Well, obviously it’s easy since everyone in the world agrees on these things. Oh, wait, they don’t. How does that fit into your argument?
Oh, for fuck’s sake, throughout history men have been sent off to die by other men.
Didn’t say everyone. Said majority.
Stoid, you are talking about absolutely nothing. You type words that are posted on the internet, but those words don’t add up to a single cogent idea. “Basic human rights” means nothing. The idea of getting a majority of people to agree on a list of “basic human rights” means nothing. It’s just so much pablum and blather. You are furiously scribbling with a pure white crayon on an immense sheet of pure white paper.
CMC fnord!
Right. Governments are instituted among men to “secure” (really, “create”) rights. The concept of “rights” in the abstract means absolutely nothing. Stoid’s idea that a majority of all living humans will agree on a list of “basic human rights,” and then . . . it’s all ice cream and butter-covered jesus, I guess . . . is just ridiculous bothersome nothingness.
Yep.
Government taken to the next level…planetary. It’s already being done in bits and confused pieces…the Geneva Convention, the UN, meaningless white on white nothingness like that.
My idea makes more sense than most that have and are being tried. Keep it simple. Extreme physical violation and enslavement are no-no’s. Not all that radical, and definitely not complex.
And thus The Enlightment slowly, quietly, [del]dies[/del] is killed.
CMC fnord!
Stoid, if your idea is that it would be a good thing if there were an actual world government (i.e., a body that represents everybody and that has the power to pass laws and punish violators), then that would be something. That would put some color in the crayon. But that’s not what you were previously discussing in this thread.
Please, I’m not killing the Enlightenment, I’m fulfilling and extending the original project. My ideas are part of the new Enlightenment, which is the super-sized extension of the original. In addition to the idea that all men are equal and monarchies are a bad thing, I’ve added that morality and other such nonsense doesn’t exist either.
Really? An interesting claim. Find the post and cite it. Remember things you thought you read do not count. Come on! Put me in my place. Find the post.
Or shut up.
“All men are equal” and “monarchies are a bad thing” are moral statements.
Okay, even a majority. It’s still not happening in our world as it is now. I think this matter is immensely more complex than you are making it out to be - there is a reason that the entire planet is not centrally governed according to a single moral code. That reason is that as human beings we can’t agree on anything. Even within the US you have gun control vs. no gun control, death penalty vs. no death penalty, etc. Look into the past and you have slavery, witch burning, and germ warfare (smallpox blankets for the natives, anyone?). All of that is within our own culture, and all of it seemed (or seems) clearly appropriate and moral to the people involved. Our morals are fluid within our own culture - now include every other culture on Earth and try to get a majority to agree on anything. Not everyone has even signed off on the Geneva Conventions.
Don’t get me wrong - your idea is wonderful in theory - but pie in the sky ideas don’t really help, and insisting that they are obvious and natural won’t make them help. I don’t normally agree with Rand Rover (and I don’t agree that morality does not exist - just not a universal morality), but I think he’s right that this would only work with a world government. I’d like to hear how you would create that.
I think they are statements of my opinion of what is best for a society. If you want to call them “moral statements,” suit yourself, I don’t know what the term “moral statements” even means.
No remember dummy? The women are all in charge. We declare wars for you to fight and make you steal and kill. Go look it up yourself lazy servant. And don’t fucking talk to me unless I address you first, loser.
I once read a post from FloatyGimpy stating that all puppies should be kicked on sight. Which was bad enough, but then he followed it up with his General Tso’s Kitty recipe (the bastard!).
So you are just making stuff up then? Just do a search for the key words you said I used. You are insulting me because …
well I ought not to be upset. Dog bark because that is all the can do.
Come on, put up or shut up. I dare you. Do a search, find where I said those key words. I bet you can’t.
Try, come back to reality. You can do it!
I think they’re statements of your personal moral beliefs.
Oh, that clears it right up. :rolleyes:
Try a little experiment. Every time you read the word “moral,” substitute the phrase “robotic chocolate.” If you do that for a while, you will feel how I feel when I read the word “moral” in most* contexts.
*(I think that in a pure intra-society context, “moral” can be meaningfully substituted with “what is best for society.” But outside of that, it just means absolutely nothing.)
Dude, I was just agreeing with you a few posts ago. There’s no reason to suddenly be an asshole about it.
Anyways, substitute ‘personal moral beliefs’ with ‘personal beliefs of what is best for society’, if that’s what floats your boat. Does that make you feel like a big man? :rolleyes: