Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: human values
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
I think there are many reasons for discussing human values.  Humanity has done so for thousands of years.  Some of this discussion we call religion and some of it we call philosophy.   We formalize our agreements in laws.  Our cultures express our values through the arts and education.  Star Trek always depicted computer run societies as terrible, and yet today the talk seems to be in favor of having computers in control.  

Kilhill Gibran said we speak when we are not at peace with our thoughts, and my enjoyment of this forum has crashed because of the popularity of insulting people and talking about their faults instead of the topic of threads.  The hope of the Enlightenment was that our human potential is much higher than what is popular talk and I am troubled by this human behavior that reduces us to our lowest level, while the idea of being controlled by computers or an authoritarian, has gained popularity.  

To civilize someone means to refine this person, and with the Enlightenment in mind, this meant liberty.   But we seem to be going in the reverse direction, of encouraging people to be crude, rude and socially unacceptable, making ourselves more brutish as happened to Germany under Hitler, and with Trump in office there is an intense concern about what happened to Germany happening to the US, and like Germany, we are coming to this democratically.  We have imitated German in very significant ways and are no longer the democracy we defended in two world wars.  And if we do not destroy ourselves, our next big hope is being controlled by computers?
So, you start a thread about civility....and then immediately insult almost half the population that didn't vote like you did? That is objectively hypocritical...and I'll be surprised if you can recognize that fact.
Quote:So, you start a thread about civility....and then immediately insult almost half the population that didn't vote like you did? That is objectively hypocritical...and I'll be surprised if you can recognize that fact.

And here we go with your flaming again. All you do is insult. Who are you to condemn someone else for it?
(Dec 10, 2016 01:04 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:So, you start a thread about civility....and then immediately insult almost half the population that didn't vote like you did? That is objectively hypocritical...and I'll be surprised if you can recognize that fact.

And here we go with your flaming again. All you do is insult. Who are you to condemn someone else for it?

I'm not a hypocrite about it. I don't preach manors while backhandedly insulting half a country. You also need to learn the difference between criticism and insult. Starting a thread with Godwin's law is obvious insult, while pointing out hypocrisy is criticism.
(Dec 10, 2016 01:28 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]
(Dec 10, 2016 01:04 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:So, you start a thread about civility....and then immediately insult almost half the population that didn't vote like you did? That is objectively hypocritical...and I'll be surprised if you can recognize that fact.

And here we go with your flaming again. All you do is insult. Who are you to condemn someone else for it?

I'm not a hypocrite about it. I don't preach manors while backhandedly insulting half a country. You also need to learn the difference between criticism and insult.

Right..an insult is like calling a particular person a name, like hyprocrite. Pointing out flaws in a whole demographic of people is just cultural criticism. We all have the right to critique our own society without being insulted for it.
(Dec 10, 2016 01:38 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]
(Dec 10, 2016 01:28 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not a hypocrite about it. I don't preach manors while backhandedly insulting half a country. You also need to learn the difference between criticism and insult. Starting a thread with Godwin's law is obvious insult, while pointing out hypocrisy is criticism.

Right..an insult is like calling a particular person a name, like hyprocrite. Pointing out flaws in a whole demographic of people is just cultural criticism.

It is demonstrable in the OP that it is hypocritical. Hypocrisy is a behavior, not a character trait. You cannot insult behavior.
Comparing half the population to Nazi Germany is Godwin's law, and pretty universally considered both an automatic forfeit of the point being made and obviously insulting. See the difference. One addresses behavior, and the other uses behavior (voting in this case) to infer negative character associations.

Quote:Pointing out flaws in a whole demographic of people is just cultural criticism.

Well...let's test that shall we. Blanket negative characterization of a whole demographic is usually considered bigoted (racist when applied to ethnicity). Would you equally call it "just cultural criticism" if someone said that gays were fascists, like Hitler, because they seek to destroy anyone who does not agree with them? What about if someone said BLM seemed like Nazis looking to exterminate white cops?

Would those be "just cultural criticism", or would those seem more like vicious attacks on the character of people in those demographics?
(Dec 10, 2016 01:55 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]
(Dec 10, 2016 01:38 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]
(Dec 10, 2016 01:28 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not a hypocrite about it. I don't preach manors while backhandedly insulting half a country. You also need to learn the difference between criticism and insult. Starting a thread with Godwin's law is obvious insult, while pointing out hypocrisy is criticism.

Right..an insult is like calling a particular person a name, like hyprocrite. Pointing out flaws in a whole demographic of people is just cultural criticism.

It is demonstrable in the OP that it is hypocritical. Hypocrisy is a behavior, not a character trait. You cannot insult behavior.
Comparing half the population to Nazi Germany is Godwin's law, and pretty universally considered both an automatic forfeit of the point being made and obviously insulting. See the difference. One addresses behavior, and the other uses behavior (voting in this case) to infer negative character associations.

Quote:Pointing out flaws in a whole demographic of people is just cultural criticism.

Well...let's test that shall we. Blanket negative characterization of a whole demographic is usually considered bigoted (racist when applied to ethnicity). Would you equally call it "just cultural criticism" if someone said that gays were fascists, like Hitler, because they seek to destroy anyone who does not agree with them? What about if someone said BLM seemed like Nazis looking to exterminate white cops?

Would those be "just cultural criticism", or would those seem more like vicious attacks on the character of people in those demographics?

I'm not going to argue about your flaming and insulting. You did it. Now own it. And a word of advice: if you keep treating posters here with disrespect they will probably quit responding to you. Got it?
(Dec 9, 2016 05:31 PM)Carol Wrote: [ -> ]I think there are many reasons for discussing human values.  Humanity has done so for thousands of years.  Some of this discussion we call religion and some of it we call philosophy.   We formalize our agreements in laws.  Our cultures express our values through the arts and education.  Star Trek always depicted computer run societies as terrible, and yet today the talk seems to be in favor of having computers in control.  

Kilhill Gibran said we speak when we are not at peace with our thoughts, and my enjoyment of this forum has crashed because of the popularity of insulting people and talking about their faults instead of the topic of threads.  The hope of the Enlightenment was that our human potential is much higher than what is popular talk and I am troubled by this human behavior that reduces us to our lowest level, while the idea of being controlled by computers or an authoritarian, has gained popularity.  

To civilize someone means to refine this person, and with the Enlightenment in mind, this meant liberty.   But we seem to be going in the reverse direction, of encouraging people to be crude, rude and socially unacceptable, making ourselves more brutish as happened to Germany under Hitler, and with Trump in office there is an intense concern about what happened to Germany happening to the US, and like Germany, we are coming to this democratically.  We have imitated German in very significant ways and are no longer the democracy we defended in two world wars.  And if we do not destroy ourselves, our next big hope is being controlled by computers?

hhmm...
you raise an excellent point Carol.
there are some who proclaim society to be doomed to boom n bust cycles of civilisation.
i think the premise holds merit for discussion considering the popularist win of Barak.
such a huge win and statement of the people by the people.
however...
had he been able to do all he promised... what would have happened ?
would the industrialist machines of man started a war against its own people ?
quite probably. it has in most other cultures and societys.

those who see the furthest have the furthest to go to where they wish to be.
if the road were not soo long, would you wish to be at the same place twice to be happier than the first time ?

societal rendering... boiling down to the simple things people want.
keeping things simple.
being sensible
insert explitive ... not being a "XXXX"

many expresions and instances where people attempt to gain power over others by suggesting others are being unfair and unreasonable.
the assertion of "reasonable behaviour" was one such expresion in terms used to negate womens intellectual involvement in most formal matters for centurys.
is it not ironic that only 1 generation after women 1st got the vote it has been taken away from them symbolically in a general election.

post thought after reading through to spell check and do typos...
many mainstreammodern peopel seem to forget that there is a vast number of religious extremists who live in the USA.
they have massive voting power and large amounts of money behind them.
just look at the anti abortion law now being forced through in one state against the democratic will of the people.


hhmm...
(Dec 10, 2016 02:02 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]
(Dec 10, 2016 01:55 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]
(Dec 10, 2016 01:38 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]
(Dec 10, 2016 01:28 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not a hypocrite about it. I don't preach manors while backhandedly insulting half a country. You also need to learn the difference between criticism and insult. Starting a thread with Godwin's law is obvious insult, while pointing out hypocrisy is criticism.

Right..an insult is like calling a particular person a name, like hyprocrite. Pointing out flaws in a whole demographic of people is just cultural criticism.

It is demonstrable in the OP that it is hypocritical. Hypocrisy is a behavior, not a character trait. You cannot insult behavior.
Comparing half the population to Nazi Germany is Godwin's law, and pretty universally considered both an automatic forfeit of the point being made and obviously insulting. See the difference. One addresses behavior, and the other uses behavior (voting in this case) to infer negative character associations.

Quote:Pointing out flaws in a whole demographic of people is just cultural criticism.

Well...let's test that shall we. Blanket negative characterization of a whole demographic is usually considered bigoted (racist when applied to ethnicity). Would you equally call it "just cultural criticism" if someone said that gays were fascists, like Hitler, because they seek to destroy anyone who does not agree with them? What about if someone said BLM seemed like Nazis looking to exterminate white cops?

Would those be "just cultural criticism", or would those seem more like vicious attacks on the character of people in those demographics?

I'm not going to argue about your flaming and insulting. You did it. Now own it. And a word of advice: if you keep treating posters here with disrespect they will probably quit responding to you. Got it?

Let me get this straight. I actually respond to the content of the OP, you only come in to troll me, and I'm the one "flaming"? LOL.

When are you going to...I don't know...post on-topic? If "just cultural criticism" is a valid response to the OP, why wouldn't you find that a discussion worth pursuing? Seems you've long since quit engaging in anything resembling rational discussion, so I'm not sure how you expect more of that to be any kind of threat.

(Dec 9, 2016 05:31 PM)Carol Wrote: [ -> ]I think there are many reasons for discussing human values.  Humanity has done so for thousands of years.  Some of this discussion we call religion and some of it we call philosophy.   We formalize our agreements in laws.  Our cultures express our values through the arts and education.  Star Trek always depicted computer run societies as terrible, and yet today the talk seems to be in favor of having computers in control.  

Can you cite an instance of people wanting computers in control?

Quote:Kilhill Gibran said we speak when we are not at peace with our thoughts, and my enjoyment of this forum has crashed because of the popularity of insulting people and talking about their faults instead of the topic of threads.  The hope of the Enlightenment was that our human potential is much higher than what is popular talk and I am troubled by this human behavior that reduces us to our lowest level, while the idea of being controlled by computers or an authoritarian, has gained popularity.  

So what cognitive dissonance is bringing you here to speak? Would you actually engage in intellectually honest discussion? Do you realize that intellectual honesty requires either justifying how your views are consistent or reexamining your views? Are you willing to do either?

Political correctness is authoritarian.

Quote:To civilize someone means to refine this person, and with the Enlightenment in mind, this meant liberty.   But we seem to be going in the reverse direction, of encouraging people to be crude, rude and socially unacceptable, making ourselves more brutish as happened to Germany under Hitler, and with Trump in office there is an intense concern about what happened to Germany happening to the US, and like Germany, we are coming to this democratically.  We have imitated German in very significant ways and are no longer the democracy we defended in two world wars.  And if we do not destroy ourselves, our next big hope is being controlled by computers?

"To civilize" was the slave owner's extensible justification. I'm not sure how limiting how others speak is supposed to promote liberty. Can you see the contradiction there? How exactly are we "more brutish"?

Can you cite sources showing how Nazi Germany was "encouraging people to be crude, rude and socially unacceptable"? Or is this just hyperbole? Can you cite sources for the specific was we've imitated Germany?

IOW, can you support any of your claims and arguments? Or is this just an opinion post?
Rainbow Unicorn, that was a different stream of thought than what I expected.   What happens to your thoughts if they have nothing to do with power and politics, but are just ideas about how we should treat one another and the qualities of a good life?   While there is a political component to our consideration, when we are speaking of liberty the discussion is more about how we live together without government.  It is when we don't have such agreement that people demand strong government and liberty is threatened.  


Quote:http://www.historydoctor.net/Advanced%20...nt_(1).htm

Three important concepts are at the core of Enlightenment thinking:

Methods of natural science should be used to examine and understand life in all its many aspects. Enlightenment thinkers referred to this as reason, often called ration. This became the by-word of Enlightenment thinkers. Everything was to be examined in the "cold light of reason," in which nothing was to be accepted on faith alone.

The laws of human society could be discovered by application of the scientific method, much like the laws of nature. The end result was the birth of "social science." (Psychology, History, Sociology, etc. are members of the Social Sciences).

Progress. Enlightenment thinkers believed that it was possible to improve humans and human society. This was in marked contrast to Medieval thinking in which human beings were considered corrupt, sinful, and of little value. The influence of humanism is readily apparent. However, Humanist thinkers had looked backward to the ancients and classical sources rather than forward to rational thinking based on logic and reason. The humanists believed it might be possible to match the accomplishments of the ancient scholars, but did not expect to surpass them.
 
It is especially the idea that it is possible to improve humans and human society that interests me most.
Pages: 1 2 3