God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-11-2012, 01:56 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(20-11-2012 06:42 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  
(20-11-2012 06:26 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I chose to not fall victim to a false dichotomy. You don't agree with that. Neither are moral, in my opinion. If someone asks me, "Which is a better house pet, a tiger or a lion," my answer is neither. They're both shitty house pets for pretty much the exact same reasons. If you want to respond, "Well tigers weigh more, so lions are better house pets," more power to you. My answer is valid whether you like it or not. Any species of large predatory cat (cheetah, jaguar, leopard, puma, tiger, lion...) is shitty and an animal that won't rip you to shreds makes a much better house pet. "Well which other animal is better then, Matt," the question goes. I don't care which animal you chose, just not one that can kill you. House cat, hamster, iguana, newt, guppies, parrot, chinchilla, Pomeranian, they're all better options and most importantly, they illustrate that there are more options than the binary choices of lion or tiger.
Actually, the OP asked "Which is moral?" implying (to me) that one was moral the other not.
If easier then ----- which is more moral or the most moral or your choice if you have to live under one or the other?
Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 04:49 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Hey, Greatest.

You don't have to imagine how it's used for capital crimes. It's been used in cases of murder for thousands of years; likely even tens of thousands of years.

Repayment isn't the only solution. The solution is "what works". It's a task. Repair the harm, restore harmony. It's not paint by numbers, it's case specific. And yes, sometimes things can't be returned to their former state. Sometimes possessions are lost, damaged or spent. Sometimes lives are taken. It's not a matter of put things back. It's a matter of make things right.

In terms of "choose one", it's like asking me, "Do you prefer to be anally raped in the morning or at night?" Sure, there's subtle differences, but when all is said and done I'm gonna go with neither because they're both shitty options.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 05:53 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(27-11-2012 04:49 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Greatest.

You don't have to imagine how it's used for capital crimes. It's been used in cases of murder for thousands of years; likely even tens of thousands of years.

Repayment isn't the only solution. The solution is "what works". It's a task. Repair the harm, restore harmony. It's not paint by numbers, it's case specific. And yes, sometimes things can't be returned to their former state. Sometimes possessions are lost, damaged or spent. Sometimes lives are taken. It's not a matter of put things back. It's a matter of make things right.

In terms of "choose one", it's like asking me, "Do you prefer to be anally raped in the morning or at night?" Sure, there's subtle differences, but when all is said and done I'm gonna go with neither because they're both shitty options.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Do you always type out

Peace and Love and Empathy

Matt

Every time?

Why not just put it into your sig?

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 06:48 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Hey, Fst.

Not that it has anything to do with this thread (you could have just as easily asked me in a PM), but yes I do. A lot of my work has to do with the power of automatic thoughts. I don't write it because it's just some meaningless sentiment or something cool I heard once. I write it because it is meaningful. I write it out every single time so that it always has meaning. I come here to connect, to share, to discuss, to grow and I have tremendous respect for the people I am conversing with. Many people here have truly enriched my life and more than one person has told me that I have enriched theirs. As someone who grew up without an Internet, I know what an absolute treasure the Internet is and what a precious luxury it is to converse with people from around the world. For these wonderful people I speak to, my wish is that they know peace, that they are loved and that they find empathy in their lives, both from and for others. That is my wish for them. It is an act of thanks and well wishing.

It's also particularly important to me here, because my opinion is rarely in the majority. Like most other people, my opinion is important to me because I have dedicated a significant part of my life and my energy to cultivating it. I don't make allegiances with ideas lightly, I try to be thoughtful in everything I do and above all else, I strive to be intellectually honest. Many people on this site, despite finding themselves at philosophical odds with me, compliment me. It is very gratifying when a non-captive audience thanks you for your controversial contribution to a conversation and even encourages you to participate. I thank these people for giving me a forum to share that which is important to me and for making me feel honoured, respected and welcome. And so these people I wish well.

Then there are the people who disagree with what I have to say and take it upon themselves to try and kill the messenger. Since literally the first week I joined this board, people have attacked me as a person, accusing me of all manner of cockamamie fabrication; from the puerile, to the libelous, to the downright offensive. This sort of transparent behaviour is not the manner in which one treats other humans (which gives you insight into how they perceive me) and as such, as a human being, it is not something that I accept. As you may have noticed, it's not something that I back away from (but it is something I never, ever initiate; as it is said, I don't start fights, I finish them). I will not be bullied, I believe strongly that ad hominem attacks are anathema to honest intellectual discussion, that they should be denounced whenever they occur in the strongest language possible and my wishing peace and love and empathy upon others is not, as some wrongly assume, a declaration that I am some sort of pacifist. I do not go gently. I mentioned tit for tat earlier this week. I make the assumption that the person I am speaking to is thoughtful and respectful and so I answer their questions thoughtfully and give them my respect. When they defile that trust and attack me, I retaliate. I also spoke about reconciliation this week. I am always willing to reconcile with someone so long as they are willing to admit that their attack was nothing more than an unacceptable attempt to dismiss me, which, I have been taught by those wiser than me, is the worst thing you can do to someone. In fact, some of the people on this board that I have the strongest friendships with are people that learned the hard way that it's not something that I accept. The moment I hear, "I'm sorry that I attacked you," all is forgiven and we move on with our lives. But during the time of pain, just after they have attacked me, or while I, angry, retaliate, or while I am angry that I have been forced to retaliate, or before the time that they apologise, I often do not wish them well. Sometimes I read my post and I don't feel right wishing people peace and love and empathy. Because they have wronged me and hurt me (and yes, sometimes personal attacks, even from people on line I have never met, hurt, because while they may not recognise my humanity, I recognise theirs) and because it would be dishonest for me to write it. And so I do not write it. Because in the end, it isn't an automatic thought. It is something that people earn with their thoughtfulness, their kindness, their graciousness, their openness, their friendship, their welcoming and their respect. And it is something that I am glad to give every single time.

I hope that answers your question.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ghost's post
27-11-2012, 07:08 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(27-11-2012 04:49 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Greatest.

You don't have to imagine how it's used for capital crimes. It's been used in cases of murder for thousands of years; likely even tens of thousands of years.

Repayment isn't the only solution. The solution is "what works". It's a task. Repair the harm, restore harmony. It's not paint by numbers, it's case specific. And yes, sometimes things can't be returned to their former state. Sometimes possessions are lost, damaged or spent. Sometimes lives are taken. It's not a matter of put things back. It's a matter of make things right.

In terms of "choose one", it's like asking me, "Do you prefer to be anally raped in the morning or at night?" Sure, there's subtle differences, but when all is said and done I'm gonna go with neither because they're both shitty options.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
I did not think you had a decent answer and I was correct.
Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 07:13 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Hey, DL.

Sorry, but that didn't make any sense to me. What are you trying to say?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 07:46 PM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2012 07:50 PM by Greatest I am.)
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(27-11-2012 07:13 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, DL.

Sorry, but that didn't make any sense to me. What are you trying to say?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
If you cannot show how your system would work with a simple scenario and only keep talking about the fundamentals, this indicates that you have not dealt with the objections to the sale of your product.
In marketing terms that is.
If you ever want people to accept the notion then you have to deal with real life scenarios.
Sales of ideas, which is what this is, is always me, as your customer, saying ---- if this, ---- and you filling in the details of the then part with --- then this is the result or outcome.
I gave you an --- if scenario and you dropped the ball and lost the potential sale by not dealing with my objection in accepting your idea with a good then reply.

Marketing 101.

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 08:33 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Hey, DL.

Too bad I wasn't selling a product. I answered a question. The two products on the market suck. Offer me Coke or Pepsi, I'm drinking something else. Haven't decided which yet, but I know that both Coke and Pepsi are bad for you.

Secondly, I wasn't selling a product. Nowhere did I say that I had a ready for market product. In fact, I explicitly said that the market is volatile and unforgiving and while I know that we need an alternative, one has not yet been discovered that can compete directly with Coke and Pepsi and gain significant market share. There used to be a pretty awesome alternative, water, but not many people drink it these days. There's some pilot projects where people are selling it artisinally and I clearly outlined some of those success stories, but the market penetration just isn't there at the moment. People were asking me about the qualities of water and I was happy to explain (because for some reason some people thought it was incapable of quenching thirst because it didn't have caffeine or sugar), but I never once suggested that water was the product of the future. But what water does tell us is that it's possible to come up with alternatives to Coke and Pepsi and that there is demand just waiting to be satisfied. More R&D is required before we can go to market.

Furthermore, sometimes its important to drum up interest in your product even long before you even have a product to go to market with. For example, Planetary Resources Inc. is nowhere near ready to mine asteroids, but they know it's possible and they're trying to both create a market and attract investors.

Marketing 201 Cool

Also, there is no one way for the system I outlined to deal with a simple scenario, so your expectation of a universalised response is misplaced. Some products aim to have international appeal, some think locally. The Chevy Nova didn't sell well in Mexico because Nova is Spanish for No Go. You have to think niche markets on this one.

And if you're not willing to accept that water has value or that alternatives should be looked towards simply because they aren't performing well on the open market, then you're just demonstrating the short sighted externalising nature of the system that keeps us stuck in this pickle of a quandary.

Economics 342 Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 09:52 AM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
No one will buy your pig in a poke. You have to show him off.
Did you buy your car without knowing what engine was in it?
Neither will anyone else.
My sales and marketing career served me well but I understand your immaturity in such concepts.
Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 11:25 AM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Immaturity? Dude, I said some very specific things. You thought I was trying to sell a specific product, which I was not. I explained that to you and you still refuse to accept it. Not only that, but you just smugly dismiss it and get in a barb. If you don't want to take the time to try and understand my argument, that's fine. But don't for a second think that your inability to grasp a something gives you the right to insult me. If you are so married to your strawman argument that you refuse to listen to reason, so be it. I don't have an obligation to participate further. Let me know when you have something constructive to contribute to the conversation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: