Quote from: StuartUm... what?

Sorry, I actually pay attention to the topics and issues being discussed rather than letting myself be carried along by the editing, music, and tone of narration.  As one friend put it when comparing the music that I recommend to the music that some other friend recommended, "I can tell you listen to the lyrics."  Again, another one of those "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" moments for me.

Quote from: StuartYou can take from the documentary what you will (if nothing else the landscapes are *beautiful*), but at least those points should be enough to demonstrate that Gaul's religion has Truths.

OK, I watched the whole thing including the decapitated sheep heads and I looked really hard for any truths, including the handful you mentioned, and honestly didn't find them in there.  

Respect for nature and the environment?  Not really.  He dragged a camera crew out into the wilderness who wasn't really dressed for it, probably to see how far they'd go before they refused to keep following him.  The real icing on that whole sequence is where he talks about sheep and how he doesn't lead when in fact that camera crew is following him like blind sheep.  Sure, he talks about laws of nature and nature growing but his meaning could better be described as the law of the jungle, with him being the piranha.  

Despite the talk of family and his grandparent's house, I didn't get the respect for his ancestors.  He was a sheltered guy whose family was pretty much his world, so that's simply his frame of reference.  Warmth?  Actual respect?  I didn't see it.

He values the importance of art?  Not only did he leave art school (because of course there was nothing they could teach him) but did you actually look at his art and the art around his house?  And if he thinks it's so important, why does he keep his collection hidden?

He values friendship?  Where?  I didn't see anything that I'd call a friend in that video.

So maybe I was watching a different video than you, maybe your pulling my leg, maybe you're easily taken in by style over substance, or maybe you are just a lot more clever than I am but now that I've watched it, if you'd like to be specific, I'm honestly curious where or why you saw those things in that video.

I also watched another documentary on the church burnings wish tastefully started out with pictures of Ravenloft supplements but at least gave me the welcome impression that most Norwegians want very little to do with the freaks.

Quote from: gleichmanYou are of course free to do so. I just find it interesting that of all the virtues of the old Empire, you'd only pick one to mourn when it seems clear to me that all of them made up its success.

I wonder if many felt this way, and that by letting go of the others they found it impossible to maintain their grip on the one. I would not be surprised if such were the case, but I'm not in position to debate it in depth.

I'm not necessarily interested in its success, but in how the country was within my lifetime and how it has ceased to be.

On your second para, I don't believe so, though given stoicism was the last to go I can't rule it out.  I actually think, I'm afraid, it was American cultural influences that destroyed it.

Quote from: John MorrowSorry, I actually pay attention to the topics and issues being discussed rather than letting myself be carried along by the editing, music, and tone of narration.

Well... you didn't pay attention to what we were discussing here.

Between 2 documentaries (or parts of them) on the same topic (same topics and issues) one can be more "fun" than the other.  That's based on the editing, music, and tone of narration.

Arguing otherwise is pretty pointless really.

Quote from: John MorrowRespect for nature and the environment?  Not really.  He dragged a camera crew out into the wilderness who wasn't really dressed for it, probably to see how far they'd go before they refused to keep following him.

That would be respect for the camera crew.  I think you're taking "respect for nature" to mean "how to be a good outdoorsman".  I meant his philosophy including respecting the "value" of nature.

Quote from: John MorrowThe real icing on that whole sequence is where he talks about sheep and how he doesn't lead when in fact that camera crew is following him like blind sheep.

I think that's why he didn't tell them how to dress, where they were going, etc.  A bit weird if you ask me, but I think that it goes without saying that I don't share his belief system.

Quote from: John MorrowDespite the talk of family and his grandparent's house, I didn't get the respect for his ancestors.  He was a sheltered guy whose family was pretty much his world, so that's simply his frame of reference.  Warmth?  Actual respect?  I didn't see it.

I'm not sure warmth and respect could be used interchangeably with him.

Quote from: John MorrowHe values the importance of art?  Not only did he leave art school (because of course there was nothing they could teach him) but did you actually look at his art and the art around his house?  And if he thinks it's so important, why does he keep his collection hidden?

Not entirely sure.  I think he doesn't value the opinions of others... and YET he is a musician, so in that way he does.

Keep in mind -- I'm neither saying he's got it all figured out, he's right, or even he's got what I would consider a "good" or even "workable" system of beliefs and morality.

Quote from: John MorrowSo maybe I was watching a different video than you, maybe your pulling my leg, maybe you're easily taken in by style over substance, or maybe you are just a lot more clever than I am but now that I've watched it, if you'd like to be specific, I'm honestly curious where or why you saw those things in that video.

I think you've lost the context of why I posted the link to that documentary.  I said there was value in looking at all world religions, and that they had things that were truths, insights, interesting points, or just things for us to think about.  You put forth Satanism as something which had none of those.  I happened to have seen a Doc where I was surprised that the religion wasn't as frothing at the mouth mad-dog, destroy the world as I was expecting.  It's definitely not something I would choose to follow, or be happy to see friends, family or even community members following -- but even if 99% of it I disagree with, there were still things in it that were positive.  Which I had found surprising.

I didn't know, before watching that Doc, that a Satanist would value anything but himself -- and he did.

Please don't think I'm promoting his religion... I'm not.  At all.  But I do think there's value in learning from other religions, even ancient ones like the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians.  If for no other reason to see where they evolved from and where they share common traits -- and where those common traits coincide with my own beliefs.

Quote from: StuartThat would be respect for the camera crew.  I think you're taking "respect for nature" to mean "how to be a good outdoorsman".  I meant his philosophy including respecting the "value" of nature.

I don't know how to explain this to you but I've watched quite a few shows about people who love nature and people who respect nature and I saw none of that in his behavior.  I guess the best way to put it was that he behaved like it was his habitat.

Quote from: StuartI think that's why he didn't tell them how to dress, where they were going, etc.  A bit weird if you ask me, but I think that it goes without saying that I don't share his belief system.

Without watching it again, I'm pretty sure that they said that they simply didn't have the clothing to wear, which is why one guy mentions using plastic bags inside of his shoes to keep his feet dry.  They simply were not equipped for the sort of hike that he took them on.  

Quote from: StuartI'm not sure warmth and respect could be used interchangeably with him.

You keep saying that he respects things.  In what way do you think he shows things respect?  What does "respect" mean to you?

Quote from: StuartNot entirely sure.  I think he doesn't value the opinions of others... and YET he is a musician, so in that way he does.

I don't think he does.  I think he uses music as a soapbox and a tool, much as Leni Riefenstahl used film as a tool.

Quote from: StuartKeep in mind -- I'm neither saying he's got it all figured out, he's right, or even he's got what I would consider a "good" or even "workable" system of beliefs and morality.

Your original quote was, "I'd say 'all religions contain truths, and following any may lead you to salvation'."  Yes, he has a life philosophy and a system of beliefs and I suppose you could claim his "law of the jungle" attitude is a "morality" of sorts.  That's not the question.  The question is whether there are "truths" (something worth knowing and following) to be found in it and whether following it could "lead you to salvation".  I get the feeling you are shifting the goal-posts here, again to the point of tautology.

Quote from: StuartI think you've lost the context of why I posted the link to that documentary.  I said there was value in looking at all world religions, and that they had things that were truths, insights, interesting points, or just things for us to think about.  You put forth Satanism as something which had none of those.

You said that "[A]ll religions contain truths, and following any may lead you to salvation."  I asked you if that included religions that followed "The Left Hand Path", a particularly nasty fusion of gnosticism and Satanism with no redeeming value, in my opinion.  The Wikipedia page that I liked to characterized "The Left Hand Path" religions as "belief systems [that] value the advancement and preservation of the self, glorification of more temporal and terrestrial goals, and personal power rather than spiritual attainments," and pointe dout that "Rather than valuing proximity to the divine, followers of Left-Hand Path belief systems seek to 'become divinities' in their own right."  

You hit the nail on the head with Gaahl and he seems to be a wonderful example of exactly that sort of belief, but the question wasn't whether he made some interesting points or gave me some things to think about.  The question was whether his belief system contains "truths" (which I need you to define at this point) and might "lead you to salvation".  Of course parts of that documentary were interesting and of course it game me something to think about (it gave me yet another example of exactly why the early Christian Church rejected gnosticism and gnostic writings) but reading the bag I get at McDonald's can be interesting and give me something to think about, too.  That doesn't mean that it contains "truths" or can provide a road to salvation.

Quote from: StuartI happened to have seen a Doc where I was surprised that the religion wasn't as frothing at the mouth mad-dog, destroy the world as I was expecting.

Why would you expect a Satanist to be a frothing at the mouth mad-dog who wants to destroy the world?  Is the serpent who tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden a mad-dog frothing at the mouth?  Is the Satan presented in Job a mad-dog frothing at the mouth?  Is the Satan who tempts Jesus with dominion over the Earth a mad-dog frothing at the mouth?  Does the Satan said to have entered Judas turn him into a mad-dog frothing at the mouth?  

Quote from: StuartIt's definitely not something I would choose to follow, or be happy to see friends, family or even community members following -- but even if 99% of it I disagree with, there were still things in it that were positive.  Which I had found surprising.

What was positive in his belief system?  He speaks specifically about his beliefs at several points in the documentary.

Quote from: StuartI didn't know, before watching that Doc, that a Satanist would value anything but himself -- and he did.

What did he value other than himself?  Again, you can define "value" to the point where it's a tautology.  I'm sure he values the air he breathes because without it, he'd die.  But that's not conventionally what "values" means in a religious or moral context.

You make 4 specific claims.  Point to the specific things in the documentary that illustrate what you mean when you say that he (1) has a deep respect for nature and the environment (How does he "respect" it?) (2) has a deep respect for his ancestors (How does he "respect" his ancestors?) (3) values the importance of art (How does he "value" art?), and (4) values friendship (Who are his friends?).  

Quote from: StuartPlease don't think I'm promoting his religion... I'm not.  At all.

I don't.  But I do find myself wondering if you were really listening to him or let yourself get caught up in the opinions of the filmmakers and the beautiful scenery to the point that you apparently can look right past the torture conviction, the severed sheep heads, and his fairly clear (in my opinion) explanations of his beliefs to look for something positive and even then, I'm not really even sure how you get those opinions from what's in the documentary.

I mean, I honestly looked.  The closest he got, in my opinion, was to "respect for nature" when he talked about living things growing but in context, that comment was basically just support for his overall "law of the jungle" attitude toward things rather than anything I'd call "respect".

Quote from: StuartBut I do think there's value in learning from other religions, even ancient ones like the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians.  If for no other reason to see where they evolved from and where they share common traits -- and where those common traits coincide with my own beliefs.

I certainly think there can be value in learning from many other religions and things you can learn by studying them but your original claim was, "I'd say 'all religions contain truths, and following any may lead you to salvation'."  So let's put the goal-posts back where you started and work from there.  Do you still stand by your original statement?  Do you believe that Gaahl's beliefs contain "truths" and that following his system of believes "may lead you to salvation"?

Quote from: StuartBetween 2 documentaries (or parts of them) on the same topic (same topics and issues) one can be more "fun" than the other.  That's based on the editing, music, and tone of narration.

And my point is that "fun" can be spoiled by the context and content, regardless of the editing, music, and tone of narration.

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

Having your husband assassinated during a play kinda makes the quality of the play you were watching at the time irrelevant and asking about it tasteless and inappropriate.  Making light of a bunch of people who burned churches and murdered people doesn't seem very fun to me.  It actually seems kinda inappropriate and annoying.

Quote from: John MorrowI certainly think there can be value in learning from many other religions and things you can learn by studying them but your original claim was, "I'd say 'all religions contain truths, and following any may lead you to salvation'."  So let's put the goal-posts back where you started and work from there.  Do you still stand by your original statement?  Do you believe that Gaahl's beliefs contain "truths" and that following his system of believes "may lead you to salvation"?

Here's the entirety of my original quote, before I clarified...

Quote from: StuartI'd say "all religions contain truths, and following any may lead you to salvation".

I'm certainly not the one to tell you which has more truths, or which you should be following, or what criteria you need reach "salvation"... or even if "salvation" is something you work towards, or something you already have.

I think that's for each of us to figure out.

The point you want to argue is too tied into "salvation" for me to want to debate it with you.  It's really more about however you define salvation and how forgiving you think God is if after death if you discover you might not have been on the right track with your religion.

The clarification (truth, insights, things to consider) was added because I was originally thinking about more "normal" religions.  I wasn't really thinking about people worshipping aliens, comets, suicide cults, etc.  

You also need to consider what someone says about their religion somewhat independently from what they do -- people of all religions do things which aren't fully in keeping with the faith they claim to follow.

Finally, I'm not sure there's a single "Satanism" or if it's actually a religion at all.  I've seen a lot of things fall under that umbrella term.  Many are basically anti-social christian theology, while others are pagan, and at least one was based on an ancient religion from the middle-east that had been vilified and served as the foundation for "satanism".

Ultimately all of that is pretty off-topic from what this thread is about, and what I was interested in discussing.

Quote from: StuartHere's the entirety of my original quote, before I clarified...

At some point, it seems like you want to redefine words like "truth", "truths", "salvation" and so on so broadly that I could claim to find those things in the ingredients listing on a cereal box.  I think that does terrible injustice to the terms.

Quote from: StuartThe point you want to argue is too tied into "salvation" for me to want to debate it with you.

It's about both "truths" and "salvation" which you eventually soften down to observations that Gaahl's religion is "interesting" and thought provoking.  A comment can be interesting or thought provoking without, itself, being insightful or a truth.  What could be interesting or thought provoking about it is how utterly incorrect it is.

Quote from: StuartIt's really more about however you define salvation and how forgiving you think God is if after death if you discover you might not have been on the right track with your religion.

Really?  So if I define damnation as salvation then it's salvation?  And if God can forgive anything (including people who willfully reject goodness to embrace evil), wouldn't that make God's opinion irrelevant, or is that the whole idea?

Quote from: StuartThe clarification (truth, insights, things to consider) was added because I was originally thinking about more "normal" religions.  I wasn't really thinking about people worshipping aliens, comets, suicide cults, etc.

While I think your original claim may be somewhat defensible with respect with many of the "normal" religions (even if I might not apply it as broadly as you would nor fully agree with it), when asked whether your statement included a particularly nasty form of beliefs, instead of narrowing your inclusiveness, you broadened your definitions so that it could include anything.  Why is it more important to include everyone than to acknowledge that some believe systems are nutty and not useful or valuable, even if they might be a little be interesting in the way that a traffic accident is interesting -- suicide cults, Satanists, science fiction religions about aliens, and so on?

This is what people talk about when they talk about making inclusiveness and nonjudgmentalism a sort of religion, itself.  Better to broaden the discussion or change the definitions than acknowledge that something might not be defensible or valuable or might actually be bad or even evil.

Quote from: StuartYou also need to consider what someone says about their religion somewhat independently from what they do -- people of all religions do things which aren't fully in keeping with the faith they claim to follow.

I've said as much numerous times throughout this thread.  That someone can be a good person despite holding a belief system that values being evil does not give the value system espousing evil a pass or make or make it valuable.  

Quote from: StuartFinally, I'm not sure there's a single "Satanism" or if it's actually a religion at all.  I've seen a lot of things fall under that umbrella term.  Many are basically anti-social christian theology, while others are pagan, and at least one was based on an ancient religion from the middle-east that had been vilified and served as the foundation for "satanism".

I didn't originally use the term Satanism.  I used the term "The Left-Hand Path" which defines a much more specific set of beliefs (I provided a link to a Wikipedia page that details them) embraced by some Satanists and others who don't call themselves Satanists (including, on the basis of the documentary that you asked me to watch, Gaahl) to avoid the ambiguity that you are describing above.  I was very specific on purpose and you are now trying to wiggle around that, too, broadening the definition to avoid any negative judgment.

Quote from: StuartUltimately all of that is pretty off-topic from what this thread is about, and what I was interested in discussing.

Not really, since you seem to be arguing for the social acceptability of Satanists.  You agreed with me earlier in this thread about the coarsening of the public space yet you want to find a silver lining in a guy that lines the front of his stage with severed sheep heads.  You don't see any connection between the two?

Quote from: John MorrowReally? So if I define damnation as salvation then it's salvation? And if God can forgive anything (including people who willfully reject goodness to embrace evil), wouldn't that make God's opinion irrelevant, or is that the whole idea?

Damnation and Salvation are key concepts in Christian theology that aren't always found in other religions.  Even within Christianity there's a lot of differences in thought on these concepts (original sin, non-believers and heaven, etc).

Quote from: John MorrowI didn't originally use the term Satanism. I used the term "The Left-Hand Path" which defines a much more specific set of beliefs (I provided a link to a Wikipedia page that details them) embraced by some Satanists and others who don't call themselves Satanists (including, on the basis of the documentary that you asked me to watch, Gaahl) to avoid the ambiguity that you are describing above. I was very specific on purpose and you are now trying to wiggle around that, too, broadening the definition to avoid any negative judgment.

I didn't read the page.  I saw the illustration of the devil waving howdy-hi and that was it.  I still haven't read it, and I have no idea if the Doc and Ghaal are left-handed-path or not.

Quote from: John MorrowNot really, since you seem to be arguing for the social acceptability of Satanists. You agreed with me earlier in this thread about the coarsening of the public space yet you want to find a silver lining in a guy that lines the front of his stage with severed sheep heads. You don't see any connection between the two?

I think you're making assumptions that simply aren't true.  I'm not a supporter of his religion or his band.  I would be very unhappy to have him setup a booth at the county fair where everyone's kids could see his display.  The sum total of why I posted the link was that yes, even for this guy's religion (not him as a person), even if 99% of it was bad, there were one or two points that were interesting, and even "good".

I think his respect for nature (meaning considering it a valuable thing and  mankind is connected to nature instead of set apart and above it) was both surprising, and not a negative philosophy to hold in and of itself.

And really, the main point was about more normal religions.  If you want to "win" the debate, ask me about the Raelians or the group from Wacco Texas and the truths I can find with them.  I'll tell you now, I'd be hard pressed.

I think we're talking past each other a bit, and you're looking to argue points with me that I don't really hold.

Quote from: StuartDamnation and Salvation are key concepts in Christian theology that aren't always found in other religions.  Even within Christianity there's a lot of differences in thought on these concepts (original sin, non-believers and heaven, etc).

You introduced the term to the discussion.

Quote from: StuartI didn't read the page.  I saw the illustration of the devil waving howdy-hi and that was it.  I still haven't read it, and I have no idea if the Doc and Ghaal are left-handed-path or not.

Whether you read the page or not, Ghaal seems to fit the description.

Quote from: StuartI think you're making assumptions that simply aren't true.  I'm not a supporter of his religion or his band.  I would be very unhappy to have him setup a booth at the county fair where everyone's kids could see his display.

How do you think the coarsening starts?  Do you think people started out thinking it was fine to carry on X-rated conversations in public with children around?  

Quote from: StuartI think his respect for nature (meaning considering it a valuable thing and  mankind is connected to nature instead of set apart and above it) was both surprising, and not a negative philosophy to hold in and of itself.

What makes you think that he's really concerned about nature as a valuable asset for anyone other than himself?  And why is he arguing that mankind is connected to nature?  What philosophy does he support from that point?

Quote from: StuartI think we're talking past each other a bit, and you're looking to argue points with me that I don't really hold.

I think the documentaries and philosophies that you highlighted are certainly relevant to my original point, which was "The Social Acceptability of Shocking Fantasies".  You seem to be supporting the social acceptability of people like Gaahl and if that's not what you are doing, then why spend so much time looking for a silver lining in a pile of crap?

Quote from: John MorrowI think the documentaries and philosophies that you highlighted are certainly relevant to my original point, which was "The Social Acceptability of Shocking Fantasies".  You seem to be supporting the social acceptability of people like Gaahl and if that's not what you are doing, then why spend so much time looking for a silver lining in a pile of crap?

What I believe you should be able to view / publish in public is different from what I think you should be able to view / express in private, as an adult.  The issue of obscenity and publishing (which is where I joined the discussion) is different from the issue of religion (where the conversation has drifted).

Quote from: John MorrowFor all intents and purposes, objective = universal and subjective = relative.  Another way to look at it is nature vs. nurture.  Common vs. individual.

Oh. Then we should absolutely cease using the terms "objective" and "subjective," since all the morality you're talking about is subjective [created within the subject of thought]. I'm a little concerned with "universal," too, but I think I'll address that below.

Quote from: John MorrowMy argument is that the basic components of human morality are part of the genetic imperative, which is why you see the same behavior in monkeys.  It goes beyond "hungry" and "want to live" into "unfair trade" and "don't want to hurt him".

I'm absolutely with you thus far.

Quote from: John MorrowWhile the homicide rates go up because it's easier to kill and get away with it, you'll still see things like the stone age adult with spina bifida.  Even among Neanderthals, you can find the elderly who were clearly taken care of by others in their old age.

Which means the moral norms of the day were different than our moral norms today, just as moral norms vary from nation to nation, culture to culture, individual to individual. There are certain common elements, absolutely, but there is nothing in the 10,000 years of human history that shows a compelling, universal, comprehensive moral position based on our biology.

Yes, when we see our offspring eaten, almost everyone becomes enraged; there are genuinely biological responses which are statistically common. However, "I am hungry. Jim has food, and I do not," is a situation to which the answer has been widely varied for 10,000 years. While I agree there are compelling pieces of evidence to suggest neural differences between, say, Hare psychopaths and people who aren't Hare psychopaths, and those differences are uncommon and drastic enough for us to call a defect - and not a difference - the moral variation in less drastic cases is widespread.

I guess my point is this: humans come with instructions written in, but there are millions of ways in which individual variation produces differing responses. Add to this the fact that every human on earth has been effected by moral teachings beyond his or her biology, and it makes finding a universal human morality either pointless - because there are only tendencies, not universalities - or just kind of futile.

And in the end, what would we have? Let's say we managed to find core genetic moral rules that 98 percent of people share, the moral equivalent of "two eyes, two ears, one mouth." Then what would we have? You cannot obtain a "should" from an "is." All we'd have is a list of behaviors that were sufficient to get us to today, from a genetic perspective. This might indicate these values are useful for survival, but it doesn't make them a moral imperative!

And since there's no evidence such a Genetic Moral Codex exists, it's pretty immaterial, anyway.

Quote from: John MorrowThis is where psychopaths offer a critical contrast....All the same thing morally to a psychopath -- nothing.

Ah, this is something else I wanted to address. Hare psychopaths do, indeed, lack the biological response to morality, or anyway such is our operating theory. However, it is an error to assume Hare psychopaths do not have morality; many if not most have been raised in strongly moral conditions, and will adopt that imposed reality, despite never seeing any sort of neurochemical reward for it. In fact, most Hare psychopaths behave as such, either to remain concealed - the first trick a Hare psychopath learns - or simply due to never realizing they were going through the motions of morality without feeling anything great about it.

It's also worth noting Hare psychopaths aren't the only groups of people who lack a moral compass built-in: I've seen estimates that up to 1 in 20 people lack conscience, either due to biology or upbringing. Only 1 in 5 of those would be a Hare psychopath, so you've some percentage out there of people who do not possess this specific disorder, but who lack conscience.

This is why I think it's inaccurate and inflammatory to suggest there's a connection between moral relativism and psychopathy without being very specific. One could say, "Persons with Hare psychopathy share a common element with moral relativists: they do not believe morality is objective." Which is, I guess, true, but really utterly meaningless. The comparison is no more valid than saying the Christians won because the world is full of moral absolutists; they didn't start it, and the common element between the two is not meaningful in any way.

Ultimately, I think the comparison is intended to be inflammatory, to discourage moral relativism by comparing it to something people don't like. Once you define it down to reality, it's not nearly so gut-wrenching, not nearly so calculated to make people avoid moral relativism as the first step into making us all psychopaths.

Quote from: EngineUltimately, I think the comparison is intended to be inflammatory, to discourage moral relativism by comparing it to something people don't like.

It is something people don't like.

I noticed that you skipped out, ducked all the questions sent your way, and now come back and basically just repeated your starting statements. Interesting tactics that.

Quote from: gleichmanI noticed that you skipped out...

It's called a "vacation." I had a four-day weekend, thanks for asking. Oh, a very nice time, I appreciate it.

Quote from: gleichman...ducked all the questions sent your way...

Yours. I ducked yours. To be fair, I did try to respond to your post, but I just couldn't. I actually used to have a very high tolerance for trolling, but I find over the years I'm just not interested in that anymore. Sorry, man.

Quote from: gleichman...and now come back and basically just repeated your starting statements.

I'm glad you noticed. You see, John Morrow and I have been discussing a large variety of issues, and I thought the break, the definition of terms, and some time to consider made this a logical time to return to the core issues, now that many of the ancillary issues preventing us from communicating more effectively have been agreed-upon or made moot. I felt it would be more productive to reframe the original debate, now that I better understand his intent.

Now, I'm certain that, to someone like yourself, this looks like a - what was the term you used? Tactic? - tactic to, I don't know, elude your piercing questions, but in fact it's a tactic to increase efficiency of communication, which is a desirable goal when you're trying to communicate. Since your interest is not in communication, I can understand that you'd be understandably distressed to see someone lessening conflict, so by all means, let me address your very important questions:

Quote from: gleichmanSo you're all for forcing your personal perference upon others.

The quote to which you were referring was not my expressed opinion, but the hypothetical collective expressed opinion of a morally relative culture; hence the quotes. But no, I don't have anything against forcing my preferences upon others; I think I've outright said that's all anyone does with the world. ["Preference and power."]

Quote from: gleichmanOne could of course suggest that the people who don't like being raped are equal in number to those who do rape as a baseline.

Yes, one could. I would think some sort of evidence of this counter-intuitive notion would be necessary if one wanted to make such a case.

Quote from: gleichmanAnd what happens if as the culture evolves under it's own moral decision making to a point where rape is now an acceptable activity. Do you join it, pass on it, or attempt to alter that change in culture (again forcing your perferences upon others)?

Isn't that the ultimate question? What if you live in a culture where abortion becomes acceptable? Do you get an abortion, or choose not to, if the issue pertains to you? Do you struggle against the acceptance of abortion, or allow the collective course of civilization to pull away from your position?

Moral relativism doesn't eliminate these considerations, it simply prevents objective moral absolutes from being one of those considerations. You still have your preferences for the world in which you'd like to live, and many moral relativists are, for instance, anti-rape and anti-abortion, even though they have no objective reason for being so.

Quote from: gleichmanMay I suggest you look back over the history of his rule. It doesn't match what you're suggesting. He had widespread support and respect throughout the world.

What I'm suggesting - nay, what I said - is: "If you like satisfaction, and like not being killed, you want to avoid living in a nation where someone like Stalin is in charge." I suggest you look back over the history of his rule. It doesn't match what you're suggesting. Living in the nation where he was in charge led to high rates of being unsatisfied and/or dead.

Hey, I've got an idea: perhaps you could direct your arguments to what I actually say, and not to what's most convenient to argue against.

Quote from: gleichmanYou actually think people, with nothing other then their own self-defined morality could make those types of decisions without a Stalin like power structure forcing it upon them?

I do believe mutual-defense pacts and economic treaties can be achieved without a Stalin-like power structure in place; witness, for instance, nearly every nation in the first world today.

Quote from: gleichmanBut as Europe approaches it over the next 30 years, would its failure have any impact in your wishful vision of such a culture. Or would you just say it failed for reasons unconnected to its abandonment of objective morality?

I'm confused. What does the ultimately subjective nature of morality have to do with modern Europe? Are you saying Europe, as a supernation, has abandoned objective morality?

Quote from: gleichmanIs it really in everyone's best interest to co-operate?

Yes. The degree of cooperation may need to vary depending on circumstances, but...well, go read The Selfish Gene.

Quote from: gleichmanAnd yet, you think that the wide-spread rejection of the belief in objective morality will change all this so that self-interest is not only identified by the large majority of people- but is agreed upon in action.

Really?

Don't get me wrong: I don't think a nation full of moral relativists is suddenly going to be a paradise or utopia, but neither do I believe it would collapse. Honestly, I think it'd probably be a lot like today's world, with thousands of different people pulling in different directions, whose collective purpose will get more-or-less represented by its government. I'd like to think more rational decisions would get made if you eliminated a large portion of the irrational reasons, but that's about as far as I'd take it.

Quote from: gleichmanAnd this is how you would save Europe from becoming a collection of Islamic nations over the next 30-40 years.

Internet Message Forums.

No, I have no real interest in saving Europe from anything. I'm sharing my opinions, and part of my purpose for doing so is to spread them. That's what I meant when I said, "The only solution, then, is to grow our own population over time until we outnumber you. I pursue this goal in several ways, not the least of which is advocacy of moral relativism on internet message forums."

What I did not mean is, "This is how I will save Europe from the invasion of Islam." If I had meant that, I promise, I would have used words like "Europe" and "Islam." Since I didn't, it's safe to assume I meant what I said, and not something about, you know, Islam invading Europe.

What I'm saying is, you're a troll. Please, stop.