Thursday, August 08, 2013

Commemorating the Death of a Woman



In the gloaming of a perishing evening, candles added a flickering luminescence trying to defy the descending darkness.  An idiosyncratic community had gathered in St Kilda to commemorate the unspeakably violent end of street sex worker, Tracy Connelly from stab wounds to the face and chest.  Hundreds of us from the neighbourhood, the sex work industry, the welfare industry, the Parliament, the council and the media made for a motley but united crew.  Well not entirely united for I stood there in the twilight seething with anger at the hypocrisy and cant of our Parliamentary and Mayoral speakers.  More of that later.
The candle lit vigil for murdered street sex worker Tracy Connelly (Photo Fairfax Media. Wayne Taylor)

The ceremony was very Post Modern Australia, a pastiche of secular and sacred, the non verbal and the verbose.  The power of ceremony and ritual fascinates me.  At the heart of great ceremony is the use of non verbal community symbols.  Whilst verbosity is a turn off, symbols will overpower words when a group of people gathers to share feelings.  For Tracy’s ceremony the non verbal included a sea of candles, a choir with a Christian repertoire, a minute of silence holding the candles aloft, contemporary secular singers and finally a plaintive rendition of Amazing Grace with its plea for the power of redemption.  But the most powerful symbol was the night itself.  Night is evocative. The danger of the dark and the inhospitable cold of midwinter were potent icons of the perils of street sex work. Modern Australians seldom gather together at night in the frigidity of winter.  Just standing there together was instructive and moving.  We held our candles aloft in unity. The wind held off and the flames struggled on against the night.  When a brother’s tears and palpable love for his dead sister stirred the crowd, the rite of commemoration was potent. It transfixed us.  We were shamed for the societal negligence that bought about Tracy’s murder.  We were left in no doubt that we could not dismiss this as the killing of the unwanted and unloved. This part of the ceremony, for those like me interested in ritual, was stunning.
But then the speeches started. My blood boiled in anger. You may recall from the last blog how a decade ago the Victorian Parliament failed to (partially) decriminalise street sex work so that the prostitutes would not regard the police as the enemy and the police could focus on protecting prostitutes not controlling them.  The Parliament, both sides of the fence included, in the face of community reluctance and the moralistic legacy of our religious past, failed to embrace law reform when it was offered.  Parliament has blood on its metaphorical hands.  So too do the reform critics including Leslie Cannold, a Senate Candidate for the Wikileaks Party in Victoria. 
Tracy with long term partner Tony Melissovas
Violence against women is most stark in two situations – when marriages breakdown and against sex workers.  60 Australian women were murdered last year.  The street sex worker component can be diminished if the prohibition is modified as it is for brothels. Prohibition in social acts from alcohol to abortion fails.  Indeed prohibition exacerbates the harms.
Tracy was murdered in her home which she used to take clients. Because she was homeless, her panel van was her home.  This is a story of poverty as much as anything.  She wouldn’t have been murdered if she operated from a lawful safe house. She wouldn’t have been murdered if her vocation was not illegal and the police could make her work place safe.  This was an avoidable killing. 
And so the piety of the politicians who opined on the scourge of the violence against women and said they would do anything to stop it, were dishonest hypocrites.  They claimed they would do anything but no one who spoke mentioned the simple law reform of partial decriminalisation.  It was disgusting.
Sex is often confronting. Paid sex is very confronting and morally ambiguous. Religions stuff up sex and their legacy in the secular world is to add a layer of moralistic inhibition that prevents good policy.  Tracy’s death was avoidable.  Unfortunately good policy is avoidable when cowardice grips our politicians.  Their blather diminished a beautiful ceremony.
What is your view?
How do we craft good ceremony?
How do we get parliamentarians with the spine to oppose stupid prohibitions?
Do the opponents of reform have blood on their hands, capitulating to noisy opponents or are they merely reflecting the community?
Over to you

150 comments:

  1. MalcolmS9:19 PM

    "We were shamed for the societal negligence that bought about Tracy’s murder"

    Are you trying to instill guilt Dick? That's a technique of the religious. Murder is not "social." Only individuals murder. They are not determined by society and do so by choice.

    "prohibition exacerbates the harms... "

    That's true, prohibition should be repealed but it won't eliminate harm. If someone chooses to have regular sex in the street with multiple strangers, then, they are having sex with wackos and it's only a matter of time before they are harmed whether what they are doing is legal or illegal.

    "This was an avoidable killing... Tracy’s death was avoidable"

    Was it? I don't think you have demonstrated that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm... to put that in context, if someone chooses to work as a cashier at an all night service station then it is only a matter of time until they are harmed. If someone chooses to work as a police constable etc...

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS11:02 PM

      No, that does not follow at all.

      Delete
    3. 8x
      if someone chooses to work as a cashier at an all night service station then it is only a matter of time until they are harmed. If someone chooses to work as a police constable etc...
      x8

      If someone chooses to eat beans they will fart. If someone chooses to play football they will be hurt. If someone chooses to be born they will die

      Me no sure your point

      Delete
    4. MalcolmS3:26 AM

      toolshead: "If someone chooses to eat beans they will fart"

      Not necessarily.

      "If someone chooses to play football they will be hurt"

      Not necessarily.

      "If someone chooses to be born they will die"

      Nobody chooses to be born.

      Few choose to die.

      Delete
    5. 8x
      Was it? I don't think you have demonstrated that.
      x8

      Does the obvious need to be demonstrated?
      Are you Robin? ;)

      Delete
    6. MalcolmS6:41 PM

      "Does the obvious need to be demonstrated?"

      The only thing which is "obvious" is the self-evident.

      Someone's choice to kill Tracy[or anyone else] is "obvious" only to the killer.

      Prohibition does not prevent violence to prostitutes but nor does it's legality.

      Delete
    7. MalcolmS6:45 PM

      "Are you Robin?"

      Why don't you reply to Robin's position?

      "If someone chooses to eat beans they will fart. If someone chooses to play football they will be hurt. If someone chooses to be born they will die" are three false statements!

      Are you a lunatic?

      Delete
    8. RalphH 10/087:21 PM

      "We were shamed for the societal negligence that bought about Tracy’s murder"

      “Are you trying to instill guilt Dick? That's a technique of the religious.” (MalcolmS9:19 PM)

      The purpose of guilt Malcolm is so that someone can recognise that they have done something wrong. Guilt should not be an end in itself, it's not meant for one to wallow in or excuse themselves. It should lead to contrition and an endeavour to fix and not repeat the situation.

      “Murder is not "social." Only individuals murder. They are not determined by society and do so by choice.”

      True but societal attitudes, apathy and lack of concern can exacerbate situations.

      “*"prohibition exacerbates the harms... "* (Dick)

      That's true, prohibition should be repealed but it won't eliminate harm. If someone chooses to have regular sex in the street with multiple strangers, then, they are having sex with wackos and it's only a matter of time before they are harmed whether what they are doing is legal or illegal.

      I disagree with this. Total prohibition of prostitution would be unwise because although far from the ideal sexual relationship, it does provide an outlet for people with personal and sexual problems but prohibition of certain risky manifestations (street soliciting) of the practice on economic and logistical grounds, I believe, lessens harm.

      There is also the fact that legalisation sends the message to the community at large that the practice is OK and quite valid. This is a completely false - IMO, many people (particularly young people who have not yet attained much in the way of rationality) have been prevented from embarking on this sorry and risky course of action BECAUSE it is illegal.

      “*"This was an avoidable killing... Tracy’s death was avoidable"*

      Was it? I don't think you have demonstrated that.”

      The only sure way to have avoided Tracey's death was for her to have avoided that wrong and risky activity. Short of having a policeman on every corner (and even that may not be enough) the risk which is intrinsic in the activity would still remain.

      IMO, the only sensible alternative is a contained, controlled and protected environment (i.e. a regulated brothel).

      Delete
    9. RalphH 10/088:48 PM

      In addition I think much can be and needs to be done(educationally and economically) to alleviate the situation(s) of young women who feel this is their only option to survive financially, IMO a result of the culture of greed and materialism that pervades our society. To me this is an obvious side effect of atheism which eschews any belief in an objective purpose or value system to be striven for.

      When I say atheism I don't just mean people who decide (as the result of a thought/reasoning process) that there is no objective meaning or purpose to life but also those who claim to be religious and yet ignore or twist God's message to their own personal advantage. Lip-service to God is meaningless and hypocritical unless the spiritual laws of life are put into practice by being lived.

      Delete
    10. MalcolmS9:08 PM

      "The purpose of guilt Malcolm is so that someone can recognise that they have done something wrong"

      Yes, that's the normal emotional status of guilt, but Dick spoke of a collective["societal negligence"] guilt which it is not. Whilst I think anyone's murder is disgusting I do not feel guilty when someone gets murdered. It's the murderer who should feel guilty.

      Perhaps you could tell us, Ralph, for pedagogical purposes, why you feel guilty for the death of Tracey!

      Is it because you are a Christian and believe in the doctrine of original sin - that we are all born evil? Isn't that an example of accepting an unearned guilt?

      Delete
    11. MalcolmS10:47 PM

      RalphH: "I think much can be and needs to be done(educationally and economically) to alleviate the situation(s) of young women who feel this is their only option to survive financially, IMO a result of the culture of greed and materialism that pervades our society"

      Once again you are being selectively obfuscating. In the Christian middle ages such women would be packed off to the nearest nunnery - hardly caused by their atheism, "greed or materialism." Is that what you would recommend? Or perhaps you could tell us what you think your *solution* is!

      Remember that some of these women are paying off university fees and, dare I say it, are more intelligent and better educated than you :)

      Delete
    12. RalphH 10/0811:21 PM

      “Whilst I think anyone's murder is disgusting I do not feel guilty when someone gets murdered. It's the murderer who should feel guilty.

      Perhaps you could tell us, Ralph, for pedagogical purposes, why you feel guilty for the death of Tracey!” (MalcolmS9:08 PM)

      Similarly to you Malcolm, I don't feel personally guilty for Tracey's (or any other murder victim's untimely death) but just as one might feel a sense of guilt for not being there for someone when they desperately needed you, so one can feel, as a member of society, that one has let someone down or could have prevented a tragedy if one had been paying more attention to the needs of others.

      “Is it because you are a Christian and believe in the doctrine of original sin - that we are all born evil? Isn't that an example of accepting an unearned guilt?”

      I am a Christian, and I hope a good one but I have never believed in the “doctrine of original sin”. That's a Catholic invention and I'm not a Catholic and probably wouldn't believe it if I was because it makes no sense (for the reason you give in your second question) being completely at odds with the concept of a God of love which is what I believe in.

      No one is born good or evil but with tendencies either way. If they were born good or evil there would be no point or purpose in having rationality and free-will (the choice mechanism).

      All of humanity resides in the ability to choose between good and evil. By choosing to be good, one chooses to be human; by choosing to be bad/evil, one chooses to be inhuman.

      Delete
    13. MalcolmS12:05 AM

      RalphH: "I am a Christian, and I hope a good one but I have never believed in the “doctrine of original sin”..."

      Aah, you old deviant you :)

      So, what do you think the myth of the Garden of Eden and the Fall is all about?

      Delete
    14. Mal: So, what do you think the myth of the Garden of Eden and the Fall is all about?

      The innate potential for heroic action of all men and the power of capitalism to help them realise that potential?

      Delete
    15. Dear Malcolm,
      Murder is social to the extent that different societies have different murder rates. Murder can be diminished by various social phenomena such as wealth distribution, rule of law, absence of war and etc. The high murder rate in Mexico say is a direct result of a social phenomenon, the drug cartels who profit from the drug prohibitions in their neighbour the USA. Thus murder is both individual and social in cause.
      Dick

      Delete
    16. Dear Ralph,
      Thanks for your interesting views. We seem to be fairly similar again in our policy responses to difficult questions.
      Dick

      Delete
    17. MalcolmS1:41 AM

      RalphH: "No one is born good or evil but with tendencies either way"

      Tendencies to "good or evil"?? A newborn? That's as bad as original sin!

      "If they were born good or evil there would be no point or purpose in having rationality and free-will (the choice mechanism)"

      No being can be good/evil by birth or by nature - only by choice. There is "no point or purpose" or choice in having a rational faculty - it's part of our nature and we are born with one. That's just the way we are! Man is the only being with a rational faculty.

      Where choice comes in is where rationality comes in. You have to *choose* to use your rational faculty - thinking is volitional. The volitional *operation* of our rational faculty is a matter of choice and is the source of morality/ethics. It's also why *rationality* is man's primary virtue - Jesus didn't tell you that one Ralph. It's also why man's other virtues, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness and pride are derivative from rationality.

      "All of humanity resides in the ability to choose between good and evil"

      No, that's only an attribute of an individual. You have made Dick's error. Only an individual can practise rationality or be good/evil. There is no such thing as a collective mind.

      "By choosing to be good, one chooses to be human"

      No, by being human one has the capacity to choose to be good.

      Delete
    18. RalphH 10/086:23 AM

      “Aah, you old deviant you :)” (MalcolmS12:05 AM)

      Why do you call me a “deviant” Malcolm? As I said, I'm not and never have been a Catholic (or a Protestant for that matter) so there is nothing to have deviated from.

      “So, what do you think the myth of the Garden of Eden and the Fall is all about?”

      Well firstly, the Garden of Eden story is not a myth, it's an allegory. The idyllic Garden represents the state of mind of early mankind and his growing awareness of his creator represented by the Tree of Life (God's Truth) being at the centre of the garden (i.e. the fore-front of the mind).

      The Fall is represented by mankind replacing the Tree of Life with a 'tree' of self-derived opinion (i.e. from sensual experience and personal pleasure) of what is good and what is evil, as the ruling principle of their minds.

      Delete
    19. 8x
      Are you a lunatic?
      x8

      lol
      Just trying to fit in... ;)

      Delete
    20. RalphH 11/087:41 AM

      “Tendencies to "good or evil"?? A newborn? That's as bad as original sin!” (MalcolmS1:41 AM)

      Can't win with you Malcolm. At the physical level we have plenty of evidence that people are born with tendencies to various diseases or weaknesses. Mental traits can also be passed on. These are not deterministic but can be overcome or avoided by chosen lifestyle or positive states of mind.

      “Original sin” on the other hand means intrinsic and embedded in the character. It's actually a misnomer because to sin is to 'miss the mark'. One cannot have sinned/'missed the mark' before having done anything.

      “No being can be good/evil by birth or by nature - only by choice.”

      Agree totally.

      “There is "no point or purpose" or choice in having a rational faculty - it's part of our nature and we are born with one. That's just the way we are! Man is the only being with a rational faculty.”

      I agree that there's no choice in having a rational faculty but I believe nothing can exist without a purpose. It's purpose is it's 'raison d'être'. We're “that way” because without a rational faculty we could have no free-will and without free-will (morally/spiritually) we would not be human.

      “Where choice comes in is where rationality comes in. You have to *choose* to use your rational faculty - thinking is volitional. The volitional *operation* of our rational faculty is a matter of choice and is the source of morality/ethics. It's also why *rationality* is man's primary virtue - Jesus didn't tell you that one Ralph. It's also why man's other virtues, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness and pride are derivative from rationality.”

      If one has to choose to use one's rational faculty and choice is of volition (or the will) then the will is primary and the rational it's servant. So “Jesus didn't tell (me)” your theory because it isn't true. The will will dictate to the rational what it wants these virtues to be. If it is a bad will it fosters a twisted set of virtues. If it is a good will (inspired by God's truth) it will produce good concepts of virtues.

      “*"All of humanity resides in the ability to choose between good and evil"* (RalphH)

      No, that's only an attribute of an individual. You have made Dick's error. Only an individual can practise rationality or be good/evil. There is no such thing as a collective mind.”

      A misunderstanding. I did not intent to infer a “collective mind”. I meant every individual's humanity ….

      “*"By choosing to be good, one chooses to be human"* (RalphH)

      No, by being human one has the capacity to choose to be good.”

      I think both statements are true and there is no conflict because it's a cyclic process with the first 'choice to be good' being borrowed/from and in obedience to another's will seen to be superior to one's own.

      Delete
    21. 8x
      Man is the only being with a rational faculty.
      x8


      I suggest that your obsessive need to display your particular definition of rationality in public is an example of a behavior that is fundamentally irrational.

      Hows that for irony?

      Delete
    22. MalcolmS9:28 AM

      Dick: "Murder is social to the extent that different societies have different murder rates"

      That's the same error. Each case of murder in any society is volitional. I may well be a murdering Mexican drug runner. That in no way means my brother is likewise even though we live in the same society. The difference is explained only by volition.

      Same with Tracy. Perhaps her siblings did not have a drug habit. Perhaps the siblings of her murderer are not murderers. Only volition explains this. Essentially we are responsible for our own actions.

      Delete
    23. toolshed said
      8x
      The only thing which is "obvious" is the self-evident.
      x8

      Ok. Its obvious that the self evident is obvious... but then you follow with,

      8x
      Someone's choice to kill Tracy[or anyone else] is "obvious" only to the killer.

      Prohibition does not prevent violence to prostitutes but nor does it's legality.
      x8

      What does that bit have to do with the "obviousness" of


      8x
      "This was an avoidable killing... Tracy’s death was avoidable"
      x8

      Thats self evident

      Delete
    24. MalcolmS11:31 AM

      idiotcatfetishist: "Its obvious that the self evident is obvious..."

      Yes, but why is that so?

      What is the "self evident"? :)

      Delete
    25. MalcolmS11:39 AM

      idiotcatfetishist

      "8x
      "This was an avoidable killing... Tracy’s death was avoidable"
      x8

      Thats[sic] self evident"

      No, it's not.

      You may be able to infer it, it may even be true but it's not self evident.

      Delete
    26. RalphH 11/083:35 PM

      “Once again you are being selectively obfuscating. In the Christian middle ages such women would be packed off to the nearest nunnery - hardly caused by their atheism, "greed or materialism." Is that what you would recommend? Or perhaps you could tell us what you think your *solution* is!” (MalcolmS10:47 PM)

      I was not saying that it was the “greed and materialism” of the girls and women involved in prostitution that was instrumental in their choice (but this could be a factor with some individuals). I was talking about the greed and materialism of modern society that is the direct cause of most of the poverty, destitution and economic insecurity of the world and the bombardment of mass media continually alluring with a plethora of material things.

      “Remember that some of these women are paying off university fees and, dare I say it, are more intelligent and better educated than you :)”

      “Intelligence” and “education” are not virtues. You yourself implied (I believe correctly) that indulging in prostitution is not wise (MalcolmS 11:11 PM). I see this as a Machiavellian situation. Does the end justify the means? In this case I would say definitely not.

      Delete
    27. 8x
      You may be able to infer it, it may even be true but it's not self evident.[sic]
      x8

      False accusation there nobjockey.

      All killings are avoidable.

      Now giddyup

      Delete
    28. MalcolmS6:36 PM

      idiotcatfetishist: "All killings are avoidable"

      You may be able to infer it, it may even be true but it's not self evident :)

      Delete
    29. pfft
      Whatever

      "racing this time..." ;)

      Delete
    30. "All of humanity resides in the ability to choose between good and evil. By choosing to be good, one chooses to be human; by choosing to be bad/evil, one chooses to be inhuman."

      It's spelled humane, and inhumane Ralph. Bad people are still human.

      Delete
    31. "Why do you call me a “deviant” Malcolm? As I said, I'm not and never have been a Catholic (or a Protestant for that matter) so there is nothing to have deviated from."

      Ralph as far as they are concerned you have deviated from the truth.

      " The idyllic Garden represents the state of mind of early mankind and his growing awareness of his creator represented by the Tree of Life (God's Truth) being at the centre of the garden (i.e. the fore-front of the mind)."

      Early man was never in an idyllic state, you do like to make shit up to make yourself feel better don't you. The Bible is quite clear what the tree of life is for, why do you dismiss God's words for your own?

      "The Fall is represented by mankind replacing the Tree of Life with a 'tree' of self-derived opinion (i.e. from sensual experience and personal pleasure) of what is good and what is evil, as the ruling principle of their minds."

      According to God's words it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil not ''tree' of self-derived opinion' . Why are you replacing God's words with your own?

      Delete
    32. "Man is the only being with a rational faculty."

      You're still wrong.

      Delete
    33. "Dick: "Murder is social to the extent that different societies have different murder rates"

      That's the same error. Each case of murder in any society is volitional"

      Malcolm stupidly thinks that society/culture does not shape the way people think or behave.

      Delete
    34. " I was talking about the greed and materialism of modern society that is the direct cause of most of the poverty, destitution and economic insecurity of the world and the bombardment of mass media continually alluring with a plethora of material things."

      Jesus said being poor is good so it must be God who wants the people poor or he would help them like all loving parents help their children.

      "“Intelligence” and “education” are not virtues.'

      Yes they are.

      Delete
    35. "idiotcatfetishist: "All killings are avoidable"

      You may be able to infer it, it may even be true but it's not self evident :)"

      Yes it is.

      Delete
    36. MalcolmS8:15 PM

      Stranger: ""Man is the only being with a rational faculty." You're still wrong"

      Fallacy of anthropomorphism.

      Delete
    37. "Fallacy of anthropomorphism."

      Fallacy of ignorance.

      Delete
    38. MalcolmS8:44 PM

      Stranger: ""Man is the only being with a rational faculty." You're still wrong. Fallacy of ignorance"

      Fallacy of reification of the monkey :)

      Delete
    39. MalcolmS8:51 PM

      RalphH: "I was talking about the greed and materialism of modern society that is the direct cause of most of the poverty, destitution and economic insecurity of the world and the bombardment of mass media continually alluring with a plethora of material things"

      Really? Are you claiming there was no "poverty, destitution and economic insecurity" in the Christian middle ages? In fact poverty was/is a high Christian virtue. You should be happy that poverty is returning.

      Poverty is not caused by wealth creation. It is caused by NON wealth creation. The ideas of Christianity were historically the cause of poverty in the West. The capitalism of the modern era did not cause poverty - it inherited it from the Christians. It then cured poverty in any participating country.

      ““Intelligence” and “education” are not virtues"

      They are certainly human *values* and you get them from practising the virtue of *rationality* - man's primary virtue [the one Jesus forgot to tell you about].

      "You yourself implied (I believe correctly) that indulging in prostitution is not wise... Does the end justify the means? In this case I would say definitely not"

      The end never justifies the means. Prostitution is not wise but sometimes the option of choice. My position is that that is the choice of the prostitute and should not be the object of government prohibition.

      Delete
    40. "Fallacy of reification of the monkey :)"

      Fallacy of abject ignorance.

      Delete
    41. " It then cured poverty in any participating country."

      You are an idiot, poverty exists in every capitalist country.

      Delete
    42. MalcolmS9:19 PM

      Stranger: "poverty exists in every capitalist country"

      Only amongst non participants. Hardly the fault of capitalism.

      Delete
    43. "Only amongst non participants"

      No it affects people who want to participate too.
      Remember, your stupidity is a choice.

      Delete
    44. MalcolmS9:38 PM

      Stranger: "No it affects people who want to participate too"

      No, it doesn't. Nobody can stop participation.

      Delete
    45. "Nobody can stop participation."

      So you can make anyone hire you can you? You are such a dickhead it's a wonder how you operate in normal society.

      Delete
    46. MalcolmS9:54 PM

      Stranger: "So you can make anyone hire you can you?"

      Only if you have something of value to offer.

      Or you can enter another field.

      Don't give up your government job :)

      Delete
    47. MalcolmS10:06 PM

      Stranger: "it's a wonder how you operate in normal society"

      Yes, it is a "wonder" :)

      You could treat me as a role model :)

      Except that you'd have to give up your government job.

      Delete
    48. 8x
      " It then cured poverty in any participating country."
      x8

      followed by:

      8x
      Only amongst non participants. Hardly the fault of capitalism.
      x8

      Two contradictory statements!?

      You must be one of those lunatics I've been hearing about ;)

      Delete
    49. MalcolmS10:24 PM

      There is no contradiction there.

      Delete
    50. Hmmm. I suggest you increase your dosage.

      After all, drugs worked so well for Aynypoo over the 30 years or so she was taking them.

      Delete
    51. RalphH 11/0810:57 PM

      “It's spelled humane, and inhumane Ralph. Bad people are still human.” (Stranger7:24 PM)

      I said nothing about “bad people” Stranger. A person is not human solely by virtue of their physical appearance or make-up; they're human because of their ability to choose between good and evil. It's an ongoing process. Each choice affirms and confirms what they want to be. Only in the afterlife are they irrevocably good or evil (an angel or a devil).

      Each choice of evil is a step towards becoming evil/inhuman but prior to physical death that can be turned around by reverting to good choices. As Jesus said, “Go and sin no more!” I don't think your alternate spelling clarifies the matter.

      Delete
    52. MalcolmS11:00 PM

      I doubt you are qualified to make such a suggestion.

      Or much anything else for that matter.

      Delete
    53. "Stranger: "So you can make anyone hire you can you?"

      Only if you have something of value to offer."

      So you think that just being competent will make someone hire you?

      "Don't give up your government job :)"

      I have my own company.

      Delete
    54. 8x
      I doubt you are qualified to make such a suggestion.

      Or much anything else for that matter.
      x8

      I might say the same to a [ahem] "retired" chicken sexer who thinks the utopian "philosophy" spawned by the fiction of a drug addled Russian novelist, and promoted by a loony cult of whiny wannabe "heroic" fanboys should actually be taken seriously by responsible adults

      Unless he was offering advice in chicken sexing of course.

      Is he?

      ;)

      Delete
    55. "You could treat me as a role model :)"

      No, I'm not that stupid or desperate.

      Delete
    56. "I said nothing about “bad people” Stranger."

      People who do bad things then, seeing you are too dumb to figure it out.

      " A person is not human solely by virtue of their physical appearance or make-up; they're human because of their ability to choose between good and evil. "

      No, humans are human because of their physical make up. It's the reason we aren't tomatoes.

      "Only in the afterlife are they irrevocably good or evil (an angel or a devil)."

      First you have to prove there is an afterlife, then you have to prove your version is the correct or only one.

      " I don't think your alternate spelling clarifies the matter."

      Anyone who knows what human means does think it clarifies the matter.

      Delete
    57. MalcolmS5:24 AM

      "I have my own company"

      So does a muskrat :)

      Delete
    58. RalphH 11/086:31 AM

      '*"I said nothing about “bad people” Stranger."* RalphH)

      People who do bad things then, seeing you are too dumb to figure it out.” (Stranger1:08 AM)

      OK, that includes everybody. So who's acting “dumb”. Are there no 'good people'?

      “No, humans are human because of their physical make up. It's the reason we aren't tomatoes.”

      Tomatoes do not have free-will. A human looking creature can act in an inhuman way but a tomato cannot act in an 'in'tomato way. IOW to be totally human/a real human (talk to Pinocchio) the human looking creature has to act in a human/humane way. Dorian Grey (from Wilde's story) looked like superb human until seen for what he really was – an inhuman monster.

      “First you have to prove there is an afterlife, then you have to prove your version is the correct or only one.”

      I've already 'proved' it to my complete satisfaction. You are capable of proving it too – if you only want to. If you don't, no one else can prove it for you.

      Delete
    59. "Tomatoes do not have free-will."

      So?

      "I've already 'proved' it to my complete satisfaction."

      Obviously, but you can't say it's real until you can prove it, to rational people especially.

      "You are capable of proving it too"

      Believing something exists is not proof of existence

      Delete
    60. RalphH 12/133:57 PM

      “Really? Are you claiming there was no "poverty, destitution and economic insecurity" in the Christian middle ages?” (MalcolmS8:51 PM)

      No I wasn't Malcolm. I was focusing on the present


      “In fact poverty was/is a high Christian virtue. You should be happy that poverty is returning.”

      Although there are some who mistakenly think so this is not something that was taught by Christ so is not really “Christian”. Jesus said, “Blessed are the poor in spirit.' which is not the same thing as material poverty. To be poor in spirit is to be humble before God and not think that one knows everything or can find it out by sense experience.

      “Poverty is not caused by wealth creation. It is caused by NON wealth creation.”

      Poverty is avoided or averted, not by “wealth creation” but by the creation of things of worth (or use) to humans and a fair and equitable sharing of the means of creation of such things coupled with their fair and equitable sharing.

      “The ideas of Christianity were historically the cause of poverty in the West.”

      Some mistaken ideas of 'Christianity' (Christian philosophy and organisations formed by fallible people) may have been but the ideas of Christ were not.

      “The capitalism of the modern era did not cause poverty - it inherited it from the Christians. It then cured poverty in any participating country.”

      That may be the case when we have learned how to share for the good of all; it certainly is not the case yet (despite, in this country, Bob Hawke's extravagant and wish-thinking claims).

      “*““Intelligence” and “education” are not virtues"* (RalphH)

      They are certainly human *values* and you get them from practising the virtue of *rationality* - man's primary virtue [the one Jesus forgot to tell you about].

      I wouldn't call rationality “a virtue”. It's a gift, just like intelligence. It's a tool for understanding and attaining virtues.

      “The end never justifies the means.”

      Don't agree but it's not really the issue here.

      “Prostitution is not wise but sometimes the option of choice. My position is that that is the choice of the prostitute and should not be the object of government prohibition.”

      Being “not wise” implies that it could result in harm to self or others, If the choice is a free-choice (and if the perpetrator is young or simple it is not), there is still the spectre of harm to and/or from others as a responsibility of the authorities to deal with.

      Delete
    61. RalphH 12/084:12 PM

      “*"Tomatoes do not have free-will."* (RalphH)

      So?” (Stranger7:36 AM)

      So yours was an invalid analogy. Even if you'd compared humans to animals it would have been invalid because humans are unique.

      “Obviously, but you can't say it's real until you can prove it, to rational people especially.”

      Since many “rational people” already believe as I do, rationality is not a criterion. That's merely an emotive argument.

      “Believing something exists is not proof of existence”

      We're talking about something that is not 'provable' in scientific terms so different rules apply.

      Delete
    62. "So yours was an invalid analogy."

      No it wasn't as I wasn't talking about free will or any sort of mental capability.

      " Even if you'd compared humans to animals it would have been invalid because humans are unique."

      No we aren't, apart from being the only homo species alive that is.

      "Since many “rational people” already believe as I do"

      They aren't rational.

      "We're talking about something that is not 'provable' in scientific terms so different rules apply."

      The same rules apply, just because you want something to be true does not make it true.

      Delete
    63. "Although there are some who mistakenly think so this is not something that was taught by Christ so is not really “Christian”."

      Actually Jesus extols the virtues of poverty more than once.

      "Some mistaken ideas of 'Christianity' (Christian philosophy and organisations formed by fallible people) may have been but the ideas of Christ were not."

      Actually they were, slavery being one of them.

      Delete
    64. RalphH 12/089:28 PM

      “No it wasn't as I wasn't talking about free will or any sort of mental capability.” (Stranger7:08 PM)

      I'm not fussed what you were talking about Stranger. If you think to define human when leaving out the aspects of rationality and free-will you have only done part of the job. Hence it was (and is) an invalid and poor analogy. (“just because YOU want something to be true does not make it true.”)

      “*" Even if you'd compared humans to animals it would have been invalid because humans are unique."* (RalphH)

      “No we aren't, apart from being the only homo species alive that is.”

      More research (and a change of heart) needed (by you).

      '*"Since many “rational people” already believe as I do"* (RH)

      They aren't rational.”

      Your opinion based solely on the fact that they do not think as you do.

      “*"We're talking about something that is not 'provable' in scientific terms so different rules apply."* (RH)

      The same rules apply, just because you want something to be true does not make it true.”

      They do not, no matter how much YOU want them to. It's the same distinction as between finite and infinite or time based and eternal. The only way one can gain an insight into the 'higher' levels of being is from a higher non-scientific perspective.

      It requires a quantum leap similar to that of Copernicus's new way of viewing the universe. Just as our little world was not the centre of the physical universe, neither are our subjective ideas sufficient to gain a full perspective on reality.

      Delete
    65. RalphH 12/0810:00 PM

      "Although there are some who mistakenly think so this is not something that was taught by Christ so is not really “Christian”."

      “Actually Jesus extols the virtues of poverty more than once.” (Stranger7:11 PM)

      Actually? Where? I looked and found only two instances (Matthew 5:3 and Luke 6:20), both part of the Beatitudes from the 'Sermon on the Mount'. Matthew's report shows that it is 'the poor in spirit' who are being referenced.

      “*"Some mistaken ideas of 'Christianity' (Christian philosophy and organisations formed by fallible people) may have been but the ideas of Christ were not."* (RalphH)

      Actually they were, slavery being one of them.”

      Jesus did not endorse or condemn slavery. He was not a social or political reformer. He had a spiritual mission – to free people's minds fro the slavery of evil desires and ideas. Slavery was in integral part of the ancient world long before Christ.

      It was not an opportune time to end slavery until people (en masse and with political clout) could be more open to a new social and economic order. When slavery was abolished it was Christians using Christ's love of and acceptance of all people who were in the forefront.

      Delete
    66. " I looked and found only two instances (Matthew 5:3 and Luke 6:20),"

      Mark 10:21-22 , Mark 12:41-44 amongst others.

      "Jesus did not endorse or condemn slavery."

      He endorsed it by not condemning it, he basically said it was okay as long as one treated one's slaves well.

      " He was not a social or political reformer."

      Yes he was.

      "Slavery was in integral part of the ancient world long before Christ."

      So? A loving God should have had it up there with not killing.

      "It was not an opportune time to end slavery"

      Bollocks.

      "When slavery was abolished it was Christians.."

      And atheists. Christians also supported it.

      Delete
    67. " If you think to define human when leaving out the aspects of rationality and free-will you have only done part of the job. "

      No I haven't, Those are just capabilities humans do better than other animals, they don't make us human.

      "More research (and a change of heart) needed (by you)."

      I'm not the one who wallows in willful ignorance Ralph, you are.

      "Your opinion based solely on the fact that they do not think as you do."

      My opinion based on the fact they think like you do.

      "The only way one can gain an insight into the 'higher' levels of being is from a higher non-scientific perspective."

      Making up a 'higher level of being' does not make it exist. You have to show it exists if you want to be taken seriously by rational people.

      " neither are our subjective ideas sufficient to gain a full perspective on reality."

      Yet that's all you go on, subjective ideas, while science uses objective reality to form ideas about how it works.

      Delete
    68. RalphH 13/085:23 PM

      “Mark 10:21-22 , Mark 12:41-44 amongst others.” (Stranger1:00 AM)

      Mark 10:21-22 :- Granted this appears to be endorsing poverty but the story continues and the conversation develops with the definitive statement being made at verse 24. “how hard it is for those who TRUST in riches to enter the kingdom of God!”

      Obviously if the principle was for everyone to dispense their wealth everyone would end up paupers and there would be no wealth to support even the basics of society.

      Mark 12:41-44 :- This is a story of a poor widow who is generous to a fault juxtapositioned against wealthy people who in comparison to their wealth positions contribute far less. It is not an endorsement of poverty.

      “(Jesus) endorsed (slavery) by not condemning it, he basically said it was okay as long as one treated one's slaves well.”

      Not so. He went to the core of the problem – the attitudes and false ideas from which slavery arose.

      “Yes he was.”

      Jesus' message was on a higher level than the social and political. He targeted selfish attitudes and ideas about life in general. There can be no fair or lasting social and political reform without a spirit of love and charity towards others and that was sadly lacking in Roman times.

      “So? A loving God should have had (slavery) up there with not killing.”

      So you know more than God – and He's not up to scratch?

      “Bollocks.”

      You don't seem to be able to get the point that God works according to process without over-riding (and hence destroying) human free-will. You seem to be dismissing a childish idea of God - because He doesn't just wave a magic wand and make everything alright, He doesn't exist.

      “And atheists. Christians also supported it.”

      I didn't exclude atheists. I said Christians (Wilberforce et al) were in the forefront. Why the one-up-man-ship? The history is quite clear.

      Delete
    69. RalphH 13/086:22 PM

      “No I haven't, (rationality and free-will) are just capabilities humans do better than other animals, they don't make us human.” (Stranger1:04 AM)

      This is not so Stranger. There is a massive distinction. When, for example, a human thinks and acts irrationally (e.g. when drunk) they are far worse than any animal because they don't have the same deterministic control instincts.

      “I'm not the one who wallows in willful ignorance Ralph, you are.”

      I'm not at all sure what “wilful (looks better when spelt correctly) ignorance” might be. Did you make that one up? I don't do “wallow(ing)” either. It's usually connected to self-pity anyway, not ignorance.

      “My opinion based on the fact they think like you do.”

      Well, at least I got you to admit that it was 'opinion'.

      “Making up a 'higher level of being' does not make it exist. You have to show it exists if you want to be taken seriously by rational people.”

      I've explained it but you (maybe from “willful ignorance?) don't want to know.

      “Yet that's all you go on, subjective ideas, while science uses objective reality to form ideas about how it works.”

      So how does “ science use() objective reality to form ideas”? Does “science” have a mind? Or are there human minds looking at Nature subjectively?

      Delete
    70. "This is not so Stranger."

      Yes it is, just because you are totally ignorant of animal behaviour doesn't mean we all are.

      "I'm not at all sure what “wilful (looks better when spelt correctly) ignorance” might be"

      You're too busy wallowing in it even to find out.

      "I've explained it but you (maybe from “willful ignorance?) don't want to know."

      No Ralph you have not explained, you have made more claims you can't support with evidence or logic. You still need to be able to show in some form that what you claim to be true is in fact true.

      "So how does “ science use() objective reality to form ideas”? Does “science” have a mind? Or are there human minds looking at Nature subjectively?"

      jeez you are so stupid you can't figure out I meant scientists working in the field of science.

      Delete
    71. "“(Jesus) endorsed (slavery) by not condemning it, he basically said it was okay as long as one treated one's slaves well.”

      Not so. "

      Yes it is so. At no time did he say slave owners should free their slaves.

      "Jesus' message was on a higher level than the social and political."

      Except he talks about social and political issues all quite often.

      "There can be no fair or lasting social and political reform without a spirit of love and charity towards others and that was sadly lacking in Roman times."

      You really are an ignorant twit.

      "The younger Pliny spent on his native town of Como 11,000,000 sesterces, though by no means a very rich man. He founded a library, a school, and a charity institute for poor children; also a temple to Ceres, with spacious porticoes to shelter tradespeople who came to the fair held in honor of that goddess. His grandfather had already built for the town a costly portico, and provided the money for decorating the city gates."
      http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/romancharity.asp

      "So you know more than God – and He's not up to scratch?"

      I know that slavery is bad, god doesn't.

      "You don't seem to be able to get the point that God works according to process without over-riding (and hence destroying) human free-will."

      You don't seem to be able to understand that according to the Bible, and most Christians, he does.

      " You seem to be dismissing a childish idea of God - because He doesn't just wave a magic wand and make everything alright, He doesn't exist."

      You have a childish idea that all the bad things in the Bible God does are metaphor because you can't handle the idea of God being nasty.

      "I didn't exclude atheists"

      You didn't mention them, and they were also in the forefront.

      Delete
    72. RalphH 13/086:28 AM

      “jeez you are so stupid you can't figure out I meant scientists working in the field of science.” (Stranger3:44 AM)

      Why do you find it necessary to call others (you don't agree with) “stupid” and “ignorant”? Do you have an inferiority complex and that how you try to mask it? Your great revelation (about scientists) is the same as my last sentence.

      ' Scientists working in the field of science' still form 'subjective ideas about objective reality (by which I assume you mean the world of Nature). What eludes you is that objective reality encompasses far more than the world of Nature/the Natural universe. You, unfortunately choose to have a limited, closed mind that spews out insults to all who disagree with you.

      Delete
    73. "Why do you find it necessary to call others (you don't agree with) “stupid” and “ignorant”? "

      I don't. You do realise we weren't even disagreeing about anything with that particular comment don't you?

      " What eludes you is that objective reality encompasses far more than the world of Nature/the Natural universe."

      If it does you'd be able to show it.

      Delete
    74. RalphH 14/083:46 PM

      “I don't. You do realise we weren't even disagreeing about anything with that particular comment don't you?” (Stranger6:35 AM)

      If you recognised that before I pointed it out, why “stupid”? Just an arrogant declaration of intellectual superiority? (with no realistic basis I might add)

      “*" What eludes you is that objective reality encompasses far more than the world of Nature/the Natural universe."* (RalphH)

      “If it does you'd be able to show it.”

      I have – often – but you don't seem to want to even consider it. Despite the fact that you think you can do my thinking for me, I can't do your thinking for you.

      You're just going to have to put aside your prejudices and expand your mind. It may be a new experience for you but it is worth it if (sometime in the future) you ever want to get beyond your self-imposed limitations.

      Delete
    75. "I have – often – but you don't seem to want to even consider it."

      No you haven't. All you've done is make claims of your own and repeat claims of religious texts and the mentally ill.

      "You're just going to have to put aside your prejudices and expand your mind."

      Actually that's what you need to do, not me. learning about reality would be a new experience for you, but I know you won't do it.

      Delete
    76. RalphH 14/088:58 PM

      “You really are an ignorant twit.

      *"The younger Pliny spent on his native town of Como 11,000,000 sesterces, though by no means a very rich man. He founded a library, a school, and a charity institute for poor children; also a temple to Ceres, with spacious porticoes to shelter tradespeople who came to the fair held in honor of that goddess. His grandfather had already built for the town a costly portico, and provided the money for decorating the city gates."
      http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/romancharity.asp * (Stranger3:56 AM)

      So, arrogant Stranger, do you think this is typical of Roman dominion? You seem to have overlooked the introduction to the above example, “The Imperial Age was one of great benevolence if we are willing to give that name to acts of generosity which were often too showy and ostentatious to merit the highest praise.”

      If Pliny's (and let's not forget that this was his home country) benevolence was typical of the Empire as a whole, why were the Romans so hated and feared in the conquered territories. Let Judea serve as an example.

      “You have a childish idea that all the bad things in the Bible God does are metaphor because you can't handle the idea of God being nasty.”

      What a silly suggestion. You don't seem to be able to understand that “God being nasty” would not be God. It's a contradiction, an impossibility. So, by interpreting scripture literally all you're doing is setting up a 'straw-man' concept of God that you can then shoot down in flames.

      I don't believe in a God of nastiness (any more than you do) because nastiness is destructive and hurtful and completely out of keeping with a God of love and creativity. If God encompassed love and hate (He) would be torn apart.

      Hate can only exist where love is rejected or twisted and that can't happen in a 'source' being. It can only occur in a receptor being (i.e. finite, fallible humans).

      Delete
    77. MalcolmS9:25 PM

      Ralph the receptor being:

      "If God encompassed love and hate (He) would be torn apart"

      Perhaps that's the reason he doesn't exist?

      And why there are so many "receptor beings" who know it :)

      Delete
    78. "So, arrogant Stranger, do you think this is typical of Roman dominion?"

      Whether it is typical or not is irrelevant as you said it didn't exist at all.

      " You seem to have overlooked the introduction to the above example"

      No, it's just irrelevant to the point.

      " why were the Romans so hated and feared in the conquered territories."

      Because they brutal in conquest.

      "What a silly suggestion."

      No, a silly suggestion would be to claim all the bad things done by God are eother a misunderstanding or not literal.

      " You don't seem to be able to understand that “God being nasty” would not be God."

      You don't seem to understand that God himself says he creates chaos. You can't handle the fact that the Israelites had a different relationship/view with/of God.

      " If God encompassed love and hate (He) would be torn apart."

      No, he just wouldn't be the God you want to exist.

      Delete
    79. RalphH 15/0810:16 PM

      “Whether it is typical or not is irrelevant as you said it didn't exist at all.” (Stranger11:53 PM)

      I said it was “sadly lacking” Stranger. Helping out your mates and countrymen and enslaving and bullying everyone else does not equate to living a life of love and charity towards one's fellow man.

      “No, it's just irrelevant to the point.”

      It's completely relevant. That's why I mentioned it.

      “Because (the Romans were) brutal in conquest.”

      And brutal in maintaining their position of power. It was called the 'Pax Romana' which basically meant an iron-fisted imposed 'peace' by the fat cats at the top of the tree. There would have been exceptions but the default Roman attitude was epitomised by the character of Messala in the movie 'Ben Hur'.

      “No, a silly suggestion would be to claim all the bad things done by God are eother a misunderstanding or not literal.”

      A correction! “all the bad things (SAID TO BE) done by God are e(i)ther a misunderstanding or not literal.”

      “You don't seem to understand that God himself says he creates chaos. You can't handle the fact that the Israelites had a different relationship/view with/of God.”

      I've explained that before but how cute to be quoting God (out of context) in support of your contention that God does not exist.

      “No, he just wouldn't be the God you want to exist.”

      To attribute unGod-like characteristics to a being already defined by God-like characteristics is mistaken or foolish. It is a close-minded, fundamentalist approach to scripture (whether one is a believer or a denier). Obviously something else is meant.

      Delete
    80. "I said it was “sadly lacking” Stranger."

      Which is usually, if not often, meant as not existing. Pax Romana does not rule out individual (or State) charitable acts.

      "A correction! “all the bad things (SAID TO BE) done by God are e(i)ther a misunderstanding or not literal.”"

      So would you agree that the good things are only 'said to be done'? It's still a silly thing to say.

      "I've explained that before but how cute to be quoting God (out of context) in support of your contention that God does not exist."

      Show that quoting God saying he creates chaos is out of context.

      "To attribute unGod-like characteristics to a being already defined by God-like characteristics is mistaken or foolish."

      You are the one trying to change the attributes of God, not the Israelites.

      "Obviously something else is meant."

      No, you just want it to mean something else because you can't handle the idea of a mean God.

      Delete
    81. MalcolmS11:58 PM

      Ralph, Ben-Hur was a favourite movie of mine as a kid. I particularly liked the chariot race and the scene where Miriam and Tirzah, Ben-Hur's mother and sister, are miraculously healed of their leprosy. Do you believe that Jesus could miraculously heal leprosy? Or was this only metaphor and not to be taken literally? If metaphor, then, of what?

      As our resident "receptor being" I thought you would be just the man to ask :)

      Delete
    82. RalphH 16/085:16 PM

      “Ralph, Ben-Hur was a favourite movie of mine as a kid. I particularly liked the chariot race and the scene where Miriam and Tirzah, Ben-Hur's mother and sister, are miraculously healed of their leprosy. Do you believe that Jesus could miraculously heal leprosy? Or was this only metaphor and not to be taken literally? If metaphor, then, of what?

      As our resident "receptor being" I thought you would be just the man to ask :)” (MalcolmS11:58 PM)

      The theory Malcolm, is that ALL who are not 'the source' being are receptor beings. So, unless you're the source of existence and life, welcome to the club. Ben Hur is a favourite of mine too but not as a kid (I did read the book though). I love the story and some of the lines are priceless (for theists) – like the interplay that takes place between Hur and Quintus Arrius the Roman fleet commander aboard the galley - also on the raft and during the rescue.

      I do believe that Jesus' miracles were factual – and also metaphors. Any healing from disease could be seen as a miracle especially when it is instantaneous. I don't believe there was anything magical though. God is the healer in all cases (by means of the soul acting through the human immune system). Normally the process requires human knowledge and cooperation and it takes time. But God is not impeded by space and time. If the power is focused (for a specific purpose) the result will be immediate.

      It's a metaphor because the healing of the physical mirrors the potential healing of the mental/spiritual. Hence Jesus often asked if the 'patient' (or their friends) had faith in his ability to heal.

      Delete
    83. " Normally the process requires human knowledge and cooperation and it takes time."

      Why do you keep making shit up?

      " Hence Jesus often asked if the 'patient' (or their friends) had faith in his ability to heal."

      It's a very old spiritual healing thing, the person has to believe or it doesn't work.

      Delete
    84. MalcolmS7:02 PM

      RalphH: "I do believe that Jesus' miracles were factual – and also metaphors. Any healing from disease could be seen as a miracle especially when it is instantaneous"

      Praises be for your latest revelation oh great "receptor being"!

      Though, come to think about it - didn't Jesus take *time* to ask "if the 'patient'.. had faith in his ability to heal"? Wasn't he able to heal those who go by reason rather than by faith? Or was it just that he didn't give a stuff about them?

      Riddle me that one oh great "receptor being."

      Delete
    85. RalphH 16/0810:19 PM

      “Though, come to think about it - didn't Jesus take *time* to ask "if the 'patient'.. had faith in his ability to heal"? Wasn't he able to heal those who go by reason rather than by faith? Or was it just that he didn't give a stuff about them?

      Riddle me that one oh great "receptor being." ” (MalcolmS7:02 PM)

      News flash, fellow receptor being (Malcolm), EVERYONE 'goes by faith', everyone has faith in something even if that something is only their own reason (or, on a somewhat larger scale, the entire complex of human reasoning).

      What is the value of finite, fallible human reasoning compared with the infinite wisdom and eternal love of God? Infinitesimal!

      Jesus/incarnate God is able to spiritually heal anyone who wants to be healed, from the simplest to the most highly intellectual, if only they have faith in the healer. It may start with the smallest, mustard seed size grain of faith but it can expand to pervade their entire mind. God does not impose Himself on anyone, He stands at the door (of the mind) knocking and waiting to be invited in (see Revelation 3:20).

      Delete
    86. MalcolmS11:03 PM

      RalphH: "EVERYONE 'goes by faith', everyone has faith in something even if that something is only their own reason (or, on a somewhat larger scale, the entire complex of human reasoning)"

      Don't know how many times I have to repeat it! Faith is *not* a means to knowledge. "Faith in reason" is *not* reason. The proper validation of man's consciousness belongs to the discipline known as epistemology which answers: man's only means of knowledge is reason. In the realm of man's knowledge reason is an absolute. Sorry if Enlightenment thought is something receptor being Ralph has not "receptored" yet!

      "What is the value of finite, fallible human reasoning compared with the infinite wisdom and eternal love of God? Infinitesimal!"

      God is something you made up as a foil to absent yourself from reason. Fallibility does *not* preclude knowledge. Love is *not* eternal. Wisdom [or anything else which aciually exists] is finite - it's what it is - no more and no less.

      "Jesus/incarnate God is able to spiritually heal anyone who wants to be healed... God does not impose Himself on anyone, He stands at the door (of the mind) knocking and waiting to be invited in (see Revelation 3:20)"

      A nice selective quote from Revelations! I suggest, oh great receptor being, that you focus on the parts of the Bible re God as *mass murderer* sometime.

      Delete
    87. "News flash, fellow receptor being (Malcolm), EVERYONE 'goes by faith', everyone has faith in something even if that something is only their own reason (or, on a somewhat larger scale, the entire complex of human reasoning)."

      Which definition of faith are you using Ralph?

      "What is the value of finite, fallible human reasoning compared with the infinite wisdom and eternal love of God? Infinitesimal!"

      You have yet to show that God exists outside of the human imagination.

      "Jesus/incarnate God is able to spiritually heal anyone who wants to be healed, from the simplest to the most highly intellectual, if only they have faith in the healer."

      That's not very omnipotent of him.

      "God does not impose Himself on anyone"

      The Bible disagrees with you. Even God working through people, or in mysterious ways imposes himself on people.

      Delete
    88. RalphH 17/088:05 AM

      “Don't know how many times I have to repeat it! Faith is *not* a means to knowledge. "Faith in reason" is *not* reason.” (MalcolmS11:03 PM)

      I don't think I've ever claimed that it is. Faith has to do with attitude and focus. It's about what you trust and have confidence in. It's what determines the parameters of how one (everyone) applies their reason.

      “The proper validation of man's consciousness belongs to the discipline known as epistemology which answers: man's only means of knowledge is reason. In the realm of man's knowledge reason is an absolute.”

      We have a different idea of knowledge, Malcolm. Anything a person knows is knowledge – prior to the application of reason. Children and simple people have knowledge even though their rational faculty is not yet (or not) developed. We apply reason to sort out and discover which knowledge(s) are true. How can human reason be “an absolute” when humans are finite/limited and fallible creatures?

      “God is something you made up as a foil to absent yourself from reason.”

      What rubbish. Didn't Voltaire say, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” I use my reason as much and maybe more than you do. We merely reason from a different perspective/a different set of assumptions.

      “Fallibility does *not* preclude knowledge.”

      I agree with that but, IMO, it does preclude reason from being absolute.

      “Love is *not* eternal. Wisdom [or anything else which aciually exists] is finite - it's what it is - no more and no less.”

      Human love is not eternal, human wisdom is finite but the Love of God is eternal and (His) wisdom is infinite. IMO, human love and wisdom are upgraded by knowingly (from choice) connecting to that eternal and infinite source.

      “A nice selective quote from Revelations! I suggest, oh great receptor being, that you focus on the parts of the Bible re God as *mass murderer* sometime.”

      As previously I don't believe such stories do not make any sense when interpreted literally.

      Delete
    89. RalphH 17/088:12 AM

      Problems with a double negative in my last sentence.

      Should read, "As previously, I don't believe such stories make any sense when interpreted literally."

      Delete
    90. RalphH 17/088:49 AM

      “Which definition of faith are you using Ralph?” (Stranger12:46 AM)

      Faith is trust/confidence in (something). What other definition would make any sense in the context of my statement.

      “*"What is the value of finite, fallible human reasoning compared with the infinite wisdom and eternal love of God? Infinitesimal!"* (RalphH)

      You have yet to show that God exists outside of the human imagination.”

      Why? If God exists only in human imagination, the statement still holds true

      “That's not very omnipotent of him.”

      You have a funny idea of omnipotent. Omnipotence does not entail forcing people against there will.

      “The Bible disagrees with you. Even God working through people, or in mysterious ways imposes himself on people.”

      I am not in disagreement with the Bible when it is not misinterpreted. You might have a point about God working through people but I think there would have to be at least a tacit consent. God working “in mysterious ways” simply means that we don't understand how and why.

      Delete
    91. " I use my reason as much and maybe more than you do."

      Repeating lies to yourself still doesn't make them true Ralph.

      " Anything a person knows is knowledge – prior to the application of reason."

      Belief is not knowledge Ralph.

      "As previously I don't believe such stories do not make any sense when interpreted literally."

      They only don't make sense if you insist that God is a nice being. The people who God chose to reveal himself (which includes his character) do not think that.

      Delete
    92. "Faith is trust/confidence in (something). What other definition would make any sense in the context of my statement."

      Seeing you abuse definitions and context I had to ask.

      "Why? If God exists only in human imagination, the statement still holds true"

      If God only exists in the human imagination then he doesn't exist in reality. You do know that the imagination is not real don't you?

      "Omnipotence does not entail forcing people against there will."

      That's not what you said. By the gods you are stupid.

      "I am not in disagreement with the Bible when it is not misinterpreted"

      Trust a lunatic to think they are the only one interpreting the Bible correctly. Especially if they think they are interpreting it better than the culture who wrote it.

      " You might have a point about God working through people but I think there would have to be at least a tacit consent."

      There never seems to be.

      Delete
    93. RalphH 17/086:23 PM

      Whoops, I put the wrong date on my last two posts. Should have been 17th still.

      “Belief is not knowledge Ralph.” (Stranger4:46 PM)

      I didn't talk about belief Stranger, I spoke about “knowing”. Can you see the connection to the word 'knowledge'?

      “*"As previously I don't believe such stories do not make any sense when interpreted literally."* (RalphH)

      They only don't make sense if you insist that God is a nice being. The people who God chose to reveal himself (which includes his character) do not think that.”

      God, by definition, is a “nice”/(the nicest possible) being. God inspired the writers to write whatever was necessary to reveal (His) true nature to people by meeting their present state of mind on it's own level.

      This would have involved a degree of reverse psychology by allowing people to think that what they wanted to be true was true so that they could (if so inclined) excuse their evil to preserve their free-will which could resume it's proper function when (and if) they returned to a rational state of mind.

      There would also be those who saw through to the spiritual meaning of the stories (as being about the good and evil thoughts and emotions warring within their own minds) and were able to improve their lives accordingly enabling the overall progress of the human race.

      Delete
    94. RalphH 17/086:56 PM

      “Seeing you abuse definitions and context I had to ask.” (Stranger4:52 PM)

      On the contrary Stranger, I make a great effort to get to the original meaning of words (often looking up their etymology) before ignorant and deluded people who think words can mean 'whatever one wants them to mean' set about corrupting their meanings. I cite the word 'marriage' as an example.

      “*"If God exists only in human imagination, the statement still holds true"* (RalphH)

      If God only exists in the human imagination then he doesn't exist in reality. You do know that the imagination is not real don't you?”

      I may have worded that badly. By SAYING 'If God existed only in imagination', we would be doing a hypothetical so the normal rational process 'if A then B' would apply.

      “*"Omnipotence does not entail forcing people against there will."* (RH)

      That's not what you said. By the gods you are stupid.”

      Can't recall what I said (or know what you think I said) but I've said it now and there's nothing stupid about it.

      “Trust a lunatic to think they are the only one interpreting the Bible correctly. Especially if they think they are interpreting it better than the culture who wrote it.”

      That may be a mark of lunacy but since I don't think I'm the only one (there are actually millions from all religious traditions), I guess that cuts me out. It is possible to have a better (in some ways) interpretation now than then because the race has moved on and progressive revelations have helped to open up the inner meaning of scripture.

      Delete
    95. Quite the hamster wheel you two chaps have going at the moment.

      Glad to see the nobjectivists dont have a complete monopoly on the practice...

      Delete
    96. "I didn't talk about belief Stranger, I spoke about “knowing”."

      Ralph when you speak about knowing (eg God) you speak of beliefs.

      "God, by definition, is a “nice”/(the nicest possible) being."

      No Ralph that's your definition of God.

      "God inspired the writers to write whatever was necessary to reveal (His) true nature to people by meeting their present state of mind on it's own level."

      You just made that up.

      Delete
    97. "On the contrary Stranger, I make a great effort to get to the original meaning of words "

      Liar, you continuously abuse the definition of objective, as one example.

      "I may have worded that badly. By SAYING 'If God existed only in imagination', we would be doing a hypothetical so the normal rational process 'if A then B' would apply."

      No by saying that we would be saying God doesn't exist in the real world.

      "Can't recall what I said (or know what you think I said) but I've said it now and there's nothing stupid about it."

      What you wrote is still there, you are even too stupid to look at what you wrote, and what you wrote is still stupid.

      "That may be a mark of lunacy but since I don't think I'm the only one (there are actually millions from all religious traditions), I guess that cuts me out. "

      No it just makes you all loonies.

      " and progressive revelations have helped to open up the inner meaning of scripture."

      Then why don't you accept the Book of Mormon as it's a later revelation than Swedenborg so it must be a better interpretation.

      Delete
    98. RalphH 19/083:16 PM

      “Ralph when you speak about knowing (eg God) you speak of beliefs.” (Stranger5:55 PM)

      Really Stranger, there you go thinking that you can read my mind again. Well, I know a lot of things that I don’t believe and so I suspect do you. For example you know about God but you don’t believe.

      “You just made that up.”

      I’d have to be pretty smart to make up all the things you accuse me of ‘making up’ but at the same time you keep calling me stupid. You can’t have it both ways. Both no more than your opinion by the way.

      Delete
    99. RalphH 19/085:57 PM

      “Liar, you continuously abuse the definition of objective, as one example.” (Stranger 6:03 PM)

      I know that there is nothing objective about your repeated emotional outbursts of, “Liar.”

      

“No by saying that we would be saying God doesn't exist in the real world.”

      Let me draw your attention to the preposition “if”. Maybe upper case will help - “IF”. No wonder you have a problem understanding a rational argument.



      “What you wrote is still there, you are even too stupid to look at what you wrote, and what you wrote is still stupid.”

      Dream on - or try to explain yourself if you think you can.



      

“No it just makes you all loonies.”

      Simply on your say so? This demonstrates your ‘all‘ or ‘nothing’/black or white attitude.One of the teachings at the forefront of my particular religious tradition is that ‘EVERYONE who believes in God (truth and goodness outside of/objective to and ‘higher‘ than themselves ) and lives according to their understanding of God’s teachings, will attain salvation/eternal life.

      

“Then why don't you accept the Book of Mormon as it's a later revelation than Swedenborg so it must be a better interpretation.”

      A sensible person judges thing by their quality not by their modernity.

      Delete
    100. "For example you know about God but you don’t believe."

      No, I know what people say about God.

      "I’d have to be pretty smart to make up all the things you accuse me of ‘making up’ but at the same time you keep calling me stupid."

      Having am imagination doe snot make one smart.

      "I know that there is nothing objective about your repeated emotional outbursts of, “Liar.”"

      Except for all the evidence that you are a liar you mean.

      "Dream on - or try to explain yourself if you think you can."

      I did explain myself, quite clearly, you are just too stupid to even understand that I quoted your mistake.

      "Simply on your say so?"

      No it's based on the fact you reject reality and insist things are real even though you can't provide no evidence or logical argument supporting the ideas.

      "A sensible person judges thing by their quality not by their modernity."

      Well we know you aren't sensible so why do you reject one revelation over another?

      Delete
    101. RalphH 20/083:03 PM

      “No, I know what people say about God.” (Stranger 1:04 AM)

      So you’ve never made any effort to read or research for your self? I guess that partly explains your uneducated approach to the subject.


      

“Having am imagination doe snot make one smart.”

      It’s a pretty useful asset, one wouldn’t be very “smart‘ without one.




      "Except for all the evidence that you are a liar you mean.

"

      I’ve never seen any “evidence of that”. Being a liar involves knowingly and purposefully saying something that is untrue. I don’t do that. What we’re seeing is your knee-jerk reaction to anyone you disagree with.



      “I did explain myself, quite clearly, you are just too stupid to even understand that I quoted your mistake.”

      Since virtually everything I write is considered stupid or mistaken by you, it’s a bit hard to pin point what you’re carrying on about and the onus is on you to do so since you’re the one making that claim.




      “No it's based on the fact you reject reality and insist things are real even though you can't provide no evidence or logical argument supporting the ideas.”

      We’ve covered the supposed absence of evidence thing many times and it’s a real crock. I love logical argument but don’t believe logic is based solely on scientific/sensual evidence.




      “Well we know you aren't sensible so why do you reject one revelation over another?”

      You “know” no such thing. You opine and believe based on your prejudices.

      Delete
    102. "So you’ve never made any effort to read or research for your self?"

      Yes, which is why I know what people say about God.

      "It’s a pretty useful asset, one wouldn’t be very “smart‘ without one."

      Yes but you abuse it by thinking you imagination reflects reality just because you imagined it.

      "I’ve never seen any “evidence of that”."

      Considering you ignore all sorts of evidence that don't agree with your beliefs that's not surprising.

      " Being a liar involves knowingly and purposefully saying something that is untrue."

      Which is exactly what you do. Saying you accept science is a lie, as one example.

      "Since virtually everything I write is considered stupid or mistaken by you"

      Then I suggest you be correct and not write anything stupid.

      " I love logical argument "

      Another lie.



      "We’ve covered the supposed absence of evidence thing many times and it’s a real crock."

      The only people who say it's a crock a deluded fools like you who want their un-evidenced beliefs be treated as facts

      "You “know” no such thing."

      No, I do know it

      Delete
    103. MalcolmS6:25 PM

      RalphH: "Since virtually everything I write is considered stupid or mistaken by you, it’s a bit hard to pin point what you’re carrying on about and the onus is on you to do so since you’re the one making that claim"

      Pot... kettle... black... :)

      Delete
  2. Here is the point I was making before but it got lost in the dust kicking.

    Blaming the whole thing on religion is simplistic because, as I pointed out before, non religious societies often have harsher attitudes to prostitution than religious societies. There is no simple pattern for this.

    For any successful religion it is likely that their moral values were picked up from what people already felt was right and wrong at the time, otherwise they would not have been successful religions.

    Probably we will make no progress in this until all the hobby horses - theistic or atheistic are taken out of the equation and we focus only on what is good policy and what makes sense.

    And again I think that the "harm reduction" focus that seems to be used only reinforces the moral objection. It seems to say "yes I know it is wrong but we can at least limit the harm that it does".

    I think that will achieve nothing. We need to clearly emphasise that someone freely choosing to sell sexual services to willing clients is not doing anything wrong and should be allowed to follow the profession as any person is allowed to follow a legal profession.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS11:11 PM

      Yes, I think it should be legal - but not for minors.

      That is *not* to say that a prostitute working in the street is doing a wise thing. That's an entirely different matter.

      Delete
    2. 8x
      For any successful religion it is likely that their moral values were picked up from what people already felt was right and wrong at the time, otherwise they would not have been successful religions.
      x8

      Do you have any supporting evidence for the claim that successful religions follow the moral values that people feel are right and wrong at the time?

      Delete
    3. You will notice, Billy, that I did not state is as fact, merely that it was likely.

      I suppose it is possible that the idea that murdering, stealing and lying were wrong was a novel invention by the Abrahamic religion and that people would have found these ideas strange at the time.

      I think it more likely lying, stealing and murdering were already regarded as wrong and that the writers of the Pentateuch incorporated this morality.

      I am pretty sure I have seen evidence that lying, stealing and murdering were not highly regarded virtues before the time of the Pentateuch, but if you doubt this I am pretty sure I can find the evidence again.

      Delete
    4. MalcolmS7:39 AM

      "For any successful religion it is likely that their moral values were picked up from what people already felt was right and wrong at the time, otherwise they would not have been successful religions"

      When Christianity first arrived in the pagan Roman Empire it was very much a minority moral system. The pagans did not share their moral beliefs and considered them cranks[correctly]. Popularity follows from philosophy and its spread through the culture. It took centuries for Christianity to become the dominant moral system.

      Delete

    5. 8x
      ...I did not state is as fact, merely that it was likely.
      x8

      How likely? 20%? 40%? 95%?
      What evidence do you base this estimation of likelihood on?


      8x
      I am pretty sure I have seen evidence that lying, stealing and murdering were not highly regarded virtues before the time of the Pentateuch, but if you doubt this I am pretty sure I can find the evidence again.
      x8

      Trying to change the question?

      Well ok. We can always come back to the original.

      So:
      Do you have any supporting evidence for the claim that lying, stealing and murdering were not highly regarded virtues in any successful religions prior to the pentateuch?

      Delete
    6. 8x
      For any successful religion it is likely that their moral values were picked up from what people already felt was right and wrong at the time, otherwise they would not have been successful religions.
      x8

      Furthermore:

      Have you any evidence for the assertion that the only successful religions are those that align themselves primarily or largely with people's feelings of right and wrong?

      Delete
    7. Zed: Have an end in mind.

      Yes, brother. And make it quick.

      Delete
    8. Thanks Robin. Good points. Dick

      Delete
    9. Billy, I am a little puzzled as to why you are saying that I am changing the question. I haven't changed it at all.

      Delete
    10. Malcolm - do you think that a minority religion cannot be a successful religion?

      But you are pretty much underlining my point. The Romans had, up until Constantine, religions more in keeping with their own mores.

      Delete
    11. Now Billy, if you are really interested and are not just doing a payback, I could find you the texts I was relying on which show evidence that religion does not drive morality and that instead religion reflects the prevailing mores of the society in which the religion began.

      So, are you really interested?

      Delete
    12. 8x
      Now Billy, if you are really interested and are not just doing a payback...
      x8

      Do you have any evidence that these are the only possible motivations?

      8x
      ...the texts I was relying on which show evidence that religion does not drive morality and that instead religion reflects the prevailing mores of the society in which the religion began.
      x8

      Do you have any evidence that these "texts" are evidence of anything other than the fact that some person has recorded some of their thoughts?

      Delete
    13. 8x
      Billy, I am a little puzzled as to why you are saying that I am changing the question. I haven't changed it at all.
      x8

      Your reply didnt attempt to answer my question. However it was framed as an answer.

      Ergo there is some other question that your answer is an answer to. I assumed you might know what that question is as you are the one supplying the answer to it.

      Thats why I asked if you were changing the question

      Either that or you were confused by the question and thought you actually were answering it when you werent

      Simple really

      Delete
    14. MalcolmS9:54 AM

      Robin: "Malcolm - do you think that a minority religion cannot be a successful religion?"

      It depends what you mean by "successful." Christianity certainly was not *popular* for centuries. In my opinion it was never successful - it was an unmitigated disaster.

      My point was that they did not pick up their moral values "from what people already felt was right and wrong at the time." Christianity brought an entirely different worldview to the table[including its ethics] compared to the pagan worldview. I think the worldview of the pagan Socratic Athenians was superior to anything the Christians ever had. I think the ideas of Aristotle were vastly superior to the ideas of Jesus.

      Delete
    15. 8x
      I think the worldview of the pagan Socratic Athenians was superior to anything the Christians ever had.
      x8

      You wouldn't if you lived there son. They'd have you for breakfast.

      Delete
    16. 8x
      Yes, I think it should be legal - but not for minors.
      x8

      Question:
      In nobjectivism land what prevents minors from entering "the profession" "illegally"?

      Is it:
      A: Capitalism?
      or
      B: The rational faculty?

      Delete
    17. "For any successful religion it is likely that their moral values were picked up from what people already felt was right and wrong at the time, otherwise they would not have been successful religions."

      So you don't know anything about the history of the Abrahamic religions. Why am I not surprised?

      " We need to clearly emphasise that someone freely choosing to sell sexual services to willing clients is not doing anything wrong and should be allowed to follow the profession as any person is allowed to follow a legal profession."

      So you can be sensible when you try.

      Delete
    18. " I could find you the texts I was relying on which show evidence that religion does not drive morality and that instead religion reflects the prevailing mores of the society in which the religion began."

      Go on then, find them. Then give us some examples from the religions you know about.

      Delete
    19. Stranger - last time I went to some trouble to present reasons for something I thought was a reasonable interpretation you didn't even read what I wrote, you arbitrarily labelled it as "argument from ignorance" and when I asked you to say why you thought so you said that the fact that I didn't know was evidence that it was argument from ignorance.

      For some I might go to the trouble but I am certainly not going to put myself out for something else for you to ignore.

      Delete
    20. Billy wrote: "Your reply didnt attempt to answer my question. However it was framed as an answer."

      No, it was framed, as you would know if you had read it all the way through, as an offer to provide the answer.

      The evidence is not simple and, as I have already stated, not conclusive.

      A good deal of the evidence of the moral and religious lives of pre-Christian societies has been wiped and even falsified.

      We can only glean an idea of the moral lives of earlier societies from what few remnants we can dig up.

      I could go into it but I am not going to go to trouble for the sake of your dust kicking.

      Delete
    21. Billy wrote: "Do you have any evidence that these are the only possible motivations?"

      As I thought - dust kicking.

      Maybe you should stop being a sook.

      Delete
    22. "Stranger - last time I went to some trouble to present reasons for something I thought was a reasonable interpretation you didn't even read what I wrote"

      I did read it, it just didn't take long.

      " you arbitrarily labeled it as "argument from ignorance""

      No, I did that because it was an argument from ignorance. It's not my fault you can't figure out why, which of course shows why it's an argument from ignorance.

      Delete
    23. Stranger wrote: "No, I did that because it was an argument from ignorance. It's not my fault you can't figure out why, which of course shows why it's an argument from ignorance."

      "of course"???

      Basically this is what you are saying:

      Stranger: Argument from ignorance
      Robin: How is it an argument from ignorance?
      Stranger: The fact that you don't know shows why it's an argument from ignorance.

      It is bad enough for you to have made this irrational statement in the first place.

      To have simply repeated it after I pointed out how irrational it was shows a dedication to unreason on your part.

      Delete
    24. "It is bad enough for you to have made this irrational statement in the first place."

      It's not an irrational statement, it's just beyond your ability to understand.

      Delete
    25. 8x
      A good deal of the evidence of the moral and religious lives of pre-Christian societies has been wiped and even falsified.

      We can only glean an idea of the moral lives of earlier societies from what few remnants we can dig up.
      x8

      So what could we say about that then? Maybe:

      An inference from the particular to the general already? ;)

      8x
      I could go into it but I am not going to go to trouble for the sake of your dust kicking.
      x8

      pfft "dust kicking" ...
      load of arse
      I'm doing the tango de la muerte on your rhetorical ramblings.
      So go on, show us your "evidence". I may just examine it

      After all, I live to dance

      Delete
    26. MalcolmS11:33 PM

      toolshead: "After all, I live to dance"

      No, you don't.

      Delete
  3. 8x
    How do we craft good ceremony?
    x8

    Have an end in mind

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Zed, I have seen artificial ceremonies or ceremonies like this one ambushed by boring speakers. The end is important as the means. Dick

      Delete
  4. By the way, it seems to me that a better title for this would have been "Commemorating the Life of a Woman".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Commemorating the Death of a Woman is, to my mind, a perfect title for this piece. She was a young (unknown to most of the attendees) sex worker. I'm sure she was much more than that, but most of us know little about her personal life. The memorial was being held because of the manner of her death, not because she was known and loved by the majority of those attending. Yes, there were some there who knew and loved her, but the majority reminded me of the strangers who walked after the rape and murder of the young woman in Brunswick. They didn't walk to commemorate the life of someone they knew and loved, they walked because of the manner of her death. They new little of who she was or how she lived, but cared deeply about the way she died.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes spot on Tricia. She came from an articulate and highly functional family but she was a heroin addict. Sometimes the best families are beset by addictions. I wish that could have heard the brother's speech. He said that the 4 keys to happiness were:
      To love;
      To be loved;
      To belong;
      To have hope.
      Tracy had all 4 attributes but she also suffered from an addiction. In her case, the question of hope was the hope of reunification with her son lost to adoption. It is a sad story and was brilliantly told by her bro.
      Thanks for your contribution. I hope you are well.
      The Dickster

      Delete
    2. Fair enough - I stand corrected.

      Delete
  6. And a propos of nothing, Erwin Schrödinger's birthday today and a clever Google doodle for it. A ket and a cat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS10:02 PM

      Did you have to tell the idiotcatfetishist?

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS11:02 PM

      Actually I guess you are rather fond of Schrödinger.

      All consciousness [mathematics] and no reality :)

      Delete
    3. Awwww poor widdle mallypops

      cheer up son

      I'm sure theyre planning a wee toolshed doodle for your birthday ;)

      Delete
    4. MalcolmS1:56 AM

      "cheer up son"

      Thanks gramps.

      Delete
    5. !?!Eh!?!?

      Speak up dagnabit!

      Delete
    6. MalcolmS5:56 PM

      "dagnabit"??

      Get a new dictionary gramps :)

      Delete
  7. MalcolmS9:01 PM

    From Robin's link[s]:

    "Now suppose all that exists were to pass away into nothing and a new type of universe began to exist with a new type of physics. No gravity, energy, particles, light - nothing that is in our universe.... So meaning is something more durable than any physical thing. All the physical things could pass away and there would still be mathematics and meaning"

    That is exactly the sort of nonsense you involve yourself in when you assert the arbitrary. "Mathematics and meaning" in the absence of mathematicians and conceptual beings is simply a contradiction in terms. Your position is a floating abstraction, a castle in the air, unrelated to [any] reality.

    Nothing follows from positing a world characterised by "nothing that is in our universe." It amounts to nothing with meaning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whoever came up with this:

      8x
      So meaning is something more durable than any physical thing.
      x8

      Haaa haaaa haaa haaaaa!!
      Good one bro

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS3:00 AM

      toolshead

      "8x So meaning is something more durable than any physical thing. x8

      Haaa haaaa haaa haaaaa!!"

      I share your mirth.

      You'll find it at:

      https://docs.google.com/document/d/18ecTnx9eCHWlOz5KrfEN9ra_xNmAVKYvq_lt5976Nb4/pub

      Don't you read Robin's links :)

      Of course the big question is whether you can answer it as well as guffawing. I doubt it.

      Delete
    3. 8x
      Of course the big question is whether you can answer it...
      x8

      No it isn't ;)

      Delete

Followers