enforcement of TOS 8.2 (iv)

[161488303349]

---

Solar Legion wrote:

There are 

very

few species for which the act of cannibalism does not cause some form of damage to them, be it on a genetic or simple tissue level.

Humans are 

not

one of the species which can engage in this act without damage. Those engagedin this act diminish themselves and - when they reproduce - the rest of the species. No morality involved.

---

on this basis argument then is not the eating part that causes the damage. is the killing part. kill enough people not of our group/tribe and we reduce the gene pool

other than a few aberrations (which i give one example of) has been many many generations since cannabilism as a societal norm has been practiced in any group/community/tribe/nation. and as a societal norm has been extinguished from the modern world today

+

i think that you made a more narrow definition of universal than is maybe necessary. a broader definition is more appropriate i think bc of the complexities when examine the nuances

+

i agree that morality all by itself is subjective. selective even in some cases when individualised or applied to/by some groups and not others

but when a moral standard (which anti-cannabilism is)  is actual applied to humankind as a whole and accepted societally by the whole then i think is pretty safe to say that it is universal. as far as humankind goes anyways

if not then the term universal doesnt mean universal when applied to humankind as a whole. it must mean something else or is inappropriate to apply in this way

+

consider

anti-cannibalism is a moral subscribed to by the human race as a whole in a civilised modern society. but the moral is not universal bc it was not subscribed to by an uncivilised past society. further there are also a small number of individuals in civilised society today who will eat people if we let them. so therefore the moral is not universal

seems to me that this is semantic reasoning

[solstyse]

Just some thoughts...

Driving on one side of the road or the oher has nothing to do with morallity. It's all about practicallity. The driver is universally on the side of the car that is closer to opposing traffic because that is the side that he or she can better judge distance on. Traffic cannot move if there is no standard for where to place the driver controls and which lane a car is supposed to occupy.

Cannibalism is a risky behavior. Most of the time, feeling "grossed out" by something is a survival trait. Spiders and wild snakes gross people out because they can be venomous.Insects gross people out because they can carry viruses and parasites. Wild rodents gross people out because they are vectors for fleas, which in turn spread disease. Whole tribes of cannibals have been wiped out by pathogens that have specifically adapted to human hosts. So there is an element of danger to the eater. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)

Most religions cite in one way or another that it is wrong to do things to others that you either would rather not have done to you, or that you are not absolutely certain that they would do. That is one of the few things we can all agree on in terms of morallity. Jewish and Christian belief has the "Do unto others" commandment, and the Pagan religions all have karma. The problem comes in the form of details. If a cannibal can accept that someday he or she will be eaten, then to eat another person does not violate the karma or "do unto others" clause.

The "age of consent" in most developed countries began more due to practicality than anything else. In most cases a person is biologically ready for parenthood before they are mentally ready for it, by society's standards. This is because of the lengthening life span of our species. There were times in human history that it was rare for a person to live past their 30's. Of course back then puberty and all the hormonal urges it brings were considered more appropriate than now. But with extended life comes extended childhood. Now, in most societies, it's mandatory to attend school until the age of 18. A person cannot get good grades in school while tending to a child. In fact, in our technology driven world, either some college or some life experience is greatly needed so that a parent knows the reasons for things, and how the world works before giving birth. Add to this the biological instability of adolescence. Most people's minds have changed quite significantly quite a few times between the age of 13 (puberty) and the age of consent (generally considered to be 18.) Having not been alive for two decades, it is wrong to expect them to put them at risk of a two decade long responsibility to raise another person. Consider the milestones that lay in between. A person in the US can't drive until the age of at least 16. In some states, their right to travel at will is limited until the age of 18. Babies have places to go. doctors, someone has to move the diapers and formula from the market to the house. They are not released from their paren'ts care until 18.

[Knowl Paine]

Had you actually heard the message in the video, you would understand that it is impossible to Go Back to something we have never known. We have never lived that style of life. 

 

 

As Mike Wallace stated, I am essentially, my brother's keeper.

Now that I am in charge, there will be some changes to how I go about Keeping you.

As it appears to be my social obligation, and moral duty, to wipe your butt, I will begin to decide how, and when, I will do that.

I think it would be proper, for those who live under my house, to obey my rules. Any successes, should be assigned to the Keeper, for it is he, who has enabled that success.

 

 

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

I don't know about "Solely our of a sense of morality".    

Seems to me that no colonial government -- no government, come to that, colonial or not -- is going to tolerate armed bands, independent of government, going up and down the country killing people, if it can help it.   That's one of the main reasons you have governments, to my mind -- to stop that sortf of thing happening.

---

I agree. I'll change my mind and say that there may have been an element of morality in the British at the time but it must have been mainly that the British didn't want to be eaten

Some of Cooke's people were eaten in New Zealand and they probably didn't like that idea very much lol.

[161488303349]

---

Knowl Paine wrote:

Had you actually heard the message in the video, you would understand that it is impossible to

Go Back

to something we have never known. We have never lived that style of life. 

 

 

As Mike Wallace stated, I am essentially, my brother's keeper.

Now that I am in charge, there will be some changes to how I go about Keeping you.

As it appears to be my social obligation, and moral duty, to wipe your butt, I will begin to decide how, and when, I will do that.

I think it would be proper, for those who live under my house, to obey my rules. Any successes, should be assigned to the Keeper, for it is he, who has enabled that success.

  

---

 oh! ok. while the interview was about Ayn Rand and her philosophy. is ok to discuss the interviewer Mike Wallace as you want

+

the interviewer Mike Wallace questions were of the form:

the current morality (at the time of the interview) is presupposed on the tenet: love thy neighbour

how is Objectivism different from this and why do you (Ayn Rand) suppose this tenet is wrong. and what is your reasoning for this

Ayn Rand argue that to receive love you must do something to earn it. that is unreasonable to expect Man to give love to another without getting something in return. that altruism is not only not in the individuals own best interest but is also a fiction

+

how did you (Knowl) jump from love thy neighbour to interpreting this to being your brothers keeper and as his keeper you will tell him what to do and wipe his bottom?

+

my comment about going back is directed at them who latch onto Objectivism and think that it somehow equates with survival of the fittest. pick your own ramboy blogger. there is heaps of them out there. who argue that if we can just go back to the olden day ways when this was practiced then will be better somehow. was not better in the olden days. was a whole lot worse

is a myth that survival of the fittest leads to reason - an axiom of Objectivism. is also a myth that survival of the fittest equates to Objectivsm. it dont

is also a myth that survival of the fittest is a better way for a society to conduct itself. it isnt

[161488303349]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

I don't know about "Solely our of a sense of morality".    

Seems to me that no colonial government -- no government, come to that, colonial or not -- is going to tolerate armed bands, independent of government, going up and down the country killing people, if it can help it.   That's one of the main reasons you have governments, to my mind -- to stop that sortf of thing happening.

---

I agree. I'll change my mind and say that there may have been an element of morality in the British at the time but it must have been mainly that the British didn't want to be eaten

Some of Cooke's people were eaten in New Zealand and they probably didn't like that idea very much lol.

---

well just say that upto now was just chatting about cannibalism in the general moral sense

+

is a warrior culture. still is in lots of ways. like lots of maori men and women sign up to armed forces and go fight in the wars. like in Afghanistan where is a formidable opponent and have to go one on one with them in the dark places. same like in the jungles in Malaya, Vietnam and other places. ultimate for maori warrior is get into SAS

the eating part (in the olden days) only come when warrior kill in combat. if opponent is good fighter then eat him

is what happen to Cooks men. they fight and lose and got eaten. they must have fought well. like dont just eat any old body

Maori cannibal not like Fore cannibal. Fore eat people no matter how they die. is why they get sick

 

[161488303349]

just add here another interesting fact

headhunting. like the practice of chopping someones head off and removing their skull and shrinking it

this was actual introduced here by the european whalers and sailors who came here. they teach the natives how to do this

some maori catch on to this really quick. and start go out and capture other tribes people. do the shrink head thing and sell to the whalers and sailors for muskets and steel knives, pots, utensils, tobacco, liquor and stuff like that. whalers and sailors got heaps of money for them back home in Europe

+

add:

when the Empire came here officially. Governor Hobson.  then they stamp it out

 

[Knowl Paine]

It is not survival of the fittest, it is personal accountability, and that is why so many people fear it.

If you ask the average person, why do you need car insurance, they will instantly repeat what they were programmed to believe "It's the Law", is the #1 answer, followed by half rational people who realize that people and property need to be protected.

Very few people, will reply with, "because I want to operate with Limited Liability".

In working as an Agent, people have the choice to surrender Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, in exchange for Privileges and Benefits. That is why driving is considered as a Privilege. (You May Apply)

 

Mike Wallace, and the manner and style of his Questions, most certainly were bias, and in support of a Mainstream system, which feed him well. The stream holds the fish, who travel in schools.

 

Mike does say, " we are all children under God, and are essentially our Brother's keepers".

 

What do I owe you personally? What must I do, how must I perform? 

Under Law, my State's Representative, forcibly takes money from me, and tells me that the majority of other people, need my money more than I do.

I would like to find these people, and request that they free me from any indebtedness to them.

I just don't understand how to repay them, and call it a done deal. They want to keep stringing it along, til the end of time.

 

 

 

Edit:  I apologize 16, I was in a poor mood, and may be barking up the philosophical tree, just to complain.

 

[161488303349]

dont remember that Mike Wallace said that about brothers keeper in that interview with Ayn Rand. but accept that he did given the questions he was asking

i think is a bit much tho to say that he was some kinda tool of the establishment

if look at other of his interviews which he done heaps off with all kinds of people. can see that he asks questions that put the interviewee under quite a bit of pressure. like any good interviewer should do

the common theme of his Wallace Interviews i think is that he put questions that middle america would ask. like he says: this is the middle america position. this is the status quo. what is wrong with this and why. and what changes or solutions do you believe are necessary

this the interviewers job. to put the status quo in philosophical debate. is then upto the interviewee to explain their position/argument

+

i sometimes dont get it when questions are posed rhetorically

but anyways. dont know if you read any Mortimer Adler. what you posing seems to very similar to what he said/wrote. the questions parts.

Mortimer Adler also say what is some possible answers and why. they quite thought provoking i think. like he argue against redistribution of wealth thru wages. that people on salaries and wages take more wealth out of the system than they put in. redistribution thru taxes are bad as well for the same reason

his view is that capital itself needs to be redistributed. the core tenet of his argument is that Man can only be truly free when he owns his own capital and property. which he says cant happen while either lassiez faire or state capitalism exists. he have quite radical ideas on how to change that. radical in terms of current economic and governance thinking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_Adler

[161488303349]

---

Knowl Paine wrote:

Edit:

  I apologize 16, I was in a poor mood, and may be barking up the

philosophical tree

, just to complain.

 

---

is ok dont worry about it  (:

i answer you anyway in other post q; (: