It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Delusions of the far left and moral relativism....

page: 8
38
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: onequestion

(War began 8000-10000 years ago)



Please.... now we're venturing into fantasyland again. They've found the skeletons of Neanderthals who were beaten over the head and killed over 400,000 years ago. Do you know that according to the most popular theories, one of the driving forces behind Neanderthal extinction was conflict with modern humans?

As long as there has been competition for reasources and limited territory, different groups are going to fight each other.

Now, the relative intensity of warfare was certainly lower. It was probably mostly limited to small-scale skirmishing, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Onequestion is making general observations about the roles of men and women in the past. Just because there may have been outliers and exceptions doesn't discredit the general observation, nor does it mean that his argument is based on "false stereotypes."
edit on 6-6-2016 by Talorc because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc
Onequestion is making general observations about the roles of men and women in the past. Just because there may have been outliers and exceptions doesn't discredit the general observation, nor does it mean that his argument is based on "false stereotypes."

I see there has been a bit of back and forth on this but does it really matter. Is the hero archetype masculine or is that something that the OP added to make his conspiracy theory work?



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion




How do we begin to define reality and delusion without moral objectivity?


It's impossible for anyone to be morally objective or even an absolutist because...

A) No one is omniscient(as much as everyone on the internet likes to think they are),in comparison to the rest of the universe we know nothing.

B) No one has universal authority and leadership to support any "objective" truth of morality

C) No one can get everyone to agree on a single moral issue

Until all of these requirements are met,morality is relative and in some cases subjective.
Murder is not always wrong as you clearly pointed out by admitting you believe killing an organism in self defense is,in your words...OK.

Objective morality I would argue actually hinders a species ability to survive in harsh environments,Piranhas for example practice cannibalism not as form of regular diet but as a back up source in case their regular food source becomes scarce. IF a species like this were to morally assess the practice of cannibalism and all agree it was wrong. When resource scarcity kicks in it will affect all of their chances of survival as most of them will refrain from cannibalism in the name of morality.

My point with this is that since no objective or moral absolutes exists, you have to balance between what you believe is morally right and your own self-preservation. Taking either of them to the extreme is ill-advised as living in a society full of pure morally-upright people can be just as detrimental to a species survival as say a pure Social Darwinist society...
I am not saying we abandon morality,simply that there are obviously pros and cons.


edit on 6pm30America/Chicago3009America/Chicagopm619 by NateTheAnimator because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: NateTheAnimator

No one can get everyone to agree on simple facts, like the earth being round. Does that mean that the earth isn't round?

Also, why would someone have to have authority, leadership, or omniscience to figure out the truth of something, in this case morality?

And lastly, the idea of morality "hindering a species chances of survival" is ridiculous. What animals other than humans have a notion of morality, pray tell? Are you suggesting that piranhas have the capability to choose not to cannibalize? There's no equivalency between piranhas and humans, there's no reason to compare them.

These arguments are nonsensical.
edit on 6-6-2016 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Talorc

Not fantasy land. Link


According to cultural anthropologist and ethnographer Raymond C. Kelly, the earliest hunter-gatherer societies of Homo erectus population density was probably low enough to avoid armed conflict. The development of the throwing-spear, together with ambush hunting techniques, made potential violence between hunting parties very costly, dictating cooperation and maintenance of low population densities to prevent competition for resources. This behavior may have accelerated the migration out of Africa of H. erectus some 1.8 million years ago as a natural consequence of conflict avoidance. Although scholars believed that this period of "Paleolithic warlessness" persisted until well after the appearance of Homo sapiens some 0.2 million years ago, ending only at the occurrence of economic and social shifts associated with sedentism, when new conditions incentivized organized raiding of settlements.,[5][6] the discoveries at the site of Nataruk in Turkana, Kenya, show that inter-group conflict between nomadic hunter-gatherers existed 10,000 years ago.[7]

Of the many cave paintings of the Upper Paleolithic, none depict people attacking other people.[8][9] The only rock art that depicts violence between hunter-gatherers comes from a unique Northern Australian sequence that began approximately 10,000 years ago.[10] Skeletal and artifactual evidence of Paleolithic intergroup violence is absent as well.[9][11]


I know he is making generalizations based on cultural norms he is aware of - I'm just saying there were some different things happening, that the past wasn't as black and white regarding roles between genders. Why? Good Lord it seems long ago, but the point was how CULTURE defines roles and how that impacts perceptions of masculinity and femininity.

So if you have cultural assumptions about what "Men Are" and what "Women Are" you miss the cross-over Venn Diagram of what we really are. Men and women's brains are not as clearly defined as we have thought - there is a spectrum, not "male brains" and "female brains" but MOST brains are a combination of what is considered "male structures" and "female structures" with only 0-8% having ONLY male or female structures on the far opposite end of each other.
(I linked to this in a previous post)

There are differences between men and women, yes, but the similarities are more profound, and one's culture and socialization can impact one's biology.

At the end of the day we are all human. If a man has more "feminine" qualities than another, who the heck cares? If some alpha is screaming at traditional gender roles, why should folks care if they are comfortable with who and what they are?

One of the best qualities of human beings is compassion. Are women more compassionate than men? No. We are not.


Yesterday, journalists at Huffington Post Live asked me to comment on whether women are more compassionate than men. Scientists in general tend to cringe at any strong black-and-white statements of this kind since we know there is no data to support such strong claims. If you ask a neuroscientist to distinguish a male from a female brain, for example, s/he would have a difficult time doing so. Although differences have been detected (for example, women appear to make greater use of both hemispheres of the brain and therefore have a slightly thicker corpus callosum—the part of the brain that bridges the two hemispheres), the differences are subtle and there is no single area of the brain that we can say clearly distinguishes a male brain from a female brain.

Compassion is Innate

Moreover, whether they are researching animals or humans, males or females, scientists find that compassion is innate and instinctual across the board. As I discussed at length in my previous post, research with animals and humans shows that we naturally have an impulse to help others who are suffering. This tendency, that Dacher Keltner has coined the "compassionate instinct," seems to have ensured our survival. Research by Stanford University's Robert Sapolsky suggests that this instinct is linked to thriving and improved reproduction in primates. In other words, compassion is natural and no gender differences have emerged across these studies.



Yet we are defined as being the more nurturing and compassionate of the species. That is our CULTURE, not our biology.

So if a man or woman breaks out of the "cultural norm" that says she must be maternal and nurturing and he must be less nurturing and more focused on his career, we denigrate them. The woman is "unloving," "selfish," "a bad mother." The man is told he is "feminized," "a wimp," "not a real man." Why? Because our socialization and our culture teaches us that, and cultural norms are like fences we daren't be on the wrong side of, because then we are no longer part of the tribe - it is an ancient form of social control that defines "us" (what is safe and good) versus "them" (what is unknown, unpredictable and therefore dangerous). But is the Cultural Norm a good one to begin with? Is it a reality or is it a social construct?

That is why I went into all that stuff about how gender roles were not as defined as the OP was claiming they were - he has one sense of what is culturally a "norm" and is railing against his perception that there is some sort of conspiracy to transform the culture around him.

When CULTURE changes, when the "norms" are challenged and rebelled against, when our cherished notions of what is "right" and "wrong" lose their sense of boundaries, people become upset. It has always been this way. The Tribe doesn't like change, it likes Tradition. Then come the "disruptors" in the form of people with different values, and they are Not Part of the Tribe, therefore "enemies."

Change is a constant. It WILL happen wether we like it or not, for good or ill, for better or worse. And one persons "better" can certainly be another persons "worse."

- AB



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: AboveBoard
First off allow me to apologize for my previous comment above I had just finished working out and the adrenaline hadn't had worked itself out yet.



So...do you consider women and men to have different "mental ability?" That "different mental ability" contributes to "gender roles?"


Yes men and women without a doubt have differing modalities of thought.

Did you read the source I linked that was all about how men and women deal with stress?

Apparently I need to relearn anthropology my education may be out of date on the issue. Doesn't change my position that men and women are physically different.

Livescience



Brain networks showing significantly increased intra-hemispheric connectivity in males (Upper) and inter-hemispheric connectivity in females (Lower). Intra-hemispheric connections are shown in blue, and inter- hemispheric connections are shown in orange. Credit: Ragini Verma et al, University of Pennsylvania - See more at: www.livescience.com...


Brain Connectivity Study Reveals Striking Differences Between Men and Women



In one of the largest studies looking at the “connectomes” of the sexes, Ragini Verma, PhD, an associate professor in the department of Radiology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, and colleagues found greater neural connectivity from front to back and within one hemisphere in males, suggesting their brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action. In contrast, in females, the wiring goes between the left and right hemispheres, suggesting that they facilitate communication between the analytical and intuition. “These maps show us a stark difference--and complementarity--in the architecture of the human brain that helps provide a potential neural basis as to why men excel at certain tasks, and women at others,” said Verma.


Brain Differences Between Genders



Male brains utilize nearly seven times more gray matter for activity while female brains utilize nearly ten times more white matter. What does this mean?


Study: Men and Women React to Stress in Totally Different Ways


Stress Increases Empathy in Women, Decreases It in Men



Men respond to stress in a fight-or-flight manner, conserving their energy for the confrontation they fear is coming by turning inward. Women, on the other hand, take a “tend-and-befriend” approach.


Being an amateur and professional combat athlete in multiple sports I can tell you first hand that men are made for war and it's built into our endocrine system and our musculature.

Doesn't men women can't do it. Just means that nature designed men to do it specifically. What roll evolution plays in this I don't know. Women are far better nurtures than men without a doubt.


wrong again reread.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc
a reply to: AboveBoard

Yes, women wouldn't just stay home. That'd be incredibly inefficient for hunter-gatherers, to have half the population sitting back twiddling their thumbs rather than finding food. In nature there's no room for inefficiency.

But I've seen (and argued with) others who would have everyone believe that prehistory was some matriarchal fairy-tale, with ninja cavewomen with superpowers out doing "all the same things" as men. The archeology and contemporary anthro studies still show a pretty consistent division of labor. Ideology should never be conflated with serious science, but that's what happens all too often. Sure, it'd be nice if prehistory was a utopian fairy-tale, it'd be nice if ninja cavewomen hunted mammoths, but it's not the case.


Didn't say pretty much ANY of that. I didn't claim matriarchy, I didn't say anything about women twiddling their thumbs or misinterpret the OP as saying that, I never said women had "superpowers" (though just doing what the men were doing wouldn't qualify as a superpower...seriously.) Prehistory is demonstrably more egalitarian and hunting practices were not about men spearing mammoths so much as community events including everyone - so sue me. I never said it was utopian. Please don't put words in my mouth. As you can see from my other posts, I have plenty words of my own!



- AB



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: onequestion

How about equal in terms of the consciousness that resides in all humans being considered fully equal, as a starting point? Do you know there are churches that STILL preach a woman can ONLY reach GOD through a MAN - either her father, her husband or a male relative? God forbid (literally) she should be orphaned with no brother - no husband - how ever will she talk to God?

This used to be the norm, but because women have fought long and hard, they have achieved some relief from this strange insistence that they are lesser beings.

I'm not a lesser being. I'm not any less capable of being heroic. I'm not whining about anything here, either, I'm just looking at it in the face and saying - no, no one, no woman, no man, no religion gets to define me as a lesser being.

The crap I've dealt with in my own life up to this point, just for being a woman, is real, whether others (especially men) can see it or not. I choose, however, not to be a victim. No one can make me lesser without my permission.



Consciousness has nothing to do with Earthly Churches.

And a good many beings can make you lesser without your permission and can do it at anytime they so choose.

In fact, everything you just said about having choices COMES from those same religions that you just claimed do not define you.

As usual, the heroic ones consider that they have somehow gotten to a point where they get to decide, I am guessing the hardships will continue fully and completely, since you have convinced yourself that you *KNOW HOW THINGS WORK*.

What this transgenderism really is, are just breaks in the system, TOTAL BREAKDOWN, from a good many experiments that have been running for umpteen billions of years.

You should consider that MALE and FEMALE, are definitely 2 different things, and the SOULS, the CONSCIOUSNESS, does not shift and change and take on different roles, but is only MODIFIED by some interesting scum to appear that things are that way.

The experiments continue ever faster, even when they know they are an utter waste of time..................



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I wrote an entire post to you. I spent a lot of time researching it, pulling up quotes and links and then, you know what? I deleted it. I simply don't think it would matter to you what I wrote, or what I cited, or quoted or really anything regardless of its veracity.

I give up.

I'm tired. Goodnight.

peace,
AB



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion




I also truly believe that right now there is a massive attack on the hero archetype to suppress dissent as I've discussed in previous threads.


I saw this a long time ago.

We all know who just loves to turn hero's in to villains and villains in to hero's.

This is especially apparently in American politics.

AGENDA ?

Absolutely.

The have crush 'morality' from the church.

It's only suppose to come from the STATE.

And let me tell you everyone already knows.

It's just as screwed up.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Sorry I didn't directly respond to this earlier. Again, YES there are differences.

This is one of those things where you can focus on differences or focus on similarities - there are BOTH so BOTH answers are correct.

I'm NOT saying men and women are without any differences. That would be silly.

I am saying our culture exacerbates those differences in many ways - our norms socialize us into roles as much as our biology does. And our biology as far as the brain is concerned is more a Venn Diagram than a "male" and "female" version of a brain. (My own brain is getting fuzzy so I hope that made some kind of sense.)

As we grow older, gender differences diminish more and more - women are no longer fertile and men have less testosterone. This is normal.

Anyway. I STILL don't think there is any sort of conspiracy to eliminate masculinity. I really don't. I do think that our understanding of what is male vs female is evolving and changing. I know you disagree with anything that doesn't affirm your understanding of masculinity and femininity. I get that.

So. Must sleep now. Thanks for responding.

- AB

edit on 6-6-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

My dear whomever you are. If I know anything, its that I don't "KNOW HOW THINGS WORK."

I hold a candle against the vast dark of what I do not know.

Just like everyone else.

peace to you,

AB
edit on 6-6-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
How come no relativist wants to respond to this?


originally posted by: onequestion
Some cultures still practice cannibalism of their dead..This is part of their culture..Is it wrong or is it right??

Oh for Shamash's sake... Bluesma already gave you the only answer you need. If it is a part of their culture, then OBVIOUSLY they see it as morally acceptable. I would be willing to bet those who die would see it as an honor to be eaten, as the ritual is sacred to their religion.
Just because we see it as distasteful does not mean it objectively is. I'm not sure I could even resort to cannibalism in a desperate scenario, but I have never been in such dire straits so I cannot stand on a soapbox and claim I wouldn't.

Let's drift for a moment; you mentioned objective intelligence. This is also subjective. Some people memorize facts and are considered smart, yet cannot apply reason to reality whatsoever. Some people can fix engines but don't know how to tie their damn shoes.

The smartest guy I have ever known said "it doesn't have to be yearly to be annual!" He is now curing cancer.





originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The moment one asserts relativism as a universal principle is the very moment they contradict relativism.

Conversely, the moment one disagrees with a universal opinion, it ceases to be universal. Unstoppable force meet immovable object.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Morality is subjective just as each of our experience of reality is subjective. To deny that for some alleged absolute moral code that nobody can actually show to exist is just insane.

We are all locked into our own subjective reality upon which we decide what is moral or not. If there was an objective moral code then we should be able to figure out exactly what it is in all it's detail by asking those who believe in an objective morality to list what these moral rules are and they should match. This of course isn't what happens though because depending upon the person and the culture those moral codes will differ to various degrees.

Which would be expected of course if morality was in fact subjective all along.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
Ok guys I'm going to put forward a disgraceful and despicable idea and see if you think it's ok to do this as long as the culture says so since that's what many of you honestly seem to think.

Let's say some tribal community deep in the forest of Swizterland tortures and assaults little girls until they become women and keeps them tied to big rocks in caves with no light.

Let me guess as long as it's the culture it's ok right... it's all relative isn't it


I would feel repulsed by that. I would feel it is wrong. If it becomes possible, I might even try to stop this.

STILL doesn't make my moral repulsion and objection universal or objective. I am not God over the universe.
I don't need to claim I am to give myself the right to object to something, or take action to stop it.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: onequestion
Ok guys I'm going to put forward a disgraceful and despicable idea and see if you think it's ok to do this as long as the culture says so since that's what many of you honestly seem to think.

Let's say some tribal community deep in the forest of Swizterland tortures and assaults little girls until they become women and keeps them tied to big rocks in caves with no light.

Let me guess as long as it's the culture it's ok right... it's all relative isn't it


How come no relativist wants to respond to this?


Apparently I am the only person on this site that does not believe in some universal objective moral law.
But I was sleeping when you posted that, it is early morning for me now. That's the only reason I didn't answer right away.

I am trying to play (and I want to let you know I appreciate that you've been quite respectful towards me even though this is obviously an issue that means a lot to you.)

I need a little help understanding now, the connection you attempted to make between the hero archetype, male and female roles, and moral relativism?

I have been thinking it is linked to some sort of controversial issue that is current in the US, but am not sure?
If you, or anyone else, could maybe re-word as if I was a five year old, I'd appreciate it!


I keep re-reading the OP, to get the gist.

This phrase:



An agenda where natural laws are invert as an attack on the ultimate universal intelligent force that governs the laws of physics and is the life force/ energy competent of our awareness, consciousness and existence.


This "ultimate universal intelligent force" ... do you mean a God?
..and a God that is Male?
Is that where the hero archetype comes in, you are concerned that there is a conspiracy to make people stop believing in a male God, that men can relate to and identify with?
edit on 7-6-2016 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2016 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma

Apparently I am the only person on this site that does not believe in some universal objective moral law.


No, you're not the only one.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 01:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Bluesma

Apparently I am the only person on this site that does not believe in some universal objective moral law.


No, you're not the only one.


WHOO HOO! I feel a little more comfortable. I don't have to have others who share my view, but it is a bit daunting and intimidating to feel totally alone faced with so much opposition.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

Yeah.

I can only imagine what it was like during the Witch Burning, Inquisition and other Religiously Based Cleansing Periods in history when saying something like you just did would have meant torture and death at the hands of the Righteous People of God.

At least here they'll probably just call you names and label you a sinner or something.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

You speak out against the stupidity at every turn. You do not give them any ground, and you do not succumb to their demands. Yes, there WILL be demands. The Donald Trump protesters are a wonderful example of this. They DEMAND that everyone fall in line with them, and if not, they will punish you. If you do not follow the groupthink, they will do everything they can to shut you down, bully you, violence, or come after you any other way they can.

It really is a quite violent culture. They believe that what they are doing is "just" and "right" so anything they do standing for what they believe is acceptable no matter what.




top topics



 
38
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join