A
and2000x
Guest
Aren't moralistic atheists dumb? It is almost like they are closet Christians.
Well, wouldn't that assume that they base their morals on Christain ideals?
What makes you think they do?
I guess it comes down to "Let's all define moral" again.
Do you think that anyone who does not follow Christian ideas immoral?
I don't think so.
Re: Re: Moralistic Atheists Are Dumb
Do you think they just happened to come to the same conclusions as what is written in the bible without being persuaded by it?
I don't think so.
Religion has played a huge part in shaping society, our legal system is still heavily based on the ten commandments whether we remove a statue from the courtrooms or not.
What is considered "just wrong" is actually "just what the bible says is wrong" and nothing more. But it has almost become ingrained into us because religion has ruled the world for SO long.
Atheists will be like "well yeah you can't just kill someone" Why not? or "you shouldn't steal that thing, you should earn it" stealing is earning in the real world.
These crazy ideas of theirs are the left over remnants of religion that aren't directly "disproved" with scientific knowledge.
They need to evolve themselves onto understanding the rammifications of knowing religion was a farce.
It will take a long time for humanity to fully get religion out of its system.
Not me though, its gone, unfortunately this religion-based society now labels me a psychopath or sociopath or some shit.
I say this society just needs to catch up.
Well, to be fair, many or most atheists do.
Do you think they just happened to come to the same conclusions as what is written in the bible without being persuaded by it?
I don't think so.
Religion has played a huge part in shaping society, our legal system is still heavily based on the ten commandments whether we remove a statue from the courtrooms or not.
What is considered "just wrong" is actually "just what the bible says is wrong" and nothing more. But it has almost become ingrained into us because religion has ruled the world for SO long.
Atheists will be like "well yeah you can't just kill someone" Why not? or "you shouldn't steal that thing, you should earn it" stealing is earning in the real world.
These crazy ideas of theirs are the left over remnants of religion that aren't directly "disproved" with scientific knowledge.
They need to evolve themselves onto understanding the rammifications of knowing religion was a farce.
It will take a long time for humanity to fully get religion out of its system.
Not me though, its gone, unfortunately this religion-based society now labels me a psychopath or sociopath or some shit.
I say this society just needs to catch up.
Lou,
In my personal experience, most Atheists follow two simple secular rules that guide their moral beliefs...
The first one MAY sound Christian, but it is hardly unique to Christianity or religion in general.
When you ask about the chicken or the egg, I think Christian ideals are based on it, not vice versa.
1.) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
2.) People should be free to do whatever they wish as long as their actions do not infringe upon the freedom of others.
In my personal experience, most Atheists follow two simple secular rules that guide their moral beliefs...
The first one MAY sound Christian, but it is hardly unique to Christianity or religion in general.
When you ask about the chicken or the egg, I think Christian ideals are based on it, not vice versa.
1.) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
2.) People should be free to do whatever they wish as long as their actions do not infringe upon the freedom of others.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
How come most people on death row believe in Jesus, yet at the same time they have committed horrible acts against man kind? It's all morals; it depends on the person, not the religion. Religion may influence someone to a point but ultimately it is up to the person to decide what is wrong and what is right.
I’d like to point out that atheists kill people, but Christians do to.
Do Christians consider Muslims unmoralistic bastards? Or are they pagans like the rest of us?
Those are the rules most suitable for a free civilisation, no question, but the very concept of a free civilisation is based on and has spawned from religious beliefs.
Religious morality seems to be logical, because it is the only option that will be suitable and mesh with the current lives we are living. But that is only because the current lives we are living are based on religion, of course the religious moral code fits in to this society, that code created this society.
But to me, this doesn't mean we should just keep living religiously, we should tear everything down and start again and create a lifestyle based on what we know about the real world.
If we did that the first problem we would notice is the lack of eugenics in the current society.
I am a moralistic atheist, but my moral code was based on the real world, not religion, so to me, being a dysgenic species is "immoral", dangerously immoral.
Treating others as you would feel most comfortable about being treated is immoral. It takes away innerspecies competition and thus increases the pressure on all the other species, forcing them to compete not only amongst themselves but against a huge force that will win the competition everytime, there is no balance there.
My moral code doesn't take the comfort levels of the individual into account because frankly that doesn't matter at all.
I'm an atheist, after thinking about all the rammifications of religions being false, which means starting from scratch using the natural world as a guide, "my moral code" honestly seems to me to be THE moral code of earth. I just happened to notice it. I don't know if there is any punishment for disobeying it, I don't want to find out, if there is just about every human being would be screwed, even the nice ones, actually, ESPECIALLY the nice ones.
But then I could be insane i guess whatever
Religious morality seems to be logical, because it is the only option that will be suitable and mesh with the current lives we are living. But that is only because the current lives we are living are based on religion, of course the religious moral code fits in to this society, that code created this society.
But to me, this doesn't mean we should just keep living religiously, we should tear everything down and start again and create a lifestyle based on what we know about the real world.
If we did that the first problem we would notice is the lack of eugenics in the current society.
I am a moralistic atheist, but my moral code was based on the real world, not religion, so to me, being a dysgenic species is "immoral", dangerously immoral.
Treating others as you would feel most comfortable about being treated is immoral. It takes away innerspecies competition and thus increases the pressure on all the other species, forcing them to compete not only amongst themselves but against a huge force that will win the competition everytime, there is no balance there.
My moral code doesn't take the comfort levels of the individual into account because frankly that doesn't matter at all.
I'm an atheist, after thinking about all the rammifications of religions being false, which means starting from scratch using the natural world as a guide, "my moral code" honestly seems to me to be THE moral code of earth. I just happened to notice it. I don't know if there is any punishment for disobeying it, I don't want to find out, if there is just about every human being would be screwed, even the nice ones, actually, ESPECIALLY the nice ones.
But then I could be insane i guess whatever
What if you're a violent, suicidally depressed masochist?
The categorical imperative is fucked. Those others don't give a shit about you, nor is the universe going to say "Okey, Mr. Overly Self-Disciplined German idealist, I'm going to suck your cock and make your widdle moral judgements apply to everything"
Impractical. Quit fucking moralizing existence
Dr Lou:
<i>Well, to be fair, many or most atheists do.
Do you think they just happened to come to the same conclusions as what is written in the bible without being persuaded by it?
I don't think so.</i>
First, they don't come to <b>all</b> the same conclusions - just some of them (mainly the ones which make good common sense). Second, the bible is by no means the only source of moral philosophy. You should read more widely.
<i>What is considered "just wrong" is actually "just what the bible says is wrong" and nothing more.</i>
No. They are many things the bible condones which are illegal. There are also many things which are legal but which the bible does not condone. I'm sure you can think of examples.
<i>Atheists will be like "well yeah you can't just kill someone" Why not?</i>
Try: the net amount of good achieved usually does not warrant the action.
<i>These crazy ideas of theirs are the left over remnants of religion that aren't directly "disproved" with scientific knowledge.</i>
Not at all. Many atheists have thought long and hard about morality. For just one example, try reading something by Peter Singer, who is the atheist moral philosopher who first published on the rights of non-human animals and spurred the animal liberation movement.
<i>It will take a long time for humanity to fully get religion out of its system.</i>
Humanity, yes. Atheists, no.
<i>Not me though, its gone, unfortunately this religion-based society now labels me a psychopath or sociopath or some shit.</i>
Maybe it's because you live by a logically unsupportable moral code. It seems you haven't thought very much about this.
<i>Well, to be fair, many or most atheists do.
Do you think they just happened to come to the same conclusions as what is written in the bible without being persuaded by it?
I don't think so.</i>
First, they don't come to <b>all</b> the same conclusions - just some of them (mainly the ones which make good common sense). Second, the bible is by no means the only source of moral philosophy. You should read more widely.
<i>What is considered "just wrong" is actually "just what the bible says is wrong" and nothing more.</i>
No. They are many things the bible condones which are illegal. There are also many things which are legal but which the bible does not condone. I'm sure you can think of examples.
<i>Atheists will be like "well yeah you can't just kill someone" Why not?</i>
Try: the net amount of good achieved usually does not warrant the action.
<i>These crazy ideas of theirs are the left over remnants of religion that aren't directly "disproved" with scientific knowledge.</i>
Not at all. Many atheists have thought long and hard about morality. For just one example, try reading something by Peter Singer, who is the atheist moral philosopher who first published on the rights of non-human animals and spurred the animal liberation movement.
<i>It will take a long time for humanity to fully get religion out of its system.</i>
Humanity, yes. Atheists, no.
<i>Not me though, its gone, unfortunately this religion-based society now labels me a psychopath or sociopath or some shit.</i>
Maybe it's because you live by a logically unsupportable moral code. It seems you haven't thought very much about this.
Actually...
Then "do unto others" would suit me just fine.
My tendencies towards violence would cause me to be violent towards others.
My masochistic urges would be satisfied if they would be violent towards me in return.
These interactions would help keep me in my suicidally depressed cycle of self-loathing.
I'd be happier than a depressed pig in shit.
I think you mis-understand my position (or perhaps I misunderstand the categorical imperative).
I do not subscribe to universal morality.
I am not saying that all people SHOULD follow those two rules or else they are immoral.
I am not even saying that they are what I base MY personal code of ethics on (though they do come close).
On the contrary, I agree with Rand...
If you live your life according to anyone's morals but your own, you are living an immoral life.
All I was pointing out was what most of the Atheists that I have known base their moral code on, and my view that these two "rules", "guidelines", "ideals", whatever you want to call them, are not based on any religion, Christianity in particular.
I don't think I am trying to that at all.
I think the only one requirement I adhere to when considering if I respect someone else is personal integrity.
I will respect you if you hold true to your own ideals and morals regardless of if they align with mine.
I will have more respect for a murderer who kills for what (s)he believes in than I will for someone who compromises their own belief system for any reason, but has never broken a law or a "Commandment".
If you obey "laws" that you disagree with, or if you break "laws" that you do agree with you are equally immoral and less deserving of my respect.
Excuse me but I have thought about this extensively, seriously much more than anyone should if they wish to continue fitting in with human civilisation.
I just think humanities moral code's purpose should be to make the species fit in on earth, rather than make each individual artificially satisfied with their lack of life-esque struggles.
I'm looking at it on a bigger scale, a moral code to make everyone happy is very shortsighted, a moral code with the betterment of the species in the long term as the top priority, you'll find, is much more "logical".
Depends on what you mean. Everyone has rules they use to govern their life, even if their only rule is to do only what will bring them the most personal pleasure, or to act solely on impulse.
I don't think objective morality would exist with or without a god, but without a god there is very little basis to even argue for its existance. However, people can and will choose to live by whatever rules they like. I don't think one set of rules is any dumber than another, as long as people recognize that the rules they live by are their personal preference, and not a universal law.
So I don't think it would necessarilly be dumb for an atheist to follow all the rules of the bible, if those rules appeal to them for one reason or another.
Dr Lou Natic:
<i>I just think humanities moral code's purpose should be to make the species fit in on earth, rather than make each individual artificially satisfied with their lack of life-esque struggles.
I'm looking at it on a bigger scale, a moral code to make everyone happy is very shortsighted, a moral code with the betterment of the species in the long term as the top priority, you'll find, is much more "logical".</i>
A moral code which makes everybody happy probably <b>is</b> a moral code which will also result in betterment of the species. Isn't it?
In what sense do you mean "betterment", anyway?
<i>I just think humanities moral code's purpose should be to make the species fit in on earth, rather than make each individual artificially satisfied with their lack of life-esque struggles.
I'm looking at it on a bigger scale, a moral code to make everyone happy is very shortsighted, a moral code with the betterment of the species in the long term as the top priority, you'll find, is much more "logical".</i>
A moral code which makes everybody happy probably <b>is</b> a moral code which will also result in betterment of the species. Isn't it?
In what sense do you mean "betterment", anyway?
"Can you tell I need sleep?" said the cat-like-the-bat
Beyond that, though, I'm quite pleased to see this or any discussion leading to the issues James R and Dr. Lou are discussing.
To address James R's question, I defer back to part of Dr. Lou's post: I just think humanities moral code's purpose should be to make the species fit in on earth . . . .
Were this a topic unto itself, the only objection I would posit is to replace the words "on earth" with "in the Universe," as I'm of the opinion that the sooner humanity gets off this rock and spreads through the Universe to such a degree as to secure the species against any one planetary or cosmic disaster, the better.
However, it points back to a certain natural standard: Perpetuity of Species.
Perpetuity of species must be a collective acknowledgment. Not only does it deal with the collective, but the individualistic considerations could be damagingly myopic if left to themselves. (There is such thing as "overkill.")
Take sex, for example. There is a reason sex feels good. It is to compel us to have sex. This has the interesting side effect of compelling us to reproduce. At a basic, animal/organism level, this seems quite obvious. Perhaps in this modern age of casual sex, strong medical technology, and Planned Parenthood organizations, sexuality has come to be an identity, an image, a bizarre social riddle, but that's part of the nature of the human factor. When you get right down to it, no sex means no sexual reproduction. Don't get me wrong, I don't know what's in it for the female Felis cattus, but ... neither do I get what's up with the playtpus. We cannot pretend that we know all that much about nature itself. But sexual reproduction and the sexual impulse I think serve well here.
Or we could be even more basic: We fear death. The birds fear death. Your cat fears death, though it will never admit it. But fear may also be a human thing; in the case of, say, the rosebush that "fears" death is merely constructed by nature to live. Its function is to not die. And so it is with all life. Remember that life is essentially a combination of basic stuff from the Universe that exhibits certain traits collectively. It's just matter and energy combined in such a manner as to cause it to try to hold itself together in some obscure way.
However, we cannot presume anything. We may have arrived at a point where a certain number of people who never understood the question before might be able to grasp the significance of the question, Why is murder wrong? (For those who figured it out and endured the litany patiently, thank you, for it seems we are finally arriving at this argument, so to speak.)
It might turn out, had I the capabilities of perception normally reserved for mythical deities, that murder and war are symptomatic of nature's need for population control. Not entirely figuratively I'm prone to say that problems in Africa--e.g. drought, ebola, and other natural catastrophes--are manifestations of the simple fact that the continent is not presently prepared to hold 800,000,000 human beings. If humanity "evolves" by going cybernetic, does it knock our evolution, or is there something to be said for the produce of a product of nature? What if our petty wars and crimes are something we're bound to by human nature specifically for the utilitarian purpose of natural selection?
Which leaves us with the result that, while I cannot tell you what that moral code is, I concur with the idea that the purpose of humanity's moral code should tend toward the benefit of the human species. I also concur that a happy species tends to be a healthy species, though such a claim might actually require metaphysics in lieu of psychology to defend. To the other, we can make a lot of people happy with opium and a hookah, and that's not necessarily a good prescription for more than a few at a time.
Betterment becomes something vague, dynamic, and responsive. There is a certain degree of moral relativity required, but how productive can this species be if everyone gets to do what they enjoy doing in order to survive? We have the minds. We're close with the technology. The economy shouldn't be a problem. Eden draws nigh and yet we humans might find it just too boring for our tastes.
In terms of an anti-example, though, I point to my own beloved Washington state, where we can bleed a billion dollars out of the taxpayers for sports arenas rejected at the ballot box, but we dare not override the voters and fund our schools adequately. If you're going to suspend democracy, for instance, it ought to be for the betterment of humanity. "Noble dictator" and all that sort of thing. But why educate the kids? After all, somebody needs to hawk fries at the baseball game, and with INS cracking down on the foreign labor (ha!) ....
Not all change is progress. Deciding what equals "betterment" has thus far been a hell of an adventure for humanity. After all, I cannot deny the benefits of the centralizing effect of the Abramic religions, but I think they could better serve the modern world by evolving dramatically or else just going away. Capitalism is the new religion, and soon enough we will be empowered to put the deification of economy on the shelf.
Maybe when we're done loving God, loving nations, and loving money, we can take some time out and love ourselves, all and together. Betterment will point the way from there.
While I choose to disregard the topic post on grounds of taste, I will acknowledge that I am aware of a broader perspective that can motivate such a question.
Beyond that, though, I'm quite pleased to see this or any discussion leading to the issues James R and Dr. Lou are discussing.
To address James R's question, I defer back to part of Dr. Lou's post: I just think humanities moral code's purpose should be to make the species fit in on earth . . . .
Were this a topic unto itself, the only objection I would posit is to replace the words "on earth" with "in the Universe," as I'm of the opinion that the sooner humanity gets off this rock and spreads through the Universe to such a degree as to secure the species against any one planetary or cosmic disaster, the better.
However, it points back to a certain natural standard: Perpetuity of Species.
Perpetuity of species must be a collective acknowledgment. Not only does it deal with the collective, but the individualistic considerations could be damagingly myopic if left to themselves. (There is such thing as "overkill.")
Take sex, for example. There is a reason sex feels good. It is to compel us to have sex. This has the interesting side effect of compelling us to reproduce. At a basic, animal/organism level, this seems quite obvious. Perhaps in this modern age of casual sex, strong medical technology, and Planned Parenthood organizations, sexuality has come to be an identity, an image, a bizarre social riddle, but that's part of the nature of the human factor. When you get right down to it, no sex means no sexual reproduction. Don't get me wrong, I don't know what's in it for the female Felis cattus, but ... neither do I get what's up with the playtpus. We cannot pretend that we know all that much about nature itself. But sexual reproduction and the sexual impulse I think serve well here.
Or we could be even more basic: We fear death. The birds fear death. Your cat fears death, though it will never admit it. But fear may also be a human thing; in the case of, say, the rosebush that "fears" death is merely constructed by nature to live. Its function is to not die. And so it is with all life. Remember that life is essentially a combination of basic stuff from the Universe that exhibits certain traits collectively. It's just matter and energy combined in such a manner as to cause it to try to hold itself together in some obscure way.
However, we cannot presume anything. We may have arrived at a point where a certain number of people who never understood the question before might be able to grasp the significance of the question, Why is murder wrong? (For those who figured it out and endured the litany patiently, thank you, for it seems we are finally arriving at this argument, so to speak.)
It might turn out, had I the capabilities of perception normally reserved for mythical deities, that murder and war are symptomatic of nature's need for population control. Not entirely figuratively I'm prone to say that problems in Africa--e.g. drought, ebola, and other natural catastrophes--are manifestations of the simple fact that the continent is not presently prepared to hold 800,000,000 human beings. If humanity "evolves" by going cybernetic, does it knock our evolution, or is there something to be said for the produce of a product of nature? What if our petty wars and crimes are something we're bound to by human nature specifically for the utilitarian purpose of natural selection?
Which leaves us with the result that, while I cannot tell you what that moral code is, I concur with the idea that the purpose of humanity's moral code should tend toward the benefit of the human species. I also concur that a happy species tends to be a healthy species, though such a claim might actually require metaphysics in lieu of psychology to defend. To the other, we can make a lot of people happy with opium and a hookah, and that's not necessarily a good prescription for more than a few at a time.
Betterment becomes something vague, dynamic, and responsive. There is a certain degree of moral relativity required, but how productive can this species be if everyone gets to do what they enjoy doing in order to survive? We have the minds. We're close with the technology. The economy shouldn't be a problem. Eden draws nigh and yet we humans might find it just too boring for our tastes.
In terms of an anti-example, though, I point to my own beloved Washington state, where we can bleed a billion dollars out of the taxpayers for sports arenas rejected at the ballot box, but we dare not override the voters and fund our schools adequately. If you're going to suspend democracy, for instance, it ought to be for the betterment of humanity. "Noble dictator" and all that sort of thing. But why educate the kids? After all, somebody needs to hawk fries at the baseball game, and with INS cracking down on the foreign labor (ha!) ....
Not all change is progress. Deciding what equals "betterment" has thus far been a hell of an adventure for humanity. After all, I cannot deny the benefits of the centralizing effect of the Abramic religions, but I think they could better serve the modern world by evolving dramatically or else just going away. Capitalism is the new religion, and soon enough we will be empowered to put the deification of economy on the shelf.
Maybe when we're done loving God, loving nations, and loving money, we can take some time out and love ourselves, all and together. Betterment will point the way from there.
Moral codes are dumb. No code can take into account everything that might happen. People are lazy, and want to give up responsibility for their actions, thats why the 10 commandments and other such moral codes exist.
When the great Tao is forgotten,
goodness and piety appear.
When the body's intelligence declines,
cleverness and knowledge step forth.
When there is no peace in the family,
filial piety begins.
When the country falls into chaos,
patriotism is born.
Throw away holiness and wisdom,
and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit,
and there won't be any thieves.
Lao Tzu,
Tao Te Ching
When the great Tao is forgotten,
goodness and piety appear.
When the body's intelligence declines,
cleverness and knowledge step forth.
When there is no peace in the family,
filial piety begins.
When the country falls into chaos,
patriotism is born.
Throw away holiness and wisdom,
and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit,
and there won't be any thieves.
Lao Tzu,
Tao Te Ching
A
and2000x
Guest
I think Dr. Lou is right on, and Tiassa is catching up. A lot of Atheists seem to use objectivism as a defense. This would mean that all human interest is then held as the pillar of all moral actions. This is humanism, a secular Christianity, another slavish code of society. Modern atheists, despite the fact that they do not bow down to a theological authority, seem to behavior socially in a matter no different than a theist. They are passive in the presense of degenerate behavior, and will uphold the modern moral slogans: "don't kill people" "racism is bad" "eat your vegetables" etc.
When a society is based on feel good values rather than rational deduction, then that is the kind of moron you produce.
IN THIS WORLD YOU ARE POWERLESS. We cannot raise our hand to a snotty child, the one who slips out of the hands of their parents and into the world of the inner city (that would be child aguse). We cannot speak up against the dangerous effects of multiculturalism, because it makes other people feel 'discriminated' against. We have no voice in the death of the environment, because the television wants you to forget that you have the power to vote (voting is a chore, just watch TV instead). We are powerless in a society where bowing down to the norm is the only option.
When a society is based on feel good values rather than rational deduction, then that is the kind of moron you produce.
IN THIS WORLD YOU ARE POWERLESS. We cannot raise our hand to a snotty child, the one who slips out of the hands of their parents and into the world of the inner city (that would be child aguse). We cannot speak up against the dangerous effects of multiculturalism, because it makes other people feel 'discriminated' against. We have no voice in the death of the environment, because the television wants you to forget that you have the power to vote (voting is a chore, just watch TV instead). We are powerless in a society where bowing down to the norm is the only option.
A
and2000x
Guest
Societies without monotheistic morality:
Sparta
http://www.laconia.org/sparti_h_1.htm
Egypt
http://www.guardians.net/egypt/
India
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ANCINDIA/ANCINDIA.HTM
Germania
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html
http://www.heathenfront.org
Rome
http://www.ghg.net/shetler/rome/
China
http://eawc.evansville.edu/chpage.htm
Sparta
http://www.laconia.org/sparti_h_1.htm
Egypt
http://www.guardians.net/egypt/
India
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ANCINDIA/ANCINDIA.HTM
Germania
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html
http://www.heathenfront.org
Rome
http://www.ghg.net/shetler/rome/
China
http://eawc.evansville.edu/chpage.htm
I disagree on a few points.
In my opinion, just ... looking around and knowing the things I see and the people I know in the world, I'm wiling to assert that most parents are too quick and too severe. "Sometimes the only thing to do is to swat their hand away," say some parents. And while they may be discussing general discipline, they resort to an extreme situation in which direct and possibly harsh contact may be the last available option: I've been cussed out before for not having the right to handle someone as such--of course, I could have just let her walk out in front of the moving bus and be killed. Believe me, if tacking, knocking down or away, or otherwise handling my child harshly is the last option, I agree. But this "only thing to do" is an oft-abused notion. Hang out in a shopping mall. Jeez, the kid is tired of walking around the damn mall for four hours while Mom tries on everything in every store. And I've seen kids get hit for pouting, for whining, and so forth. It's excessive.
Now ... as to the kids in the street who are out to do harm--are you familiar at all with the "black humor" of dark-skinned comedians about how hard their mothers could hit them? Now, should I guess that it is only the successful minorities who weren't hit by their parents? For I can't imagine whence comes the notion that abused children are abusive themselves.
And every once in a while, someone comes along and puts a couple of jets into the World Trade Center, or some such, and all the dullards scream, "Why, God, why?!" Myself, I was glad I never entered a betting pool on such an event; I figured it wouldn't take so long between the first WTC bombing and a big, successful hit by the terrorists. Between crappy security and a rash of terrorist activity overseas, I recall wondering if we would make it out of the Clinton years before Islamic extremists brought the fight to their enemies.
The absolutely cold reality is that this was bound to happen eventually. And it is the price Americans have paid for their prior age of apathetic bliss.
Who says you have to surrender to television?
We are not powerless. We might be disappointed in the projected ratio of effort to results, but we are only powerless if we choose to assume the position and wait for the coming rape. And at that point, we're not victims but willing participants.
It's a matter of degrees, isn't it?
I submit to you a quasi-analogy in the Miranda Act. Many lament that the Miranda Act "gives too many rights to criminals". We might overlook the obvious argument of innocent until proven otherwise, and look to a very simple historical fact: the Miranda Act came about because the police were too quick to use brutality that some people in the world seem to think is appropriate--they beat a confession out of an innocent man.
In my opinion, just ... looking around and knowing the things I see and the people I know in the world, I'm wiling to assert that most parents are too quick and too severe. "Sometimes the only thing to do is to swat their hand away," say some parents. And while they may be discussing general discipline, they resort to an extreme situation in which direct and possibly harsh contact may be the last available option: I've been cussed out before for not having the right to handle someone as such--of course, I could have just let her walk out in front of the moving bus and be killed. Believe me, if tacking, knocking down or away, or otherwise handling my child harshly is the last option, I agree. But this "only thing to do" is an oft-abused notion. Hang out in a shopping mall. Jeez, the kid is tired of walking around the damn mall for four hours while Mom tries on everything in every store. And I've seen kids get hit for pouting, for whining, and so forth. It's excessive.
Now ... as to the kids in the street who are out to do harm--are you familiar at all with the "black humor" of dark-skinned comedians about how hard their mothers could hit them? Now, should I guess that it is only the successful minorities who weren't hit by their parents? For I can't imagine whence comes the notion that abused children are abusive themselves.
As to the first, I personally have disagreements with the necessary presuppositions explained to me by the homogenizers and conformists. But if you feel that it's unjust that white people should not be allowed to maintain economic and political advantages over minorities through the manipulation of laws, well, that's your problem. However, as to the lament about television: people choose to victimize themselves as such. Just as my choice to not register to vote at a petition booth one summer resulted in my necessary choosing to drive 250 miles to vote for President of the Unites States in my prior district, any person is entitled to decide that their vote doesn't matter. What's puzzling about the whole thing, though, is that for all the criticism people give the American media, they still swallow it like water. There's something to be said at Jonestown for anyone who might have claimed to not know the Kool-Aid was poisoned, but if you're the last person to drink ...? We're that late in the process nowadays. People ought to know that's a poison dipper that poureth their cup to overflowing.
And every once in a while, someone comes along and puts a couple of jets into the World Trade Center, or some such, and all the dullards scream, "Why, God, why?!" Myself, I was glad I never entered a betting pool on such an event; I figured it wouldn't take so long between the first WTC bombing and a big, successful hit by the terrorists. Between crappy security and a rash of terrorist activity overseas, I recall wondering if we would make it out of the Clinton years before Islamic extremists brought the fight to their enemies.
The absolutely cold reality is that this was bound to happen eventually. And it is the price Americans have paid for their prior age of apathetic bliss.
Who says you have to surrender to television?
To what degree? I might choose to be upset at nature for the fact that I have to wear clothes, but it's kind of pointless.
We are not powerless. We might be disappointed in the projected ratio of effort to results, but we are only powerless if we choose to assume the position and wait for the coming rape. And at that point, we're not victims but willing participants.