idiocy is a prime illustration.

      You need to get a job.
      Doing what however, christ only knows.
      Just as long as you're not doing it near anything complex, fragile or valuable.

      Delete
    21. "Gotta say, I really do agree with strangler"

      I'd like to point out the l is silent and my part of the family dropped it ages ago.

      Delete
    22. 8x
      I'd like to point out the l is silent ...
      x8

      Sorry strangller I'll remember for next time. ;)

      Delete
    23. "Sorry strangller I'll remember for next time."

      That's the Welsh branch ;)

      Delete
    24. 8x
      "Everyone is involved ... if immoral activity is permitted."
      x8

      Me too?
      Yippee!!

      Delete
    25. RalphH 03/086:39 AM

      “Seeing you aren't a sensible person how would you know?” (Stranger11:57 PM)

      So Stranger, judging from your next response “If you were rational ….... you'd be able to show why” you claim that I “aren't a sensible person”.

      “If you were rational about it you'd be able to show why it (prostitution) is such a danger to society.”

      Ditto my previous response with “sensible” changed to “rational”.

      “What you think is immoral may not be for everyone else.”

      That sentence would make sense if you wrote something like, “What you think is immoral may not be thought so by someone else.” As you wrote it it makes zero sense.

      “Anything in the Bible that has God killing people you think is a metaphor because you can't handle the idea that your God is not the loving benevolent being you want him to be.”

      Or one could (much more likely) admit that if one can't handle the idea that God is a loving benevolent being (by far the over-riding message of the Bible) and don't want him to be so, one could convince oneself that the references to God's killing people should be understood literally even though such a silly belief creates a ridiculous conundrum and paradox.

      I refer you back to LJ's comment on the last thread about confirmation bias. A great exponent of this close-minded type of thinking is a certain Richard Dawkins.

      Delete
    26. MalcolmS7:27 AM

      idiotcatfetishist: "No it isnt[sic] you fuckwit. Its[sic] based on the accumulation of surplus CAPITAL for reinvestment"

      As usual you are quite wrong. Capitalism is not just about economic issues. It has many attributes of which *individual rights* is the most fundamental, i.e., the attribute which best explains the rest and is, therefore, definitional.

      Not surprised you didn't know that :)

      Delete

    27. 8x
      i.e., the attribute which best explains the rest and is, therefore, definitional.
      x8

      Nice piece of goofy there toolshed. Its right up there with the invention of splints allowing legs to be broken and the invention of the spare tyre allowing punctures to occur.

      Youre nothing but another disillusioned socialist. But all you idiots have done in response is to replace the word "socialism" with "capitalism" and claim the magic is working.
      Newsflash for morons: The lemonade seas of your wet dreams are as ridiculous a fantasy as ever.

      Still, I suppose its[sic] a change from christians[sic] shoving magic jesus[sic]into every gaping orifice of reality.

      "Capitalism" of the gaps? Its humourous, but not much else.

      Delete
    28. "So Stranger, judging from your next response “If you were rational ….... you'd be able to show why” you claim that I “aren't a sensible person”."

      Ralph all your posts show you aren't a sensible person.

      "Ditto my previous response with “sensible” changed to “rational”."

      So you can't prove that prostitution is dangerous top society.

      "That sentence would make sense if you wrote something like, “What you think is immoral may not be thought so by someone else.” As you wrote it it makes zero sense."

      It makes perfect sense if one is smart enough not to need to be told every little thing.

      "I refer you back to LJ's comment on the last thread about confirmation bias."

      It's you who has the confirmation bias Ralph, as evidenced by your need to make bad things that God does go away.

      Delete
    29. Mal: Hope it cleans out your super.

      That’s not very nice, even by your low standards. But obviously you think super is important. I like the irony of a retired free-market ideologue enjoying the fruits (bananas?) of a government intervention in the market.

      Luckily for me, and unlike you, I won’t need super in my retirement. I created my wealth all by myself in the real economy.

      Mal: The so-called "world financial crisis" was a crisis of the regulated economy and not of capitalism.

      Who said anything about capitalism? Not me. I said it was a crisis of free-market ideology, which is another way of saying that we allowed monumentally stupid people with monumentally stupid ideas to do monumentally stupid things.

      Delete
    30. MalcolmS8:13 AM

      Terry: "I like the irony of a retired free-market ideologue enjoying the fruits (bananas?) of a government intervention in the market"

      Except that it doesn't apply to me.

      What ever made you think it did?

      "I won’t need super in my retirement. I created my wealth all by myself in the real economy"

      Which won't survive future WFCs :)

      Delete
  12. RalphH 03/0810:50 PM

    *Never mind the low wages and the harsh living conditions of the early years of capitalism. They were all that the national economies of the time could afford. Capitalism did not create poverty - it inherited it. ….* (MalcolmS9:17 PM)

    So why did so many of the early landowners/capitalist employers become so fabulously wealthy while their employees remained below the poverty line and lived in cramped, squalid conditions where previously they had at least lived in the countryside. They probably bred more because they had few pleasures or distractions after than long, tedious working days. It was probably encouraged to provide an endless supply of cheap labour.

    Laissez-faire capitalism unfortunately makes good bed-fellows with human greed wherever those in charge do not have society oriented principles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS7:09 AM

      RalphH: ".. their employees remained below the poverty line and lived in cramped, squalid conditions where previously they had at least lived in the countryside"

      Are you serious? Living in the countryside did not make them live longer. Those people lived under Christian feudalism where 50% of children died at birth, average life expectancy was 20 years and where you worked for 16 hours a day for the price of a bowl of gruel and spent the remaining 8 hours praying that the devil wouldn't steal it from you! Furthermore, their Christian masters insisted that poverty was a high Christian virtue and, like you, that "human greed" and wealth creation was a sin for which they would rot in Hell. It's you who deserves to rot in Hell.

      Nor were they forced to work in the newly emerging city factories. They did so eagerly and freely since they were much better off than working under the feudal master.

      "They probably bred more because they had few pleasures or distractions after[sic] than long, tedious working days"

      As usual you are simply making it up. They did NOT "breed more." As wealth became more abundant more of their children lived to have their own children hence the population explosion. The "surplus population" represented those who had simply died in the stinking, disgusting, plague and famine Christian era. It was capitalism that was their "saviour."

      Delete
    2. RalphH 04/088:25 AM

      “Are you serious? Living in the countryside did not make them live longer. Those people lived under Christian feudalism where 50% of children died at birth, average life expectancy was 20 years and where you worked for 16 hours a day for the price of a bowl of gruel and spent the remaining 8 hours praying that the devil wouldn't steal it from you! Furthermore, their Christian masters insisted that poverty was a high Christian virtue and, like you, that "human greed" and wealth creation was a sin for which they would rot in Hell. It's you who deserves to rot in Hell.” (MalcolmS7:09 AM)

      Malcolm, I confess I was confusing the rise of capitalism with the industrial revolution. However I don't think I deserve to “rot in Hell” for that mistake. Thanks for the invitation though.

      Are you denying that “greed” is a sin? I think the disgraceful attitudes and behaviour of many early industrial revolution capitalists bears out my final statement.

      Why would anyone think “wealth creation” was provided it was done fairly and the efforts of all involved were fairly recognised and rewarded?

      Nor were they forced to work in the newly emerging city factories. They did so eagerly and freely since they were much better off than working under the feudal master.

      "They probably bred more because they had few pleasures or distractions after[sic] than long, tedious working days"

      The "surplus population" represented those who had simply died in the stinking, disgusting, plague and famine Christian era. It was capitalism that was their "saviour."

      As usual, that's more than a bit 'rich'. Without Christianity and the monasteries life in the Middle Ages would have been a lot more dire that it actually was. God is the inspiration behind all good ideas whether acknowledged or not. To the extent that capitalism was seen as a means to personal self aggrandisement it was a bad idea but to the extent it was seen as helping and improving the prospects and lot of all people in a society it was (and is) a good idea.

      Delete
    3. RalphH 04/088:31 AM

      RalphH 04/088:25 AM

      Too late - should be asleep. The 5th and 6th paragraphs of the above were supposed to be deleted.

      Delete
    4. MalcolmS9:22 AM

      RalphH: "Are you denying that “greed” is a sin?"

      If you mean by greed "wealth creation" then, yes, greed is a high virtue. What do you think it means?

      "Without Christianity and the monasteries life in the Middle Ages would have been a lot more dire that it actually was"

      That's nonsense. It was the inmates of monasteries and the Christian rulers who caused the Christian dark and middle ages in the first place. It was the Christian rulers who closed down the last of the pagan Greco-Roman universities - the last of the advocates of reason. It was the monasteries where the disgusting Christian myth was perpetuated. They were the source of the ideas which kept mankind in misery and poverty for over a millennium.

      Delete
    5. 8x
      It was capitalism that was their "saviour."
      x8

      Lol
      "capitalism" of the gaps again.
      Aint you got any other tools in the toolshed?

      Delete
    6. 8x
      If you mean by greed "wealth creation" then, yes, greed is a high virtue.
      x8

      Wrong again toolshed.

      Knowing r-elf as I do what he actually means is "I'm too stupid and full of ridiculous fantasies to be innovative, industrious or productive ( a trait you share with him btw) so its impossible for me to to organise my life in such a way that I can accumulate sufficient surplus to buffer any mistakes I might make in my time and resource investments, but since I need to feel good about myself I'll claim that what is fundamentally caused by MY stupidity was in fact the result of SOMEONE ELSE'S evil."

      So no: In a nutshell, by greed he means not "wealth creation" but "pittance theft"

      By the way, greed on its own is no virtue.
      While greed may assist with "wealth accumulation", on its own it has a negative effect on overall "wealth creation"

      Being so short of useful tools in your toolshed, I'm not at all surprised you didnt know that ;)

      Delete
    7. RalphH 04/083:45 PM

      “If you mean by greed "wealth creation" then, yes, greed is a high virtue. What do you think it means?” (MalcolmS9:22 AM)

      Although it may surprise you Malcolm, I believe it means what it is defined as in the dictionary. GREED (noun) - EXCESSIVE OR RAPACIOUS desire, especially for wealth or possessions (please note the emphasised adjectives). It's the difference between use and abuse. It's an extension of putting self first, above and more important than all others – of applying reason not to serve the public good but primarily to serve self (and possibly, depending on how greedy, ones family and 'friends' because they are seen as an extension of self when they curry to and serve the greedy ego.

      IOW, a greedy person is one who eats to excess; a greedy employer is one who keeps the overwhelming bulk of his companies profits for himself and pays his loyal employees a pittance; a greedy farmer is one who rapes the land getting maximum yield for a few short years but leaving a desert in his wake (we have to go back to the dreaded feudal system for sensible husbandry practices); a greedy consumer is one who uses natural resources to excess depleting the earth's store and leaving future generations in dire straights.

      A greedy person is being irrational because they do not look at or consider the full picture, only extending their mind far enough to serve self, as in the saying, "every man for himself and the devil take the hindermost". Have I made my point yet? Am I starting to penetrate your tough Randian hide?

      “It was the inmates of monasteries and the Christian rulers who caused the Christian dark and middle ages in the first place. It was the Christian rulers who closed down the last of the pagan Greco-Roman universities - the last of the advocates of reason. It was the monasteries where the disgusting Christian myth was perpetuated. They were the source of the ideas which kept mankind in misery and poverty for over a millennium.”

      It was the greedy, short-sighted abuse and misinterpretation of early leaders, still being influenced by their corrupt human nature ((putting themselves and their puny reasons ahead of the 'Word of God' as expounded through Christ) who created these problems.

      Many however saw through this travesty and (as Christ taught) served their societies and the poor faithfully and well, eventually laying the basis for the 'Enlightenment' and the scientific revolution.

      Delete
    8. BMTC wrote: "By the way, greed on its own is no virtue.
      While greed may assist with "wealth accumulation", on its own it has a negative effect on overall "wealth creation""

      Can you cite anything to back that up?

      Delete
    9. And before you start Terry, asking for evidence for a link does not constitute a claim of an inverse link.

      So don't start accusing me of saying that greed aids overall wealth creation.

      Delete
    10. 8x
      BMTC
      x8

      Who?

      8x
      Can you cite anything to back that up?
      x8

      http://www.cnbc.com/id/100457560

      Need any more help with the frikin obvious? ;)

      Delete
    11. 8x
      ...asking for evidence for a link...
      x8

      Actually you are asking for evidence of an "anti-link" ;)

      Delete
    12. "Nor were they forced to work in the newly emerging city factories"

      No they weren't forced to work in factories but if you didn't want to end up in a poor house you took any job regardless of how bad the conditions were.

      "The "surplus population" represented those who had simply died in the stinking, disgusting, plague and famine Christian era. "

      Capitalism itself has done nothing to stop plague or famine.

      Delete
    13. "Without Christianity and the monasteries life in the Middle Ages would have been a lot more dire that it actually was."

      Actually Ralph life before Christianity was a lot better for people.

      "God is the inspiration behind all good ideas whether acknowledged or not."

      Repeating bullshit doesn't make it true.

      Delete
    14. RalphH 04/087:28 PM

      “Actually Ralph life before Christianity was a lot better for people.” (Stranger6:35 PM)

      That depends Stranger on what you mean by Christianity. The very nadir of human existence was the point at which Christ (the incarnation of God) visited the earth to redeem mankind from the previous mess they had cooked up by abusing their free-will. At that point (spiritual) free-will – the ability to discern right from wrong – was almost extinguished. This was demonstrated in the NT by those who were demon possessed.

      The new Christian revelation stopped the downward spiral and instigated the ascent back to integrity but it has been a long hard slog with much back-sliding (which may give the impression that things are or have gotten worse. But that's an illusion when one looks at the bigger picture. All progress that is true progress – the freeing of human minds to think truly and to act kindly comes from that upward impetus.

      “*"God is the inspiration behind all good ideas whether acknowledged or not."* (RalphH)

      Repeating bullshit doesn't make it true.”

      Constantly denigrating the truth (even though it may be because you don't understand it) does not make it BS.

      Delete
    15. "by abusing their free-will"

      How does one abuse free-will?

      "At that point (spiritual) free-will – the ability to discern right from wrong – was almost extinguished."

      Why do you keep making shit up?

      "Constantly denigrating the truth (even though it may be because you don't understand it) does not make it BS."

      Repeating bullshit does not make it true.

      Delete
    16. Robin: And before you start Terry, asking for evidence for a link does not constitute a claim of an inverse link.

      No, it doesn’t, but it does raise the question of why you want the evidence. It seems unlikely that you’d want it if you agreed with the assertion. The more likely reason would seem to be that you disagree with the assertion, or at least that you’re sceptical. Or you could just be trying to draw attention to yourself again.

      Now, before you start, Robin, shrieking ‘for crying out loud’ or any of those other jejune phrases you seem so fond of, know that questioning a motive does not constitute a claim of any kind.

      Delete
    17. Mal: If you mean by greed "wealth creation" then, yes, greed is a high virtue.

      There are still people who believe this? In 2013? In Australia? Get outa here.

      Delete
    18. MalcolmS3:33 AM

      Terry: "There are still people who believe this? In 2013? In Australia?"

      Sure there are and, unlike you, they are the productive members of society.

      Whilst, like you, the non-productive swill with government jobs produce nothing of value yet get to loot those who do.

      Historically this has only ever been a temporary phenomenon as, I expect, you will find out in your lifetime :)

      Delete
    19. MalcolmS6:04 AM

      RalphH: "Many however saw through this travesty and (as Christ taught) served their societies and the poor faithfully and well, eventually laying the basis for the 'Enlightenment' and the scientific revolution"

      Is that an example of you "abusing your free-will" Ralph? It's certainly a lie!

      I am sure you know that "the basis for the 'Enlightenment' and the scientific revolution" was not Christianity but, rather, the rediscovery of pagan Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle, which the Christians had attempted to wipe off the face of the Earth. Making it even more embarrassing for Christians was the fact that most of those works had been preserved in the Islamic world.

      Delete
    20. MalcolmS6:09 AM

      Stranger: "No they weren't forced to work in factories but if you didn't want to end up in a poor house you took any job regardless of how bad the conditions were"

      Yes, and the best available jobs were in factories. The previous medieval alternative had been death.

      "Capitalism itself has done nothing to stop plague or famine"

      On the contrary, it wiped both off the face of the Earth in capitalist countries.

      A potato famine in Ireland or a rice famine in Asia, until fairly recently, resulted in mass deaths.

      Similar happenings in the US or Australia simply meant you ate something else since capitalism produced abundance.

      Delete
    21. RalphH 04/086:43 AM

      “How does one abuse free-will?” (Stranger7:33 PM)

      Think of it in terms of a child growing up and attaining adulthood. When a child their parents either make or guide their important decisions for them so that they don't make unwise choices. The optimum of becoming an adult is to make wise decisions and to make them from one's own understanding and conviction. This is the purpose of having/being gifted with free-will.

      If one uses the freedom involved to make unwise decisions they have abused their free-will (i.e. used it for a wrongful purpose). A childish idea of free-will is that one can do whatever one wants – good or bad – and, of course one can but if one makes foolish decisions they become a fool and addicted to stupidity thus destroying or seriously impoverishing their free-will.

      Delete
    22. "This is the purpose of having/being gifted with free-will."

      You've made that up. For a start before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil we couldn't make wise decisions if we didn't know what was the wrong thing to do. Secondly it's just using free wile to choose, one can't abuse free-will to choose if one is using it to make a choice.

      "but if one makes foolish decisions they become a fool and addicted to stupidity"

      Is it too late for you to stop being addicted to stupidity?

      Delete
    23. " The previous medieval alternative had been death."

      Not necessarily, people weren't put to death just for not working.

      "On the contrary, it wiped both off the face of the Earth in capitalist countries."

      Scientific knowledge and the application of it is not in the definition of Capitalism and can be done under other forms of government. Capitalist countries also have not wiped out all diseases yet and we still have plagues of them.

      "Similar happenings in the US or Australia simply meant you ate something else since capitalism produced abundance."

      Well managed agriculture produces abundance, even Aborigines ans Papua natives discovered that.

      Delete
    24. Mal: Whilst, like you, the non-productive swill with government jobs produce nothing of value yet get to loot those who do.

      I think you’ve got that the wrong way round. Remember, you’re the retired old fart who does nothing all day except watch the price of his government-sponsored retirement fund rise and fall, and I'm the owner of businesses that make a contribution to our economic prosperity.

      Delete
    25. RalphH 05/075:01 PM

      "This is the purpose of having/being gifted with free-will."

      “You've made that up. For a start before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil we couldn't make wise decisions if we didn't know what was the wrong thing to do. Secondly it's just using free wile to choose, one can't abuse free-will to choose if one is using it to make a choice.” (Stranger6:53 AM)

      Use the child analogy again Stranger. The child is making wise choices when it listens to and is guided by the parent. This is fine while they are a child but the down side is that they are not doing so from themselves. They are kind of like little robots.

      As they grow and their understanding develops they become capable of applying their own will guided by their own understanding whereas previously it was guided and at times controlled by the parents will.

      They can then listen to and choose from their own internal conversation between wisdom (which typifies and comes from God – the truth Itself – the Tree of Life, of happiness of goodness) and foolishness (which typifies and comes from the idea that one can decide for oneself what is good and what is evil (the second tree in the Garden of Eden that you mention above)

      “Is it too late for you to stop being addicted to stupidity?”

      No, that's the beauty of religion there is always a way out – by starting to listen to God/wisdom (or listen more fully or apply better, whatever the case may be) and reversing the choices.

      If on the other hand one has decided that there is no God (no objective source of goodness and happiness) then I guess they're stuck in their own mire with nowhere to go. There is though, I believe, one proviso. If it's just a lack of understanding that is the problem one can always learn. If however the problem has progressed to the heart (or will) the situation is more extreme.

      He who trusts in his own heart is a fool (i.e. if his heart tells him that there is no objective truth and good or that he can decide for himself what is good and what is evil), But whoever walks wisely will be delivered. (Proverbs 28:26)

      Delete
    26. RalphH 05/087:34 PM

      “Is that an example of you "abusing your free-will" Ralph? It's certainly a lie!” (MalcolmS6:04 AM)

      You think it's a lie Malcolm because you have a pet theory about it formed because of your prejudice against Christianity.

      “I am sure you know that "the basis for the 'Enlightenment' and the scientific revolution" was not Christianity but, rather, the rediscovery of pagan Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle, which the Christians had attempted to wipe off the face of the Earth. Making it even more embarrassing for Christians was the fact that most of those works had been preserved in the Islamic world.”

      You seem to have overlooked the synthesis of Aristotelian and Christian thought by Thomas Aquinas. Aristotle is known for his development of rational and logical thought. This is not incompatible with Christianity particularly if one removes some of the illogical ideas that were introduced by the early Christian fathers which were at variance with what Christ taught. Aristotle was not an atheist, he was primarily a philosopher. He could well have agreed with the moral implications of Christ's teaching had he lived contemporaneously with or later than Christ.

      Your idea that the Enlightenment involved a rejection or repudiation of Christianity is, I believe, bosh. It was certainly a time when many stereotyped Christian ideas were questioned and needed to be reassessed just as they had at the time of the Reformation. Many of the Enlightenment thinkers were Christians. Enlightenment refers as much to the understanding of scripture and religious practice as it does to scientific pursuits.

      Delete
    27. " The child is making wise choices when it listens to and is guided by the parent."

      If the parents are raving loons belonging to the KKK they are wise not to listen to them.

      "As they grow and their understanding develops they become capable of applying their own will guided by their own understanding whereas previously it was guided and at times controlled by the parents will."

      Are you saying children don't have free will?

      "which typifies and comes from God – the truth Itself "

      Which you still haven't provided evidence for.

      "(which typifies and comes from the idea that one can decide for oneself what is good and what is evil (the second tree in the Garden of Eden that you mention above)"

      Deciding for oneself what is good and bad is impossible if one doesn't know what is good or bad, which is what the tree was about, not making choices.

      "“Is it too late for you to stop being addicted to stupidity?”

      No.."

      Sop that's a yes then.

      Delete
  13. MalcolmS10:39 PM

    It's on for September 7th!

    Rudd Vs Abbott.

    May Zeus have mercy on our souls.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mal: Except that it doesn't apply to me.

    I don't believe you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mal: There has been nothing like capitalism in any country [except maybe Hong Kong] since the 19th century.

    Oh, there’s been capitalism alright. It just hasn’t been your crackpot version of it, at least not until the last 30 years, and look what happened.

    If only you could extract that banana, which is obviously in too tight and forcing your eyes shut, you’d see the obvious: Free markets are probably a myth, laissez-faire policies do more harm than good, companies don’t always do the right thing when run in the interests of their shareholders, we don’t appear to be smart enough to leave things to the market, our best markets seem to be planned economies, and state-led markets appear to give the best outcomes.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mal: A potato famine in Ireland ... resulted in mass deaths. Similar happenings in the US or Australia simply meant you ate something else since capitalism produced abundance.

    You could not have chosen a worse example. The man the English put in charge of the famine relief effort, Charles Trevelyan, was, like you, a laissez-faire ideologue, who felt that ‘permanent advantages will accrue to Ireland from the scarcity [of food]’ and ‘famine would teach the people to depend upon themselves for developing the resources of the country, instead of having recourse to the assistance of the government’.

    And so the dickhead stood back and let them all starve to death.

    And that says it all about ideologues in general, and laissez-faire ideologues in particular.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS9:22 PM

      Trevelyan was an aristocrat, a civil servant and a feudal throwback. Like you he had a government job and pulled wings off butterflies with other peoples' money.

      The Irish famine was simply a result of their feudalism. If your staple is potatoes expect to die when you have a crop failure. Nobody else owed them a living.

      Any Irishman with half a brain migrated to the [semi]capitalist "new world" where many were highly successful.

      Delete
    2. Mal: Trevelyan was an aristocrat, a civil servant and a feudal throwback.

      Which probably explains why he thought the way you do.

      Mal: Like you he had a government job and pulled wings off butterflies with other peoples' money.

      Your memory is waning, old fart. Remember, you’re the one who sits on his arse all day waiting for the government to do something to make his super grow. I’m the bloke with the businesses that make the money that the government hands to bludgers like you so they can get your vote.

      Delete
    3. MalcolmS1:23 AM

      Nothing is wrong with my memory.

      I have no super.

      I get no pension.

      My retirement was early because I could afford it.

      Don't believe me?

      I don't give a stuff!

      Delete
  17. For any who are still interested I have put together #1,#2 and #3 from my thoughts in the last thread as links in:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yRGWJF5ncMudKcD6m4fP2zCRSE_gMdg848cXNAMCF3Y/pub

    To paraphrase Oscar Wilde I apologise for the length of it, I did not have time to write a shorter version.

    I will probably do a short version some time later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "And since there are so many ways in which this might not be the case then it cannot simply have been by chance - there must have been reasons. And since there cannot be external reasons then these reasons must be necessary reasons - ie whatever it is that explains the complexity we observe must exist necessarily."

      Argument from ignorance and special pleading.
      "Lastly I have considered that my conscious experience cannot be a product of brain processes - no matter how closely those processes correlate with my mind, no matter even how much they control and enable by ability to think, those processes are not, ultimately, responsible for my conscious experience."

      Argument from ignorance.

      "The physical is dependent upon abstract things that have meaning rather than the other way around."

      Incorrect, without minds to consider anything abstract the physical will still exist.

      "So mechanistic processes cannot explain even the most basic facts of my experience, they cannot explain a feeling of nausea, they cannot explain what the taste of a peach is like."

      Except that they do. Argument from ignorance.

      "A mechanistic reality is , in any case, dependent on necessarily existing mathematical rules which have meaning and truth values, things we normally associate with minds."

      No, we define mathematics and find rules that fit with nature. Argument from ignorance.

      "So a purely mechanistic somewhat does not fit the facts at hand and a necessarily existing mind does."

      Ignorant waffle

      Delete
    2. Gee that was quick. You really took your time to go through the arguments didn't you? Not.

      As I pointed out to you before, phrases like "argument from ignorance" and "special pleading" are not magical incantations that you can simply say them and they will have some effect.

      You actually have to demonstrate where I have used these.

      By the way, do you think that all the rules that are defined in mathematics fit with nature?

      It seems to me that when someone says "ignorant waffle" about a reasonably long argument that they would have had, at best, time only to skim and who has not actually addressed any of the arguments put forward, then perhaps you should see what I said to Zed about pissing to windward.

      Delete
    3. "You really took your time to go through the arguments didn't you? "

      I took all the time that was needed.

      "You actually have to demonstrate where I have used these."

      That you need to ask is the demonstration. If you weren't ignorant about the subjects you mention you'd know.

      "By the way, do you think that all the rules that are defined in mathematics fit with nature?"

      No.

      Pissing to windward is exactly what we do trying to educate the likes of you and Ralph.

      Delete
    4. 8x
      By the way, do you think that all the rules that are defined in mathematics fit with nature?
      x8

      Do you think that you know all the rules that are defined in mathematics?

      Clever boy!

      Do you think that you know nature so well that you are able to judge how well all the rules that are defined in mathematics fit with nature?

      !!oooooooeeeeeeeee!!
      Mummys proud of her clever boy!!!


      rofl

      Delete
  18. Zed wrote: "http://www.cnbc.com/id/100457560"

    An inference from the particular to the general already?

    Zed wrote: "Need any more help with the frikin obvious? ;)"

    To which frikin obvious do you refer? Do you mean "Following a kindergarten logical error with an attempted arrogant put-down is like pissing to windward"?

    No Zed, the yellow liquid dripping off your face demonstrates that principle admirably.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8x
      zed wrote:...
      x8

      Who?

      8x
      blah de blah ...inference ... twerble burble ... yellow liquid ... blah de blah
      x8

      lol

      I'm fairly certain that "yellow liquid" is the yolk of a robins egg. The taste of bile mixed with sanctimonious bullshit is such a dead giveaway.

      So I'll tell ya what "logic boy", when you actually find a way to quantify greed I'll stop laughing at the nonsense spouted by you and your idiotic little gaylord chum the toolshed.

      Until then, Terry's response seems the most apropos

      8x
      I’m bored with your inane questions. Go pester someone else.
      x8

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS2:50 AM

      zedinhisbigloonytoolshead: "So I'll tell ya what "logic boy", when you actually find a way to quantify greed I'll stop laughing"

      Handy hint for dull and ignorant toolshead dwellers: just add up the profit/loss columns at the end of the week and subtract one from the other. Can you work out which one is which all by your self dopey?

      There, that fixed it!

      Now you can stop laughing *no-logic boy* :)

      Delete
    3. God forbid I should pester anyone with inane questions like "Do you have evidence to support that?"

      So maybe I will just muse quietly to myself:

      BMTC wrote: "While greed may assist with "wealth accumulation", on its own it has a negative effect on overall "wealth creation""

      Then: "Need any more help with the frikin obvious? ;)"

      Finally

      BMTC wrote: "So I'll tell ya what "logic boy", when you actually find a way to quantify greed I'll stop laughing at the nonsense spouted by you and your idiotic little gaylord chum the toolshed."

      Thinks quietly to self - if he shot himself in all four paws, I wonder what he was holding the gun with.

      Delete
    4. 8x
      Thinks quietly to self...
      x8

      Yes, thats more like it... ;)

      Delete
    5. MalcolmS11:21 AM

      "if he shot himself in all four paws, I wonder what he was holding the gun with"

      It's bolted to the bench in the toolshead.

      Next to a bowl of clapped out bananas...

      ...and the porno pictures of cats :)

      Delete
    6. 8x
      "if he shot himself in all four paws, I wonder what he was holding the gun with"
      x8

      lol

      Capitalism of course ;)

      rofl

      Delete
    7. MalcolmS11:38 AM

      You're up late tonight pussy.

      Feeding the kitten?

      Prowling some alley with a bowl of bananas? :)

      Delete
    8. 8x
      Prowling some alley with a bowl of bananas? :)
      x8

      Watch out!

      I'm right behind you! ;)

      Delete
    9. "Handy hint for dull and ignorant toolshead dwellers: just add up the profit/loss columns at the end of the week and subtract one from the other. Can you work out which one is which all by your self dopey?"

      That's not quantifying greed.

      Delete
    10. MalcolmS6:15 PM

      Yes, it is.

      Delete
    11. Greed is not the same as profit.

      Delete
    12. MalcolmS8:04 PM

      True, but they are mutually inclusive and you requested quantification.

      Delete
  19. Terry wrote: "No, it doesn’t, but it does raise the question of why you want the evidence. It seems unlikely that you’d want it if you agreed with the assertion. The more likely reason would seem to be that you disagree with the assertion, or at least that you’re sceptical"

    Do you really think that people only ask for evidence when they disagree with, or are sceptical of a claim?

    What do you think is the relevance of the motive for asking anyway?

    Is there something wrong with asking for evidence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robin: Do you really think that people only ask for evidence when they disagree with, or are sceptical of a claim?

      No, they could also want it because they agree with the claim, or they could just be trying to draw attention to themselves. But I said that in the post. How did you miss it?

      Robin: What do you think is the relevance of the motive for asking anyway?

      It’s a way of trying to figure out your position on the subject, or more importantly whether you actually have one and are not just trying to attract attention for the sake of it.

      Robin: Is there something wrong with asking for evidence?

      No, provided it makes sense to do so, and it’s not done too often. Otherwise you’re the class pest who needs teacher to explain things all the time.

      Delete
    2. Terry wrote: "It’s a way of trying to figure out your position on the subject, or more importantly whether you actually have one and are not just trying to attract attention for the sake of it."

      Hmm... let's see how good a plan that was. According to what you are saying, a person might ask for evidence because:

      a) They agree with the claim or;
      b) They disagree with the claim or ;
      c) They are skeptical about the claim or
      d) They are trying to draw attention to themselves

      Now, leaving aside for the moment the question of what sort of thinking went into the last option, how exactly have you narrowed it down?

      And it still doesn't answer the question about the relevance of the motive.

      Terry wrote: "No, provided it makes sense to do so, and it’s not done too often."

      I see - and you are saying that there are cases where it does not make sense to ask for evidence behind an unsupported assertion?

      How many times, exactly, is too many times to ask for evidence?

      Terry wrote: "Otherwise you’re the class pest who needs teacher to explain things all the time."

      Are you suggesting that there is some really obvious reason that the assertion is true that I have overlooked?

      So why doesn't somebody just say what this is?

      Delete
    3. I wonder if it has occurred to you that someone might ask for supporting evidence of a claim simply because they want to know what the supporting evidence is for the claim?

      Delete
    4. 8x
      I wonder if it has occurred to you that someone might ask for supporting evidence of a claim simply because they want to know what the supporting evidence is for the claim?
      x8

      lol

      I wonder if it has occurred to you that I would need to see some supporting evidence for this assertion in order to stop laughing long enough to provide supporting evidence for the claim?

      ;)

      Delete
  20. MalcolmS10:46 PM

    Robin, thanks for the link[s].

    At first reading your main metaphysical problem is that you think that existence can have *meaning* or be explained.

    It doesn't and can't.

    Existence simply exists and that is all you can say about it - existence has primacy.

    Philosophically *existence* is an axiom and you can't get beneath it.

    Existence is where you start or you find yourself in an infinite regress.

    If you start out arguing that *X caused existence,* then, the problem is that X must exist and you have begged the question.

    You can't *presume* what you are trying to prove.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But I have not said that existence can be explained or that anything caused existence.

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS8:37 AM

      No?

      Then, what do you mean by:

      ".. whatever it is that explains the complexity we observe must exist necessarily"?

      The complexity we observe[including "we" the observer] *is* existence. There is nothing else.

      You are claiming the alleged cause is "whatever it is that explains..."

      Delete
    3. MalcolmS9:29 AM

      Another point.

      "So mechanistic processes cannot explain even the most basic facts of my experience... they cannot explain what the taste of a peach is like"

      Of course - what do you expect?

      You have already conceded that they are "the most basic facts of my experience."

      So, since they are "most basic," why ask for explanation? You must start somewhere!

      All sense data are the *given* of consciousness and must be treated as axiomatic philosophically.

      Delete
    4. MalcolmS9:34 AM

      Another point.

      What do you mean by "necessary existent"? I gather you are referring to the necessary/contingent issue in philosophy but that is a false alternative.

      Everything that exists is necessary or it would not be. It has to be. There is no such thing as a contingent entity.

      I grant that you can distinguish between the metaphysical and the man made. However even then, once the cause is enacted, the man made has to be. Even a volitional choice, once made, has to be.

      Delete
    5. MalcolmS10:58 AM

      Another point.

      "A mechanistic reality is , in any case, dependent on necessarily existing mathematical rules which have meaning and truth values, things we normally associate with minds"

      Mathematics is the science of measurement, i.e., of establishing quantitative relationships. Mathematics [and logic] is a science of *method* - a method required for advanced human knowledge. Without a conceptual consciousness no mathematics is possible. Mathematics is epistemological - it is not metaphysical.

      If a deadly virus was to wipe all cognitive beings out of existence, then, mathematics would cease to exist. The corpses would rot in accordance with their nature and the "mechanistic reality" of the universe would continue unabated.

      It is simply not true that mind or mathematics is required for mechanistic reality.

      Delete
    6. 8x
      So, since they are "most basic," why ask for explanation? You must start somewhere!
      x8

      lol

      How do you know its a peach then toolshed?

      Did the magic fairy of socialism (whup sorry ... capitalism) whisper that in your ear just as you took a bite? ;)

      Delete
    7. 8x
      It is simply not true that mind or mathematics is required for mechanistic reality.
      x8

      well I never!

      This was a sensible comment from start to finish.

      Well done Malcolm.

      Delete
    8. MalcolmS11:50 AM

      idiotcatfetishist: "How do you know its a peach"

      In the absence of the "most basic" [sense data] you don't.

      Delete
    9. 8x
      Even a volitional choice, once made, has to be.
      x8

      Even a volitional choice, once made, has to have been.

      !!Squidge!!

      Told you I was right behind you didnt I? ;)

      Delete
    10. "Everything that exists is necessary or it would not be. It has to be."

      Are electric toasters necessary?

      Delete
    11. RalphH 06/085:19 PM

      “Mathematics is the science of measurement, i.e., of establishing quantitative relationships......Without a conceptual consciousness no mathematics is possible. Mathematics is epistemological - it is not metaphysical.” (MalcolmS10:58 AM)

      I question that Malcolm. I'd say that those “quantitative relationships” exist with the existence of the entity or concept and are merely discovered by a “conceptual (human) consciousness” not “established” by one. Although I'm not equipped to follow his computer modelling, I find Robin's logic quite sound.

      “If a deadly virus was to wipe all cognitive beings out of existence, then, mathematics would cease to exist.”

      The “quantitative relationships” that mathematics explains would not cease to exist. They are implicit in the existence of the object (IMO necessary, as Robin says).

      “It is simply not true that mind or mathematics is required for mechanistic reality.”

      It is “simply not true” that you have all the facts necessary to make that definitive statement Malcolm. It is merely your opinion. One can clearly see that every human creation (a bringing into existence) cannot occur without a conscious mind capable of seeing and manipulating quantitative relationships.

      The creation of natural things/things that exist naturally are, of course not under the jurisdiction of finite human minds but it is not difficult (and makes a lot of sense) to postulate the possibility of a universal, self-existing infinite mind from which and by which all of creation is modelled.

      Delete
    12. RalphH 06/085:46 PM

      “Everything that exists is necessary or it would not be. It has to be. There is no such thing as a contingent entity.

      I grant that you can distinguish between the metaphysical and the man made. However even then, once the cause is enacted, the man made has to be. Even a volitional choice, once made, has to be.” (MalcolmS9:34 AM)

      Malcolm, I assume that by “a volitional choice” you are talking about a human choice. Animals make a sort of 'volitional choice' as regards food, shelter, reproduction etc that is impelled by their natural instincts. However with their rational minds, humans can make 'higher choices' because they are capable of seeing the distinction between right and wrong/good and evil.

      Only things that are pre-determined, “had to be”. Human choice between good and evil is not predetermined so particular choices could have been different (and if a similar scenario arises in the future they can be different). The only pre-determination is in the fact of humans being gifted with the free-will to make those choices.

      Delete
    13. MalcolmS6:47 PM

      "Are electric toasters necessary?"

      Since they exist, yes, they have to be - they are necessary,

      Or did you mean *future* electric toasters?

      No, they are not necessary - but, then, they are not electric toasters.

      Delete
    14. MalcolmS7:15 PM

      "The “quantitative relationships” that mathematics explains would not cease to exist. They are implicit in the existence of the object"

      This is the hoary old chestnut that you will never understand, Ralph, because you go by indoctrinated childhood belief and cannot think for yourself.

      You should learn the difference between *fact* and *truth* sometime.

      There are still facts in the absence of mind - that's what mind has to discover - but there is no truth.

      Truth requires mind - facts do not.

      That's why you perpetuate the myth that there would still be *Love* zooming around the universe in the absence of all mindful beings, i.e., in the absence of lovers and the loved. That is an attribute of a real mystic.

      Delete
    15. "Since they exist, yes, they have to be - they are necessary,"

      So you don't know what necessary means. Why am I not surprised?

      Delete
    16. "There are still facts in the absence of mind"

      No there wouldn't as there'd be no minds to determine facts.

      Delete
    17. "Although I'm not equipped to follow his computer modelling, I find Robin's logic quite sound."

      You're stupid enough to find Swedenborg's logic sound so Robin shouldn't be too pleased.

      "It is “simply not true” that you have all the facts necessary to make that definitive statement Malcolm. It is merely your opinion."

      When you write some bullshit about reality remember to read that statement Ralph as it applies to you all the time.

      "The creation of natural things/things that exist naturally are, of course not under the jurisdiction of finite human minds but it is not difficult (and makes a lot of sense) to postulate the possibility of a universal, self-existing infinite mind from which and by which all of creation is modelled."

      It is “simply not true” that you have all the facts necessary to make that definitive statement. It is merely your opinion

      Delete
  21. Robin:

    I’m bored with your inane questions. Go pester someone else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS1:09 AM

      Far more important is the fact that you can't answer them.

      Delete
    2. Why don't you do it for me. No amount of inanity seems to bore you.

      Delete
    3. MalcolmS1:29 AM

      Why should I?

      I don't owe you a living donkey droppings.

      Delete
    4. I think if you check Terry, you will find it was you who pestered me.

      I don't recall that I had even addressed anything to you in this thread until then.

      So right back atcha.

      Delete
    5. Mal: I don't owe you a living donkey droppings.

      Donkey droppings? Where do you get this biting with from? In any case, old fart, you do owe me a living. Remember, it's the money I made that the government is handing out to you.

      Delete
    6. MalcolmS6:21 PM

      As I pointed out to you yesterday [1:23 AM]:

      Nothing is wrong with my memory.

      I have no super.

      I get no pension.

      My retirement was early because I could afford it.

      Don't believe me?

      I don't give a stuff!

      Delete

Followers