GENIUS FORUMS

Then how about the need to refrain from making it "okay" to wipe out large segments of the population? Accepting such practices as a societal norm would be pretty detrimental. In fact, I think it is quite reasonable to suppose that a vast majority of the human race would get wiped out that way soon enough.

No, the proper function of a society depends upon ideas like David's being rejected forcefully and unanimously. A society's proper function is not to indulge the values of a small minority at the expense of almost everyone else. Its utilitarian function is to promote the greatest good for the greatest number.

And, for the record, I can't believe I'm being asked to justify this formally.

I'm asking because David's notion isn't wrong just because it upsets your moral sensibilities. There is either some inherent ethical reason that it is wrong or it is wrong because it is hopelessly impractical. It's easy to show the latter but the former is very slippery.

Plus you can't take such notions out of their value/gaol context because if you try to you end up arguing from a religious basis.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:This article indicates that marriage helps men live longer (not women, just men).

Just to clear up some confusion I encountered when I read the above quote, the article says nothing of women- indicating nothing about them whatsoever.

From the article, the bold text is my doing:

Analysis of whether marriage directly affects health produces mixed results. Comparisons of currently married and never-married men show that while the former are generally healthier, this difference cannot be attributed simply to the protective effects of marriage. The self-reported health status of men shows that, by itself, becoming married for the first time does not lead to any noticeable benefits. Comparisons of older married and divorced men, however, show that the relative health levels of the latter drop significantly as they age. By the time divorced men reach age 50, they can expect their health to deteriorate much faster than the health of those who are married. For this group of older divorced men, remarriage offers a direct health benefit, bringing their health up to the level of men who have remained married.

The health benefits obtained by men who stay married or remarry stem from a variety of related factors, including care in times of illness, improved nutrition, and a home atmosphere that reduces stress and stress-related illnesses, encourages healthy behaviors, and discourages unhealthy ones such as smoking and excessive drinking. Influences of this type tend to enhance a man's immediate health status and may often improve his chances for a longer life.

It is interesting to note that becoming married for the first time does not lead to noticeable health benefits, whereas a divorced man's health may plummet, recovering only when he remarries.

Marriage proves a powerful, life-threatening addiction.

Depression can destroy life. Imagine living in fulfilled marital bliss- a concoction of ignorance and bliss- only to have it ripped from you in a bloody feud with the one-time embodiment of all of your dreams and desires. I think this type of abuse can send one to the grave.

Think about it, being raised in your average household the child is surrounded by the comforts of committed parent(s). Hearkening back to childhood, our fondest memories and deepest psychological fortitude is intimately linked to the happiness bred by these surroundings. This household is than remade in a loving marriage. When this illusion is revealed for what it is- an illusion, the happy nest remade from childhood festers into a bleeding tumor. I suspect the divorced men to dies precisely from this turn of events.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:And this article actually states that while married men live linger than single men, married women live shorter lives than single women. Women really do, literally, give their lives to their husbands.

Not so, women still live longer. An unmarried woman lives even longer- so what? While she may experience some health detriments from marriage, it probably is due to the effort involved in constantly fighting her man for his brainspace. The unmarried woman lives even longer because she leads a dull life, being unable to fulfill herself her entire life is made safe as it is lived vicariously through those around her, or her novellas, or her soap operas.

The point is, that whether or not men are genetically disposed to live shorter lives than women, the strong effects that women have on him show how much they truly effect men. Being so much under her spell, he sacrifices his independence and freedom to be married- these are the true cornerstones of a quality life- not years lived as a zombie in "compromise."

A society's proper function is not to indulge the values of a small minority at the expense of almost everyone else.

I wish. Capitalism and greed generally indulges the values of a small minority at the expense of every one else, as do international relations.

I'm not arguing though, just commenting. I agree with you, and you did use the word "proper", and overall that is what generally occurs, why we have laws etc.

Plus you can't take such notions out of their value/gaol context because if you try to you end up arguing from a religious basis.

I think it's kind of outrageous to worry about whether I am behaving in any sort of "religious" manner when the issue under discussion is David's proposal to kill a large segment of the population just because they don't share his religious beliefs.

Elizabeth,

In addition, I have also read that man lives longer with a regular dose of sex with a partner- effects that cannot be recreated through masturbation.

Okay Bryan:
Facts support that women live longer than men, and there are consistently more male babies born than female babies - click the link and go to World or any country, and then population. What are you going to read into that?

While she may experience some health detriments from marriage, it probably is due to the effort involved in constantly fighting her man for his brainspace.

Don't read too much into stuff.

Philosophaster wrote:

DQ: Were you offering the idea of executing unenlightened old people in seriousness? Do you think it is a good idea?

Absolutely. I would love to live in a society which valued wisdom to such an extent that it would even be prepared to euthanize ignorant old people, if needs be. I think it's a great idea, so long as it was done out of pure motives.

The principle is essentially no different to how society is currently run. Our society happily kills its young people, spiritually and physically, for the continuance of its own existence.

An obvious example would be the war in Iraq, but other examples include forcing people to overwork and become ant-like, even though it clearly crushes the spirit out of them and forces many of them into premature deaths, or relying on slave labour camps in Third World countries to ensure our consumer goods are cheap and affordable. In reality, we are engaging in wholesale murder all the time, without blinking an eyelid, which is a far more heinous crime than consciously euthanizing old people.

But people find it easier to accept that kind of killing because it happens unconsciously. It "just happens" as a function of our egotistical and materialistic lifestyles, which most people subscribe to, and thus everyone is able to wash their hands of it. Indeed, for most people, killing via unconsciousness is a far more palatable idea than conscious decision-making of an kind.

-

Well then.

I guess all I have to say is that I would prefer that all killing, both conscious and unconscious, be stopped, rather than that one type of killing be swapped for another.

Okay, so murder is acceptable as long as it is done "consciously" and out of "pure motives." Gotcha.

Bryan,

It is interesting to note that becoming married for the first time does not lead to noticeable health benefits, whereas a divorced man's health may plummet, recovering only when he remarries.

Marriage proves a powerful, life-threatening addiction.

................

The unmarried woman lives even longer because she leads a dull life, being unable to fulfill herself her entire life is made safe as it is lived vicariously through those around her, or her novellas, or her soap operas.

So single women live dull lives? Are you in favor of marriage or against it?

And single women watch soap operas? Funny, I would've thought that more married women did, since they don't always feel the need to work as many hours. A single woman, otoh, usually has a very busy life working to support her family. How would she find time to watch an idiotic soap is beyond me.

Unidian wrote:

Plus you can't take such notions out of their value/gaol context because if you try to you end up arguing from a religious basis.

I think it's kind of outrageous to worry about whether I am behaving in any sort of "religious" manner when the issue under discussion is David's proposal to kill a large segment of the population just because they don't share his religious beliefs.

Ah, quit with the outrage already, it's beginning to look too much like posturing. It is religious to argue ethically outside of context. I'm simply pointing that out because you're dangerously close to it. In the context of David's gaols, values and ethics, what he proposes is actually fair enough as long as he recognises the reciprocal right of people to decide that anyone who falls into sagehood should be euthanaised for their inability to conform to societal norms. Such propositions don't work for me, but that's all I can really say because I can't dispense moral rectitude like I was God's own Pharmacist.

You think his proposal is outrageous. He probably thinks your outrage is outrageous. I think it's outrageous how much outrage is raging.

Unidian wrote:

You weren't talking about Chuang-Tzu's views on non-attachment and the like, David. You were talking about putting people to death. That's a problem. A big one. Such statements are not consistent with basic sanity.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of my proposal, the extreme emotional reaction you are having to it is very much at odds with the teachings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, and the spiritual equanimity which comes with wisdom. If I were you, I would be far more troubled by this kind of rampant emotionalism inside you than I would by another person's ideas.

An awful lot of people have been killed and tortured by bursts of uncontrolled emotionalism. It's a well-used vehicle for murder.

Can you find in the authentic Buddhist, Zen, or Taoist traditions any text which advocates putting people to death? I don't think you can, at least not without twisting the meaning of something or resorting to wartime propaganda.

What if a highly-contagious killer virus broke out in a section of the human population and the only way to stop its spread was by killing those people? Do you refrain from killing them because a Chuang Tzu or a Lao Tzu never mentioned such an act in their writings, even though the human race is in mortal danger? Or do you face up to the situation at hand and deal with it?

You can't keep hanging onto the skirts of Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu all the time. If you want to become wiser, you are going to leave those mentors behind and start making your own decisions.

-

LOL. Bye, Dave. :)

Rats. This was just starting to get fun.

It was nice interacting with you, Nat, for the half day that it lasted. Whatever you do, take care of your body.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Okay Bryan:

Is your patience growing thin?

Facts support that women live longer than men, and there are consistently more male babies born than female babies - click the link and go to World or any country, and then population. What are you going to read into that?

You presented me with two articles, to which I replied. Why don't you reply to what I have written instead of digging up more data? How does this support your claim that women sacrifice their lives in marriage?

BM: While she may experience some health detriments from marriage, it probably is due to the effort involved in constantly fighting her man for his brainspace.

EI: Don't read too much into stuff.

I'm done arguing with you if you're going to admonish me instead of replying rationally.

Philosophaster wrote:

I guess all I have to say is that I would prefer that all killing, both conscious and unconscious, be stopped, rather than that one type of killing be swapped for another.

Would you really? So what are doing about it?

By far the biggest source of murder in this world is mindless emotional attachment and yet you have already made it plain that you have no interest in dealing with that. So forgive me if I find your stance here rather hollow.

As you must be aware, the majority of violence and murder in our society occurs between loved ones. Domestic violence and murder is rampant. And yet there you were posting those pictures of alluring women and mocking those who want to break free of all that.

At bottom, the killing will only be stopped, or minimized, when people start valuing truth and giving up their attachments. There is no other way. Even the proposition I put forward about euthanizing old people wouldn't be necessary in a wise world because we would have already taken steps to ensure that such an eventually would never be needed. For example, we wouldn't have complacently allowed the world to become over-populated and resource-stretched.

-

Unidian wrote:

LOL. Bye, Dave. :)

Is Mama calling?

-

Sentiment is not an argument. Outrage is not an argument. The strength of a given sentiment's expression doesn't lend it cogency (i.e. passion does not justify). Pictures of Hitler are not an argument. The intimation that an argument oughtn't be necessary isn't an argument. The fact is David's proposal, whilst obviously prima facie outrageous to people used to substituting sentiment for argument, represents a more complex matter than one might think. We kill terrorists. No-one is arguing with that it seems. We kill those that represent a clear and present danger to our society wherein alternatives methods of security are not available. I don't think most people, including Nat and Philo would argue with this. David is simply taking the principle that underpins those behaviours and responses and palcign them in a different conetxt. Sure, one that might - without contemplation - cause us great consternation, but look at it from the same perspective as those other scenarios I mentioned.

If David's ignorant oldies indeed represented a danger to the welfare and goals of a society - for whatever reason - then the idea of bumping them off is not one which can just be cast aside with outraged handringing, unless in one's moral charter the potential extinction of humanity is better than the loss of one sector of it. Some might find that outrageous. Yes, I'm painting an extreme picture into which to cast David's idea, but I'm doing so because that's the only kind of scenario in which I can give it any credence.

Things are not as clear cut as they seem.

Unidian wrote:

Okay, so murder is acceptable as long as it is done "consciously" and out of "pure motives." Gotcha.

We are always murdering with our every action. Even just to stand up requires us to murder the position of sitting down. Joining a fundamentalist religion necessitates the murder of rationality and free thought, and vice versa. Becoming emotionally involved with a woman involves murdering the solitary life, and vice versa. And so on.

So yes, it is much better to murder consciously than unconsciously. That way at least you will have more control in shaping the future. Ideally, to my mind at least, what we should be consciously murdering is ignorance and false thinking.

-

This belief set is consistent with a system of ethics whose only normative value is the propagation of logical truths, with the proviso that the presentation of this belief set causes those with a different set of normative values to reject this entire system of ethics (and by association, the singleminded pursuit of wisdom).

Essentially, there will be no argument that would make a moral agent who values things other than logic to accept these conclusions. Given that the logical truths need to propagate to moral agents who will not immediately value logic (or else these truths will be lost at death), the presentation of this belief set must be restricted to those who will already accept it as valid due to agreement with an equal system of normative values. Quite simply, disagreement means that the moral agent values things other than the continuance of logical thought.

There is, however, no internal contradiction within this belief set.

We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. You will all be assimilated. The elderly will be dismantled and recycled back into the collective.



As a little side-note: David, in regards to your last post, could you please define "murder" for me? I'm a bit confused as to your usage of the term, since it does not agree with the dictionary.

Unidian, given that Adolf Hitler viewed the Jewish race as a problem, he acted in a perfectly logical manner. What is appalling about the Holocaust is that only a select few people still consider the Jewish race to be a problem. The reasons the Jews were considered a problem are no longer seen as valid.

The actual act itself is only gross if you view Jews as valuable. If you view them only as harmless (but not valuable), the act simply seems a wasteful misallocation of funds. If Jews are seen as harmful -- indeed, dangerous -- bent on destroying something you hold dear, then the act of mass killing is perfectly acceptable.

Similarly, if you do not see old people are harmless or valuable, then it is quite logical to desire their extermination. As the elderly are far from harmless (since, as a group, they have considerable financial resources, free time, influence over family and friends, and a desire to continue to leave a mark after their death), the only defense of the elderly is that they are valuable.

If you only value wisdom, and know that all potential for achieving it is lost after a certain age, then it would actually be removing a threat to exterminate the elderly. Now: do you value things other than wisdom, and if so, what?

Bryan McGilly wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Okay Bryan:

Is your patience growing thin?

No, that was the structure I chose to attempt to indicate that I was going to respond in general.

Bryan McGilly wrote:

Facts support that women live longer than men, and there are consistently more male babies born than female babies - click the link and go to World or any country, and then population. What are you going to read into that?

You presented me with two articles, to which I replied. Why don't you reply to what I have written instead of digging up more data?

I thought I did in a general way. I guess you prefer bullet-style.

Bryan McGilly wrote: How does this support your claim that women sacrifice their lives in marriage?

It didn't - here's a quote from the second article, near the end, that does:

•Get a wife, a partner or at least a lot of friends. Married men live longer. (Their wives die sooner than single women, but that's a different column.) People with close friends and relatives live longer, too, Butler says.

I added the bolding, and left the paragraph intact so it could be found more easily.

Bryan McGilly wrote:

BM: While she may experience some health detriments from marriage, it probably is due to the effort involved in constantly fighting her man for his brainspace.

EI: Don't read too much into stuff.

I'm done arguing with you if you're going to admonish me instead of replying rationally.

Okay, I'll rephrase "Don't read too much into stuff" thusly : Words like "probably" without any supporting data constitute a delusional overlay rather than observation of facts.

Bryan McGilly wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:This article indicates that marriage helps men live longer (not women, just men).

Just to clear up some confusion I encountered when I read the above quote, the article says nothing of women- indicating nothing about them whatsoever.

From the article, the bold text is my doing:

Analysis of whether marriage directly affects health produces mixed results. Comparisons of currently married and never-married men show that while the former are generally healthier, this difference cannot be attributed simply to the protective effects of marriage. The self-reported health status of men shows that, by itself, becoming married for the first time does not lead to any noticeable benefits. Comparisons of older married and divorced men, however, show that the relative health levels of the latter drop significantly as they age. By the time divorced men reach age 50, they can expect their health to deteriorate much faster than the health of those who are married. For this group of older divorced men, remarriage offers a direct health benefit, bringing their health up to the level of men who have remained married.

The health benefits obtained by men who stay married or remarry stem from a variety of related factors, including care in times of illness, improved nutrition, and a home atmosphere that reduces stress and stress-related illnesses, encourages healthy behaviors, and discourages unhealthy ones such as smoking and excessive drinking. Influences of this type tend to enhance a man's immediate health status and may often improve his chances for a longer life.

It is interesting to note that becoming married for the first time does not lead to noticeable health benefits, whereas a divorced man's health may plummet, recovering only when he remarries.

Marriage proves a powerful, life-threatening addiction.

Yes, that is interesting and I find your summary of the point amusingly true, in a sick-humor kind of way.

Bryan McGilly wrote:Depression can destroy life. Imagine living in fulfilled marital bliss- a concoction of ignorance and bliss- only to have it ripped from you in a bloody feud with the one-time embodiment of all of your dreams and desires. I think this type of abuse can send one to the grave.

I can see that.

Bryan McGilly wrote: Think about it, being raised in your average household the child is surrounded by the comforts of committed parent(s). Hearkening back to childhood, our fondest memories and deepest psychological fortitude is intimately linked to the happiness bred by these surroundings. This household is than remade in a loving marriage. When this illusion is revealed for what it is- an illusion, the happy nest remade from childhood festers into a bleeding tumor. I suspect the divorced men to dies precisely from this turn of events.

Maybe not "precisely" but could well be a contributing factor.

Bryan McGilly wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:And this article actually states that while married men live linger than single men, married women live shorter lives than single women. Women really do, literally, give their lives to their husbands.

Not so, women still live longer.

If married women live some years shorter than unmarried women, and married men live some years longer than unmarried men, then women gave up some years of their lives and men absorbed them, so that makes it "so" rather than "not so" - but it seems your point is that because even with giving up that number of years of their original lifespan allotted to them, it isn't good enough for you because women still live longer. That does not logically follow, and it sprouts from some concept you must have that. Depersonalize it some. If you could literally give your dog 5 years of your life, and your dog lived to the age of 25, you would still live longer than your dog, but now you would die at 72 rather than 77. Does that mean you did not give up those 5 years just because you didn't die when your dog did?

Bryan McGilly wrote: An unmarried woman lives even longer- so what?

Well, yeah - so what? I'm certainly not thrilled about the prospect.

Bryan McGilly wrote: While she may experience some health detriments from marriage, it probably is due to the effort involved in constantly fighting her man for his brainspace.

Got any data to back that one up?

Bryan McGilly wrote: The unmarried woman lives even longer because she leads a dull life,

2 points of contention here - First, ah yes, how dull it is to not have to (edited out long list of stuff a wife generally does for her husband/family - nobody wants to even read that much minutia, much less actually do it). Secondly, most single women lead a much more interesting life than most married women. I only know of one single female whose entire social life consists of GF, and the rest of them tend to have friends and boyfriends who they go out and socialize with while doing fun activities.

Bryan McGilly wrote: being unable to fulfill herself her entire life is made safe as it is lived vicariously through those around her, or her novellas, or her soap operas.

Fulfillment is in the eye of the beholder. So, she (like most humans) is a social animal. She does not find that to be a dull life.

Bryan McGilly wrote:The point is, that whether or not men are genetically disposed to live shorter lives than women, the strong effects that women have on him show how much they truly effect men. Being so much under her spell, he sacrifices his independence and freedom to be married- these are the true cornerstones of a quality life- not years lived as a zombie in "compromise."

They both sacrifice independence and freedom, but she also sacrifices a few years of her life.

There - is that better?

David wrote:

But people find it easier to accept that kind of killing because it happens unconsciously. It "just happens" as a function of our egotistical and materialistic lifestyles, which most people subscribe to, and thus everyone is able to wash their hands of it. Indeed, for most people, killing via unconsciousness is a far more palatable idea than conscious decision-making of an kind.

Perfectly true. Hence, Woman.

.