Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:09:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020830103133.J40693-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <3D6F1986.847DD15B@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > Dave Hayes wrote: > > Actually this example demosntrates the -removal- of an adversity > > (near-sightedness) via glasses. It doesn't demonstrate the removal > > of any pressure. > > Glasses keep near-shighted people in the gene pool longer than > they would otherwise be. Myopia is still an adverse condition. Is this a good or a bad thing? > > > There's a right way, and a wrong way, and blowing people up > > > without the sanction of the state is the wrong way. > > > > But blowing them up -with- the sanction of the state is the right way? > > Of course. Society defines morality. Society enacts laws. Whether or not they are moral or not would depend on a standard by which you could judge them to be moral or immoral. Such a standard would have to be non-arbitrary and transcendant to all societies. Whether or not such a standard exists determines whether we can talk about ethics, morals, etc. at all. If not, everyone is just blowing smoke. > > The ones that break out and forcibly reproduce are the best suited to > > survival in hostile environments. By definition even. > > Nature seems to vote against that one. Nature has no vote. It just is. "Natural Selection" is an oxymoron. According to naturalism, scientific theories are to be non-teleological, right? > > >> It is an error to test something without the means of testing it or > > >> even the means of understanding it. Mankind's academic arrogance is > > >> that it can understand anything. > > > > > > You mean, like when a troll posts to a mailing list. > > > > You claim to understand this too ya know. > > Better to be arrogant with the sanction of the state, than to be > arrogant and facing a crowd of torch-wielding peasents. There are other alternatives... > > > There is such a thing as "the fruit of the poisoned tree". > > > > What's this reference now? > > Accessory after the fact, receiving stolen property, etc.. Is this wrong? > [ ... ] > > > It was a reference to the fact that society dictates conditions > > > to individuals, and That's The Way It Is. > > > > Members of society routinely and frequently violate these conditions, > > and That's The Way It Is. > > And we punish them, and That's The Way It Is. When we punish them, is our justification for doing so solely because we have the guns and the will to do so? > > >> > This works well if one's ethics happen to coincide with the > > >> > morals of the society of which they are a member, and poorly > > >> > otherwise. > > >> > > >> You mean: it works well for -you- if -their- ethics coincide with > > >> -your- morals. ;) > > > > > > No, I said "with societys" and I meant it. > > > > I don't buy that at all. Your incentive is to say "with society's" > > since you'll look good to "society" if you say that. > > Or if you can't win a conflict with all of society against you, > and are forced to cooperate. Sometimes cooperating with society is evil, even if you can't win. Regards, Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020830103133.J40693-100000>