In article <op.t299mxaoc3xi7v@news.povray.org>, 
phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk says...
> > A very simple principle:
> > Do unto others as you'd like other to do unto you.
> > It can replace any religion, and a great many laws. It can be used as a
  
> > reference to diferensate between "good" and "evil".
> 
> Um I'm a sado-masochist (no I'm not really) who gets off on pain therefor
e  
> I should go around hurting people because that's what I'd want them to do
  
> to me?
> 
Bingo! lol The problem is of course that people that really *believe* 
that the golden rule means what they think it does are naive to the 
point of blindness about what it *really* means. A sociopath can't make 
such a distinction, since they don't recognize other people as being 
*anything* like them. They literally can't make the connection between 
harm to themselves being the same as harm to another. And other people 
won't be as bad as that, but its not hard at all to imagine thinking, "I 
would wish someone killed me if I cheated on my wife, so I am going to 
kill people I know are cheating on their wives.", or any number of other 
similar conclusions, which, by the golden rule, are **perfectly** 
reasonable. All the golden rule means is that anything is justified, 
including mass murder, so long as the person committing it is 100% in 
agreement that **he** should be treated the same way, for the same 
supposed offense.

Those of us that recognize this know that a better standard, which 
implies basic respect for others, and a mutually agreed definition of 
what *that* means, is needed. One rule, which says nothing about what 
the basic standard should be, or who gets to define it, or how you 
determine right or wrong, save by if the person doing it *thinks* other 
should treat them the same way, so its OK to do it to others, is 
useless.

> > ANYBODY who, at least try to, live by that principle won't wilingly  
> > commit any crime.
> > What I like about it, is that it's a positive principle.
> 
> So I shouldn't steal from a store because I wouldn't like the store  
> stealing from me... except the store isn't a person (except perhaps  
> legally) so why should I care?
> 
Nah, that would at least make sense. The real problem is that the 
definition of crime is arbitrarily based on the presumption that the 
person committing and act **knows** how they should treat others, and 
thus, by that standard, can only commit a crime if they do what is 
contrary to that understanding. Yet, by that same definition, a Muslim 
who murders his neighbors wife is "not" committing a crime at all, so 
long as *he* is sure that he would want his own wife killed in the same 
fashion, for the same supposed offense. Or any other similar example.

In the end, its nothing but authoritarianism in disguise. Someone else 
defines the rules of what you can/should/are allowed to do to people, 
based on their actions/intent/statements or other criteria, and if 
everyone, except the victim, agrees that those *are* the rules, and that 
such action is acceptable if it was instead applied to them, no crime, 
against man or god has happened. Its only if the person committing the 
act disagrees with it, but does it anyway, that the golden rule comes 
into force. And since you will never find two people that are *ever* 
100% identical in their assumption about what someone else "can" do to 
them, and some won't accept "any" punishment for "any" crime at all (and 
you get those types, who will even protest sending someone to jail for 
life, after committing 10 murders), its impossible to apply such a rule, 
without making other rules to define what the rule is **supposed** to 
mean.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

In article <web.476175fc922777eb773c9a3e0@news.povray.org>, 
nam### [at] gmailcom says...
> Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > Y'know in modern times if someone were within an inch of sacrificing
> > their child and claimed God told them to do it, they'd be placed in a
> > mental health facility quicker than you could blink.
> 
> Is this the same modern times which overload children and teens with all 
kinds
> of demonic imagery in disguise of good entertainment?  And then eventuall
y
> makes teens shoot people in schools or malls just like they do in the
> videogames?
> 
No, its the modern society where "good Christians" can't imagine their 
poor children every doing anything wrong, ignore every possible warning 
sign of a problem, until the teen goes nuts and starts looking for ways 
to hurt people, then blames the video game that the teen in question 
asked them to buy him for his birthday for *everything* that happened.

See, if your version was true, then we would be seeing entire schools 
full of children going on murder sprees, not just the obscure loner that 
***everyone***, especially their own parents, ignored, didn't want to 
see, never bothered to talk to, and didn't think needed counseling 
nearly as much as some other little snit that, I don't know.., might 
have been permanently traumatized by finding out that Fred and Barnie 
where cartoon characters, and people didn't actually ride dinosaurs. I 
means, making sure that someone that has *no* problems at all, other 
than that something maybe mildly offended them, is *so much* better a 
use of school resources than helping the guy who sits in a corner, 
glares at everyone, jokes about killing people and... Oh, never mind. 
You are obviously one of the endless line of people that will ignore 
***everything*** that went wrong, including parents that didn't bother 
to so much as look in the kids room once in a while, or pay any 
attention to their kids, or how they developed morally, and will instead 
just blame it on a few irrelevant bits of stupid BS, which **failed** to 
cause the same problem in the other hundreds of kids at the school, all 
of whom probably played the same games, or the literally millions nation 
wide that did so.

I mean, demonic images and violent games must be horrible inefficient 
for spreading evil, given that it effects what... 0.000001% of the 
people that ever see them, or play the games? Give me a fracking break.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Alain wrote:
> A very simple principle:
> Do unto others as you'd like other to do unto you.

So, a masochist should beat up their neighbors? =)

> It can replace any religion, and a great many laws. It can be used as a
> reference to diferensate between "good" and "evil". ANYBODY who, at
> least try to, live by that principle won't wilingly commit any crime.
> What I like about it, is that it's a positive principle.
> 

Nice start, but it needs a few qualifiers before it works in all
situations without causing other problems. Might I suggest "Do unto
others as they would have you do unto them." That opens the door to
interpreting what someone else wants, but it's a place to start.

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:42:12 -0000, Alain
> <ele### [at] netscapenet> did spake, saying:
> 
>> Phil Cook nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/13 04:08:
>>> And lo on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:34:54 -0000, nemesis
>>> <nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
>>>
>>>> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>>> So either God's a 'Worship Me or I'll beat you up' bully or a 'I'll
>>>>> help
>>>>> the tribe who showers Me with the most faith' mercenary (or both)?
>>>>
>>>> Faith, love, respect and fear are to be expected from those who
>>>> devote their lifes to God's will.
>>>  Except I'd put faith and love, and respect and fear in two entirely
>>> seperate categories otherwise we end up with the conclusions that...
>>>
>> Respect and fear realy don't deserve to be grouped. Apparent respect
>> comming from fear is no respect at all, as it soon become obvious as
>> soon as the fear aspect fades, apparent respect mutate into hate. True
>> respect comes from understanding. True respect breed more respect, and
>> reduce fear.
>> Respect can be paired with love, as both can grow without the presence
>> of the other, and both can lead to the other.
>> So, you can have "faith", love and respect on one side, and fear and
>> hate on the other side.
> 
> I failed to explain well. Faith and love are intangibles "Why do you
> love X?", "Why do you have faith in Y?" they're both something you can't
> really answer - you just do. Fear and respect have answers "I respect X
> because he's proven himself" "I fear Y because I've seen what he can
> do". You don't just fear or respect someone or something (experiments
> with spider pictures notwithstanding).
> 
>> A very simple principle:
>> Do unto others as you'd like other to do unto you.
>> It can replace any religion, and a great many laws. It can be used as
>> a reference to diferensate between "good" and "evil".
> 
> Um I'm a sado-masochist (no I'm not really) who gets off on pain
> therefore I should go around hurting people because that's what I'd want
> them to do to me?
> 

Curses, you beat me to that! Although, if you were a sado-masochist you
might get other people to hurt you, too. At least then it would be equal.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:10:40 -0000, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at  
vtSPAM.edu"> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:42:12 -0000, Alain
>> <ele### [at] netscapenet> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Phil Cook nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/13 04:08:
>>>> And lo on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:34:54 -0000, nemesis
>>>> <nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
>>>>
>>> A very simple principle:
>>> Do unto others as you'd like other to do unto you.
>>> It can replace any religion, and a great many laws. It can be used as
>>> a reference to diferensate between "good" and "evil".
>>
>> Um I'm a sado-masochist (no I'm not really) who gets off on pain
>> therefore I should go around hurting people because that's what I'd want
>> them to do to me?
>>
> Curses, you beat me to that!

Hey I'm the one who likes being beaten :-P

> Although, if you were a sado-masochist you
> might get other people to hurt you, too. At least then it would be equal.

Except 'I' would enjoy it whereas they possibly wouldn't. Let's say God  
set a test of faith to climb a mountain, would it really be a test for  
those who enjoy mountain-climbing? After all they might well have done it  
regardless.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:54:50 -0000, Tim Cook  
<z99### [at] bellsouthnet> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:56:32 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>>> Therefore there is no Hell.
>>>
>>> Yep. And all the carvings on the cathedral where Jesus is guesturing  
>>> to Satan (who surprisingly looks *just* like Loki, Pan, and Bacchus)  
>>> to drag the unbelievers off in chains to hell?  That's just decoration.
>>  Who are you going to believe - God or a bunch of artists? ;-)
>
> Sharks and dolphins look surprisingly similar, too.  Doesn't make them  
> particularly closely related.

Are you saying horns are an evolutionary by-product of high temperatures?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:38:37 -0000, nemesis  
<nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
>> Only if you presume the very old religion that started out claiming that
>> Satan was God's helper, then later blamed everything on him and made up
>> a silly, and over time increasingly complicated and bloody explanation,
>> for what he did and where he was sent, instead of the Satanists, who
>> would argue that Satan was the one that **never** deceived anyone, and
>> thus its your God that is evil.
>
> fucked up world!

Well yeah who's fault is that? You'd think an omnipotent being could've  
got things right to start with.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:12:12 -0000, nemesis  
<nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Y'know in modern times if someone were within an inch of sacrificing
>> their child and claimed God told them to do it, they'd be placed in a
>> mental health facility quicker than you could blink.
>
> Is this the same modern times which overload children and teens with all  
> kinds of demonic imagery in disguise of good entertainment?

Unlike all the warm fuzzy imagery of the Bible.

> And then eventually
> makes teens shoot people in schools or malls just like they do in the
> videogames?

When they should confine themselves to just shooting unbelievers, like  
that charming video game made by Christians.

> Why aren't all this people in a mental health facility?  oh, it would  
> make economy come to a halt...

Boon to the mental health industry though.

>> Makes me think perhaps the Bible is full of crazies. :)
>
> ever thought that maybe it passed through Abraham's, Moses's or others  
> heads that they were insane?  Yet, they persisted on their faith.

Why would that lessen the chances of them being crazy?

>  I guess the
> Message was far more convincing than that of your average psychopath's
> delirium...

Except we try to cure psychopaths of their delusions even the ones who  
claim "God told them to do it"

> I'm leaving this thread, won't be reading any more messages from it.   
> Every Christian have a limit of tolerance for twisted logic shouts and  
> verborragic blasphemies against God...


whack; hit it enough times and candy-shaped reason might come out.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:25:35 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> Darren New wrote:
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:02:27 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> I don't know that it does - is there evidence/proof to suggest that  
>>>>> it
>>>>> does?
>>>> Do you know who Abraham Lincoln was?  George Washington? Adolph  
>>>> Hitler?
>>>> Julius Ceaser?
>>>
>>> What's that got to do with souls?
>>  I'll let you think about it first, for a while.  Ask yourself what a  
>> soul is, and what makes a difference between a live and a dead person.
>
> I just wondered if you wanted to continue this.  So, having thought  
> about how to try to put it in words...
<snip>
> You have a model of the universe in your head, and in that model, you  
> have a model of yourself. That is your soul. It's what makes you  
> self-aware, and it's what makes you know the difference between good and  
> evil.

But if you have a universe-modal aren't you by definition a part of that  
model and therefore conscious of your presence in that model? Take that  
squirrel who worked out how to get to the food table through the ramps  
jumps and swinging things, could he have done that without a  
universe-model and more importantly an awareness of himself. Do squirrels  
thus have souls?

> You're self-aware because you can run simulations on yourself to  
> determine what would happen were you to do something. You don't need to  
> step off the edge to know you'd bounce painfully on the way down.

But that's experience, almost Pavlovian; the only major difference is we  
can pass on such experience without the necessity of the physical process  
"Those berries are poisonous". If you argue that the possibly soul-less  
animals will jump down/across things they can't reach I'll happily point  
to supposedly ensouled humans who've done the same thing. (I know you  
won't insult me by saying that the humans were aware of the potential  
risk, whereas the animals weren't)

> You know good from evil because, being able to simulate yourself, you  
> can determine likely outcomes.  You also know good from evil because you  
> have models of other people in your head, too. You know your mom would  
> be insulted if you call her a bitch. You know, were you young enough,  
> that she would punish you for doing so. You probably even know what sort  
> of punishment, and you *probably* even understand *why* she would do so.
>
> You have a bit of your Mom's soul in your head. Put there by love,  
> unless you had an exceptionally unhappy childhood, in which case it was  
> put there by fear and hatred. Bits of your Mom's soul will continue to  
> live in your head after she is gone.

What you seem to be saying is that self-conciousness equals soul,  
therefore dolphins and elephants that preen themselves before mirrors are  
ensouled. Wow that should annoy the 'humans are the best' fundamentalists  
:-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:10:40 -0000, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at
> vtSPAM.edu"> did spake, saying:
> 
>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>> Um I'm a sado-masochist (no I'm not really) who gets off on pain
>>> therefore I should go around hurting people because that's what I'd want
>>> them to do to me?
>>>
>> Curses, you beat me to that!
> 
> Hey I'm the one who likes being beaten :-P

Already playing by the golden rule, off to a good start then.

> 
>> Although, if you were a sado-masochist you
>> might get other people to hurt you, too. At least then it would be equal.
> 
> Except 'I' would enjoy it whereas they possibly wouldn't. Let's say God
> set a test of faith to climb a mountain, would it really be a test for
> those who enjoy mountain-climbing? After all they might well have done
> it regardless.
> 

What does 'enjoy' have to do with it? The pre-supposed situation was
beating up people who might not enjoy it. =)

I was referring to the sado- prefix, which suggests you like causing
pain as well. Since you would want to beat up other people you should,
by the golden rule, let them beat you up as well.

Post a reply to this message