Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

s.j.mccartney wrote:Free speech is all good, but what about when its speaking against other peoples freedoms?

Would Free speech allow the Natzi's to hold rally's in Nurmberg today? Its their right to speak. Its our right to protect the oppressed.

I get confused about this issue.

I don't want the UN or Saudi Arabia telling me what my free speech rights are. I have an absolute right to free speech under the US Constitution guaranteed by the full faith and credit of thousands of MRV'd missiles. The UN can biteth me.

Then, how about we just leave them alone. I can't understand how peole who are against the war in Iraq can say in the same breath how we shouldn't tolerate honor killings, treating women like second class citizens, etc.

Here is a novel idea, why don't we leave these people alone to puruse their own culture. We might percieve what they do as violating "human rights", whatever that means, but who gives us authority to say our moral system is better than theirs. Is it God? Well, isn't that what these people are arguing against?

I don't have a problem with that in an official capacity. Unofficially, (non-government) I still have the right to shine a spotlight on abusive practices, or merely to see Religion X is full of poppy (or inversely atheists are full of people depending on what I've eaten that day).

Your right to free speech, or limiting of that right, ends at my nose.

Don't worry Lads.

The notion of God is gradually dying out as we explore Science further and become less and less dependant on deities which may or may not exist to enforce our attitudes and preferences on others.

The Great WAr pretty much stomped on Religion in Britain, and the 2nd World War helped speed a general malaise along.

Not dying out. Merging. Historical notions of religion will merely be updated. Religion has been the respite from the big questions, the questions that science cannnot answer, and it will continue to be.

Religion is simply evolving.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Don't worry Lads.

The notion of God is gradually dying out as we explore Science further and become less and less dependant on deities which may or may not exist to enforce our attitudes and preferences on others.

The Great WAr pretty much stomped on Religion in Britain, and the 2nd World War helped speed a general malaise along.

Really Mad Doc? I've studied science for many years now, and I didn't get what I expected out of it. I don't see how it is any more meaningful than some guy having a vision and claiming he spoke to God. All I do is observe something many times, then compare it to other people's work to see if they agree with me. In other words, it isn't any more than the democritization of reality. What is it going to do for me? How am I going to get anything out of that.

All and all a waste of 7 years of higher education if you asked me. I wish I had never started frankly.

Science to me, is the human admission of ignorance. It doesn't claim to have answers, but hopes to one day.

Religion IMHO claims to have the answers, without any evidence.

I know which I put my faith in.

Edited to make statements more about my opinion than ones of fact. Apologies.

Ironic choice of words. The whole point of religion *is* faith. Science does not rely upon faith.

If you need evidence, religion requires you look inward. Science requires outward observation.

If you need outward evidence, religion isn't going to help you.

yes, because science is always right. I mean, if it weren't for scientists all those explorers would have fallen off the edge of the world, and we wouldn't have started those eugenics programs...

s.j.mccartney wrote:Free speech is all good, but what about when its speaking against other peoples freedoms?

Would Free speech allow the Natzi's to hold rally's in Nurmberg today? Its their right to speak. Its our right to protect the oppressed.

I get confused about this issue.

German law prohibits the display of Nazi regalia so the Nazis could not hold a rally in Nuremberg today.

Free speech would allow the Nazis to hold rallies in the USA. It would equally allow anti-Nazis to hold rallies. Then the public could hear both sides of the argument and make their own minds up.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Science to me, is the human admission of ignorance. It doesn't claim to have answers, but hopes to one day.

Religion IMHO claims to have the answers, without any evidence.

I know which I put my faith in.

Edited to make statements more about my opinion than ones of fact. Apologies.

Then you should go for it, and hope you don't get dissapointed.

Frazzled wrote:yes, because science is always right. I mean, if it weren't for scientists all those explorers would have fallen off the edge of the world, and we wouldn't have started those eugenics programs...

Never said it was.

But it has tangible results. It is generally happiest when proving itself *Wrong*.

And I'm not aware of opposing opinions about Science ever having caused or encouraged genocide.

dienekes96 wrote:
Religion is simply evolving.

I think this is an interesting idea that ties in with the state of Islam in the modern world. When you look at all the "great" religions of the world they, akin to any social construct or organisation, go through periodic upheavals and changes-- the reformation, the formation of the COE etc etc-- all of which cause no end of strife and unrest. I think Islam is at the stage where it's going through something similar, with some people wanting it to evolve and adapt and move forwards, others steadfastedly refusing and insisting in a virtual retreat into fundamentalist or "old school" belief and the majority of people caught in the middle just wishing people would make their bloody minds up and get it over with.

I've read a few article that put forth quite strong arguments that the-- and I mean no offence here honest-- somewhat peculiarly firebrand nature of American Christian fundamentalism-- really grew out of the backlash against such strict adherence after the Scope trial in '25. This isolationist approach was then fueled by the desperation of the great depression and then further fueled by events both social and technological in the next few decades.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:yes, because science is always right. I mean, if it weren't for scientists all those explorers would have fallen off the edge of the world, and we wouldn't have started those eugenics programs...

Never said it was.

But it has tangible results. It is generally happiest when proving itself *Wrong*.

And I'm not aware of opposing opinions about Science ever having caused or encouraged genocide.

That is an ideal, but I can assure you that research scientists can get an illogical attachment to what they believe is right, particularly if they've invested a career in it.

And really WWII was about ideological differences between nations that had "scientific" planned states.

Eugenics is a science. Look up its history in the 1920s.

Plenty of science has been used to justify all sorts of malarkey.

Anyway, that is beside the point which is that ideas should be allowed to be discussed and criticised, whether they are religious, political, scientific or whatever.

I think this is getting off topic. Lets not turn this into a science vs religion debate. This is about the right to criticise an opposing viewpoint.

Too Late!

Post 2 in an OT thread is where the thread usualy goes off topic anyway

Kilkrazy wrote:Eugenics is a science. Look up its history in the 1920s.

Plenty of science has been used to justify all sorts of malarkey.

Anyway, that is beside the point which is that ideas should be allowed to be discussed and criticised, whether they are religious, political, scientific or whatever.

I think Eugenics isn't entirely malarkey either.

My point was that Eugenics was used to justify forced sterilisation of the mentally ill, for example.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Science to me, is the human admission of ignorance.

Socrates acknowledged that long before science was invented, as well as one or two others.

Kilkrazy wrote:My point was that Eugenics was used to justify forced sterilisation of the mentally ill, for example.

And the discovery of Nuclear Fission was used to kill thousands in a single bomb and ushered in a period of paranoia. Yet used wisely, it is a source of energy which improves the lives of millions, with relatively minimal damage to the world at large (well, as long as the waste is properly disposed of. Otherwise it tends to knack things somewhat)

Eugenics in itself is not an evil idea. Quite an interesting article in the Fortean Times this month about it. Theoretically, Eugenics is a form of guided evolution. But as the article says, it brings up the question of who gets to judge which qualities are worth breeding and which are marked for extinction, and at that point things get muddy to say the least.

It is Science that enables us to have this conversation. It is Science that has saved my life on numerous occasions. It is Science that enables us to feed our growing population. To me, all Religion has done is to stunt mankinds growth. It's an artificial moral system which sadly, like certain Scientific endeavours, has been applied to all manner of heinous behaviour and acts.

And this is the truly interesting thing to me. Which came first? The Ten Commandments, or the general idea that being a bastard to people isn't the best way to get ahead in life? Now, this is a difficult thing to discuss as we have all been brought up in a world which, regardless of which denomination or faith you follow, they tend to agree that the Ten Commandments are a pretty good guide line on how not to be a knob to your neighbour. As such, I find it very hard to think that the things ruled in the Ten Commandments were ever all that socially acceptable. I mean, before they were written, I think I'd still have been pissed off with you if you knobbed my Missus behind my back, and probably feel quite bad about hacking you into tiny bits.

As such, my belief is that a persons faith is a very good, very natural and very healthy thing. It's just when you get some guy declare himself Gods Representative on Earth, because his mates are all really close to God and they agree with him (yes, I mean the Catholic Faith) that things get dangerous. Surely, if things are to be believed at face value, God gave Mankind the Bible as his way, and not to some bloke to decide which bits to enforce at any given point in time. The same goes for all religious texts. Even if they ever were the word of a Deity, that was thousands of years ago and since they were handed down, us idiot Apes have been telling others. And nobody ever, ever tells the whole truth. Ergo, the Bible as we know it, to my mind at least is categorically not the Word of God. And if I am wrong, I will answer to the big man himself when I pop my clogs, and not to some Priest appointed by other human beings to be my moral guardian for the reason he agreed with them.

Sorry. Diverged a bit there somewhat!

When the weak are elected to protect the frightened freedom dies at the hands of those who will cut a deal. When you allow torture, when you allow jailing of the press, when you allow protests to be stamped out this is what you get. You reap what you sow.

The UN is a paper tiger with no morals. It's led by countries with hideous human rights records and is little more than a gathering of bitchy diplomats. It needs a teardown and total restructuring.

It's an artificial moral system which sadly, like certain Scientific endeavours, has been applied to all manner of heinous behaviour and acts.

All moral systems are artificial constructs. One based on religious belief holds the same weight as one governed by scientific study.

My point was that Eugenics was used to justify forced sterilisation of the mentally ill, for example.

Yes, and it could also be used to sterilize those with mental illness that can be transmitted genetically. Fire has led to the deaths of hundreds of millions if not billions in human history. It's hot. It hurts. That doesn't make it evil. Eugenics isn't the study of happy singalong everyone is happy-land. Its the study of improving the human race, and it runs counter to the ideas of universal equality, but much like the idea of meritocracy and capitalism its not evil for doing so. It's an idea, however outdated and increasingly irrelevant.

How terrible!

Oh, wait.

The UN doesn't actually *do* anything.

Nevermind...

I dunno. It's not a massive stretch of the imagination to see Eugenics being implemented as the human race grows in numbers (this isn't something I'm particularly in favour of BTW!)

You see, we have pretty much removed the process of natural selection (you could look at us and say we have achieved the pinnacle of evolution in doing so) which means there is nothing sorting the genetic wheat from the genetic chaff (see my earlier post about who decides which is which being the biggest problem about eugenics and why it's not a terribly great idea after all).

After all, the way things are going we could well end up like the Eloi and the Morlocks from HG Wells the Time Machine socially. I don't mind admitting I get pissed off with Dole Scum sitting around doing sod all all day because their hand outs make them a decent enough living via my taxes (mmm! Surprisingly right wing at times for a lefty me!).

Same with Meritocracy. In theory, it's a fine way to run things. But to quote Jarvis Cockers 'running the world'...

'Well did you hear?
Theres a natural order.
Those most deserving
Will end up with the most.
The cream cannot help
But always rise up to the top.
Well I say, gak floats.'

Look at Capitalism. The free market has sadly only allowed a few companies to really thrive, and not only that, but thrive to the point where the smaller ones cannot compete (Walmart is a good example. Tesco's would be a British example).

Any idea has it's pitfalls, it's just some are deeper, spikier and shittier than others.

JohnHwangDD wrote:How terrible!

Oh, wait.

The UN doesn't actually *do* anything.

Nevermind...

Actually it does a lot. It just doesn't get the big things done with any sort of expediency. Its a major forum for small problems but a totally ineffective one for dealing with the major issues that plague mankind.

Besides give a lot of money to line dictators' and their friends' pockets, what does the UN do again?

Organises PEace Keeping Forces, providing a (supposedly and generally) neutral force to protect civilians.

Arranges Aid Packages to disaster zones.

Lots of humanitarian stuff really.

And none of that actually comes from the UN does it.

-Troops don't
-Aid doesn't

Nothing that can't be done more effectively (and is) directly from NGO's/donor governments to recipients.

They do spend a whole lot of money on their headquarters though. You have to repect that.

I am quite certain than people will use genetic engineering to improve their children -- look at the lack of girls in India and China, resulting from in utero ultrasound screening.

Some bad mistakes will be made, no doubt, but it will definitely happen.

@MDG: I wasn't aware that the UN was the IRC. Because IIRC, the Red Cross is actually useful.

Back to my comment on religion evolving.

Think back to the history of religion in recorded human history.

Initially religion was used to explain natural phenomena (such as the weather or seasons or emotions). It was a marker for science. This is the basis of the polytheistic belief systems.

Later it was used to govern. Religion was used as a method for developing and inplementing social constructs. This is the Old Testament.

Now it's purpose is far more in line with philosophy. With man's purpose and life's meaning. This is more New Testament.

Science and religion are as opposed as science and philosophy.

Which is to say they are not. There are some religious fundamentalists who pursue that false interpretation, and plenty of fundamentalistic atheists (and there are such a thing) love that diametric opposition. But it's false. Science is searching for fact. Religion is searching for truth. Like philosophy, modern religion exists to support understanding ourselves. Not to act as an alternative to science.

And those lines are blurred. It did not smoothly transition from one use to another.