Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (26759)	6/6/2012 4:25:17 PM
From: Solon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

“Bears are creatures of the Creator just as much as Humans are. If you wanted to say only Humans act to their benefit then you should have.” Now that you understand that I said that “all creatures act to their benefit” , you will (perhaps) be able to handle the fact that all creatures have different natures, different experiences, and different capacity to use reasoning to solve problems! Just hang in there, kid! “You're assuming Evolution as your premise and then using it as a basis to conclude that Evolution is true.” LOL! HUH? In the discussion of moral formation, we do need to argue whether or not animals have different natures? Or whether or not animals are evolving? Or whether or not reason has brought medicine from the appeasement of demons to the use of antibiotics and surgery? DUH? “you have NOT shown why killing your children so you can party is either illogical or wrong” It is wrong because we say it is wrong based on reason and experience and on our reliance on cooperation as a benefit and an ethic. You brought up the actions of Susan Smith as an example of an individual who acted contrary to community values and interests. Her actions did not benefit the community as they were anathema to the consensus reached by rational people on issues of moral behaviour. You are stumbling about grasping at thin air and coming up with thin air. Creating straw men to nip at does nothing to refute the actual arguments I make. You waste my time but what else is new? If I was making the case that all people act to acceptable moral standards, then Susan Smith might be a relevant sidestep. But, of course, I make no such claim. Even where people agree on moral guidelines, it does not follow they are incapable to subvert them--whether voluntarily or because of an erosion of mental or emotional capacity. Wars are fought all over the world (and have been throughout human history) by huge groups of people sincerely believing they are acting rightly and with the utmost rectitude. Do you get it, yet?? Hello in there! :-) “This historical account is the one you cite over and over again” Finally, a true statement! I often cite the story of the 3 bears--I mean the two bears--to demonstrate how mythic the bible is and how silly it is to think it represents any rational or reasonable world view. My often making use of a good idea to make my points does not translate into any reasonable presumption that I am angry at the 3 bears…I mean the 2 bears! The fact, however, that you consider the story of 42 children being chased down and killed by 2 bears as true and as representing a moral value is something to be pointed out to the thread!! Too bad it bothers you so much when I use it to illustrate a point and to devastate you! How sad that the only thing you can contribute to the discussion is the gratuitous allegation that I am angry at the 3 bears--I mean the two bears! LOL! Oh, the RAGE of it all! Somebody hunt down those dastardly bears of myth and fancy!! Sucks to be you!