Author Topic: The Object and The Hazard  (Read 1964 times)

Offline Baruch

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #15 on: May 14, 2017, 09:58:20 PM »
Really.  Darwin said that did he.  When and where?

Did he ever denounce the British Empire?  Of course, robbing, raping and killing is OK, if you are English ;-)
שלום

Offline Baruch

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #16 on: May 14, 2017, 10:00:58 PM »
Really???  Wow!  Didn't know that!...............
What is this 'spirit' you are talking about??  Seems to me it is simply another theist fiction so that you/they can believe whatever they want.

Is a poet not inspired?  Or is he just doing another Pythagorean calculation?  In-spirit = inspired.  Methinks you are another Plato, who like Mikey, hates everything.
שלום

Offline Baruch

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #17 on: May 14, 2017, 10:02:32 PM »
Of course 'nature' does not limit the crime(s) I can commit.  So what?  I don't know of any govt run by 'nature'.  All laws and rules of conduct are created by various societies and govts.  Not 'nature'. 

I have not committed a crime against you because committing crimes is not something I do--not intentionally.  I don't think most people would become blood thirsty criminals if there were no official laws or rules to live by. 

And I am not a darwinian.  I do think he discovered ideas that became the Darwin theory of evolution.  Being Darwinian , or supporting Darwinsim is simply political in nature, not scientific.

In nature, there are no crimes.  It is natural for the criminal to commit crimes.  Per nature, there is no reason to prohibit the natural exercise of his nature (as a jackal imitator).  Would you arrest a lion for eating a zebra?
שלום

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #18 on: May 14, 2017, 10:39:50 PM »
Did he ever denounce the British Empire?  Of course, robbing, raping and killing is OK, if you are English ;-)
I don't know if he denounced the British Empire or not.  Don't care if he did or did not.  It has nothing to do with his theory. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #19 on: May 14, 2017, 10:42:12 PM »
Is a poet not inspired?  Or is he just doing another Pythagorean calculation?  In-spirit = inspired.  Methinks you are another Plato, who like Mikey, hates everything.
Remember, 'Mikey likes it!'--not hates it.  Ah, yes, the inspired spirit.  Yeah, I can go along with that.  At times, going with your inspiration is a good thing.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #20 on: May 14, 2017, 10:47:02 PM »
In nature, there are no crimes.  It is natural for the criminal to commit crimes.  Per nature, there is no reason to prohibit the natural exercise of his nature (as a jackal imitator).  Would you arrest a lion for eating a zebra?
Since, as you put it, there are no crimes in nature.  So, it is not 'natural' for criminals to commit crimes.  Crimes are a human invention.  So, all criminals are such because they have been labeled by a certain society.  As you are very well aware, every society has different laws and rules, so each has their own crimes.  A crime in one society does not make it a crime in another.  So, the term 'criminal' is situational.  And that situation is never found in 'nature'. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Baruch

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #21 on: May 15, 2017, 06:59:40 AM »
I don't know if he denounced the British Empire or not.  Don't care if he did or did not.  It has nothing to do with his theory.

Killing 6 million Jews had nothing to do with Lebensraum either ;-(
שלום

Offline Baruch

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #22 on: May 15, 2017, 07:01:04 AM »
Since, as you put it, there are no crimes in nature.  So, it is not 'natural' for criminals to commit crimes.  Crimes are a human invention.  So, all criminals are such because they have been labeled by a certain society.  As you are very well aware, every society has different laws and rules, so each has their own crimes.  A crime in one society does not make it a crime in another.  So, the term 'criminal' is situational.  And that situation is never found in 'nature'.

You would make a good German in Merkel's Germany.  Just not resist when the immigrants rob or rape you.  You would be interfering with the rights of refugees.

For some naturalists, humans are a part of nature ... for others humans aren't part of nature.  I see you as the second, since you oppose all human invention (like crime legislation).  That is simply anti-human.  At least if humans are a part of nature, it is natural for humans to be criminals, in police uniform or out.  We do what we do because we are what we are ... no guilt or shame, just like animals fucking in public.  Or are you just anti-government ... is it OK for private corporations to create and enforce rules?
« Last Edit: May 15, 2017, 07:04:32 AM by Baruch »
שלום

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #23 on: May 15, 2017, 09:56:36 AM »
Killing 6 million Jews had nothing to do with Lebensraum either ;-(
Does Lebensraum equate to Manifest Destiny??

In any case, neither policy had anything to do with Darwin.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #24 on: May 15, 2017, 10:03:13 AM »
You would make a good German in Merkel's Germany.  Just not resist when the immigrants rob or rape you.  You would be interfering with the rights of refugees.

For some naturalists, humans are a part of nature ... for others humans aren't part of nature.  I see you as the second, since you oppose all human invention (like crime legislation). 
At times, Baruch, you do like to insert yourself into the things I write.  When did I ever say humans are not a part of nature?  Everything is a part of nature, including humans.  Nothing is outside of nature.  That is where we part company since you are a theist.  Did I ever say I was against crime legislation?  Defining what a crime is is a necessary function of every society. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Baruch

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2017, 12:58:53 PM »
At times, Baruch, you do like to insert yourself into the things I write.  When did I ever say humans are not a part of nature?  Everything is a part of nature, including humans.  Nothing is outside of nature.  That is where we part company since you are a theist.  Did I ever say I was against crime legislation?  Defining what a crime is is a necessary function of every society.

It is an A vs B question ... and you have answered B.  So we can screw in public, shamelessly, like the animals we are.  You are not opposed to anything, because everything is natural.  So why all the hate against Southerners ... are you a bigot?  Society is natural?  So Nazi Germany is natural?  And you approve of all natural things?
שלום

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2017, 02:09:17 PM »
It is an A vs B question ... and you have answered B.  So we can screw in public, shamelessly, like the animals we are.  You are not opposed to anything, because everything is natural.  So why all the hate against Southerners ... are you a bigot?  Society is natural?  So Nazi Germany is natural?  And you approve of all natural things?
Not sure how you could have gotten the impression that I said all that is natural is good??!?  Once again, you are inserting your feeling into my sentences. 

For good or bad, all that is here is of nature.  Cow shit is natural, that does not mean I want to eat it or that it is good for me.  One of the biggest hoax's of the food industry is the push to make everything 'natural' or that 'natural' is better for you.  Everything is natural--all manmade stuff is still natural---everything used is from nature.

I may have to amend my statement about all being natural.  Human made rules are not natural in that they are not produced by nature.  Human societies create their own set of rules of conduct.  If you are a bonobo, then screwing in public is natural.  If you are human, in all the societies I'm aware of, screwing in public is not acceptable. (And if it were acceptable I don't think 'we' could screw in public--you are not my type) It's not unnatural, just not the accepted norm. 

Not opposed to anything?  Where did that assessment come from?  I am opposed to much the same as you and Pops.  I subscribe to the Golden Rule (my version of course) and strive to live by it.  So, even some of societies rules I don't deem personally acceptable. 

Am I a bigot?  Yeah, I suppose.  I am a bigot toward the KKK, no doubt.  The same for skinheads and Merikan Nazis.  And others.  So, yeah, I'm a bigot--I dare say, so are you and just about every other person who ever lived.  I don't hate all Southerners--but I am not a fan of the South in general.  As I have indicated in many other posts--the common average Joe (of any society) wants the same thing.  To live in peace, being with and supporting their families and go about their lives as they would like. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Baruch

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2017, 06:38:30 PM »
OK ... so how can you oppose something that is natural ... except by bigotry?  I can see opposing something because it is somehow ... unnatural.  But for the moment, we both agree that everything is natural.  For me "natural" means something different for you, but we do agree superficially.  Are you saying that you oppose something because it is irrational?  And if everything is natural, then isn't irrationality just as natural as rationality?  How can you oppose the irrational, except by bias (not the same as bigotry).  Isn't bias, or bigotry, just other ways of saying ... I have a bigger stick than you?
שלום

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2017, 07:13:36 PM »
OK ... so how can you oppose something that is natural ... except by bigotry?  I can see opposing something because it is somehow ... unnatural.  But for the moment, we both agree that everything is natural.  For me "natural" means something different for you, but we do agree superficially.  Are you saying that you oppose something because it is irrational?  And if everything is natural, then isn't irrationality just as natural as rationality?  How can you oppose the irrational, except by bias (not the same as bigotry).  Isn't bias, or bigotry, just other ways of saying ... I have a bigger stick than you?
You are saying that natural is the same as good.  As I said--cow shit is natural, does not mean I want to eat it or that it is good for you.  You said ".......we both agree that everything is natural. "  If everything is natural, how can anything be unnatural???  I oppose all that I think is not good--accept all that I think is good.  Of course, 'good' is in the eye of the beholder. 

Bias is simply your point of view.  We are all biased.  We almost have to be.  But if one makes an effort one can figure out what their bias is.  When studying a historian or history, one of the first things that has to be taken into account.  Bigotry is about the same.  No, neither bias or bigotry does not equate to 'I have a bigger stick than you.'
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Baruch

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2017, 10:34:55 PM »
You are saying that natural is the same as good.  As I said--cow shit is natural, does not mean I want to eat it or that it is good for you.  You said ".......we both agree that everything is natural. "  If everything is natural, how can anything be unnatural???  I oppose all that I think is not good--accept all that I think is good.  Of course, 'good' is in the eye of the beholder. 

Bias is simply your point of view.  We are all biased.  We almost have to be.  But if one makes an effort one can figure out what their bias is.  When studying a historian or history, one of the first things that has to be taken into account.  Bigotry is about the same.  No, neither bias or bigotry does not equate to 'I have a bigger stick than you.'

Right, so if I have a bigger stick than you, then other than your bias, there is no reason why I can't make you eat cow shit?  Are you Maoist?
שלום