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.

 

The End of America, “Gone Without a Whimper”

page: 11
74
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by really
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Just look in any dictionary. Morality is a code of ethics. Morals change from culture to culture. If you want to use a Socarates "Cave" argument and say that there is a grand or primordial morality that is fine. However, none of us know what that is. If we did, there would only be one strain of morality on this planet and, you and I would not be having this conversation.


By all means, continue to get your worldview from Webster's. I'm not here to change your reality.

I prefer to get my worldview from the ground, in the real world. It's not my problem if you don't want to recognize a morality greater than your immediate surroundings.

Those "foreigners" aren't as different as you seem to imply. A vast number of them only want the same things we do, to live, and love, and get on with the business of life.

It's the amoral few, who want to foist a subjective, opressor-defined "morality" on them who throw a wrench in the works.




posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka


LOL.... now that's hilarious. In the past year I've been to Egypt, France, China, and of course the USA...

What's my experience have to do with the ability to comprehend the abstract differences and similarities between cultures?


Because you have to experience those cultures to even HAVE a valid opinion of their similarities and differences.

I note that you say you've "been to" these counties. How deeply did you experience those cultures?

Was it just a jet-set globe-trotting expedition to sample exotic wines?

Or did you get in the trenches with the 'real' people in those countries? Bring home any Nile mud under your fingernails?

If not, then it was just a Globalist Master Race World Tour, to see the subjects in their natural habitat.

That's like the difference between standing at the rail and looking at a tiger in the zoo, and petting the tiger in a jungle.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Its too bad it took people this long to start complaining.

We let it happen by playing into the game that they began. And we actually thought that by electing in someone from the same two parties was really going to make a difference.

Maybe if people had awakened a long time ago there would have been a chance. But, as it stands, they own us now.

We'll see who has the fortitude to stand up when the time comes.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOtheories
Its too bad it took people this long to start complaining.

We let it happen by playing into the game that they began. And we actually thought that by electing in someone from the same two parties was really going to make a difference.

Maybe if people had awakened a long time ago there would have been a chance. But, as it stands, they own us now.

We'll see who has the fortitude to stand up when the time comes.


"They" may own SOME of us now, and from what I can see, apparently do, so to a degree you are correct in that assessment.

I started complaining years ago. I'm done with complaining through 'official' channels now, since I've seen how well it was received and acted upon. I saw where it got us. It fell on deaf ears.

Unfortunately, I've gone rogue already, and I'm pretty sure there are more like me. They don't own me, and when the time comes, I'm relatively confident I will have the fortitude to stand. Until I'm cut down, that is.

You can't 'own' a free man. The most you can do is kill him.

[edit on 2009/6/2 by nenothtu]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Sorry I cant hold back any longer.
You found a new friend N!
I hear what you are saying and you have my respect. Me too.
And I agree with others also, we've screwed the pooch and it's mad!
Can you blame it?



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I never used the word "foreigners" so I do not know why you quote it. I was raised in Queens, NY surrounded by foreigners (I am a third generation American). My friends have run almost the entire spectrum of "foreigners". You implying that I think they are so different is ludicrous. I have also lived for two years in London, England. I would not bring any of this up. Who really cares. However, you argue as if I were not knowledgeable about people and culture. You are wrong.
Yes, I believe when you get right down to it people are mostly the same, aside from a few bad apples. We want love, freedom, safety, blah, blah...
Morality still changes culture to culture. Sorry. It was (and still is in some places) moral to stone an adulterer, it is not moral here. "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" was moral in some places. It is not here.
I can go on and on. Morality changes from place to place and time to time.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dodadoom
 


Thank you. I've had a feeling all along that there were more of 'me' out there.

That's something the Lords of the Manor won't realize until it's too late.

They might take 'us' down, but when they do, the infrastructure they depend on goes with us, and that will be a bad day for 'them'. No more lattes. Oh, the inhumanity and anguish of it all!

In 55-52 b.c., Vercingetorix had it right. If the Romans want to destroy us, then all of our substance should go too. Scorched earth and villages. Area denial. Make the prize useless to them. Deny resupply.

If it hadn't been for the recalcitrance of one area, he'd have won, and kicked Roman butt all the way back to Rome, instead of being cornered and captured at Alesia.

I learned something from his mistake.

nenothtu out

[edit on 2009/6/2 by nenothtu]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by really
 


So you weren't speaking of 'foreign' cultures, but American transplants? I apologize. That was obviously my mistake.

The fact remains that there are quantitative and qualitative differences between a transplanted culture in Queens, or London for that matter, and the original culture on the Home Turf.

There is a difference between, say, shaking hands with a muslim in Queens, and participating in the slaughter and feast of Eid al-Fitr in an Afghan village.

Just because an individual engages in a behavior within a particular culture, it doesn't necessarily follow that the behavior is 'moral' to that culture, even within your subjective context.

"Stoning" an adulterer and dragging them to court to make them pay an exhorbitant alimony are precisely the same thing, a punishment for an immoral behavior. It's only a matter of degree.

[edit on 2009/6/2 by nenothtu]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


"Just because an individual engages in a behavior within a particular culture, it doesn't necessarily follow that the behavior is 'moral' to that culture, even within your subjective context."
I would argue that morals may also be different person to person and not just culture to culture.
As for degrees of punishment: I think morals also would affect what a person would consider the 'right' or 'correct' degree of punishment for a crime. Which is why some people or cultures believe in the death penalty and others do not.
Either way, it's been an interesting conversation.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by really
 


I can agree to this point: the PERCEPTION of morals varies from person to person, and possibly culture to culture. But that's circular, and goes back to the original discussion of 'absolute' morals vs. 'relative' morals.

In the end, all cultures seem to possess the same 'absolute' morals, but perception affects the 'relative' degree of enforcement.

Yes' it's been an interesting discussion. Thank you.

nenothtu out

[edit on 2009/6/2 by nenothtu]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


HA! I can't help but get a final word in here (to which I'm sure you will respond). Perception of morals vs absolute morals. I said earlier that if you wish to believe in a set of absolute morals I can understand that argument. However, there is no way for we here one earth, in the flesh, to know what those might be. So, 'perception morals' is all that we have. Thus, while certain forms of morality might remain the same others will certainly change.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by really
reply to post by nenothtu
 


HA! I can't help but get a final word in here (to which I'm sure you will respond). Perception of morals vs absolute morals. I said earlier that if you wish to believe in a set of absolute morals I can understand that argument. However, there is no way for we here one earth, in the flesh, to know what those might be. So, 'perception morals' is all that we have. Thus, while certain forms of morality might remain the same others will certainly change.


As I said before, I'm not here to change your reality. It's better to just agree to disagree.

Therefore, I allow you the last word, and it stands as it is. Thanks for the debate.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Fair enough. I can agree with that.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by HunkaHunka


LOL.... now that's hilarious. In the past year I've been to Egypt, France, China, and of course the USA...

What's my experience have to do with the ability to comprehend the abstract differences and similarities between cultures?


Because you have to experience those cultures to even HAVE a valid opinion of their similarities and differences.

I note that you say you've "been to" these counties. How deeply did you experience those cultures?

Was it just a jet-set globe-trotting expedition to sample exotic wines?

Or did you get in the trenches with the 'real' people in those countries? Bring home any Nile mud under your fingernails?

If not, then it was just a Globalist Master Race World Tour, to see the subjects in their natural habitat.

That's like the difference between standing at the rail and looking at a tiger in the zoo, and petting the tiger in a jungle.



Yes, for the blind those experiences are a requirement. For the rational however, one has only to look at history to understand that there is no absolute morality. There is however cultural morality. This is expressed easily when you look at pre-Roman times in all areas of the world. Each tribe had it's own God or Gods or Goddesses, and each tribe had it's own sense of morality.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 
Do you know and realize how our predecessors defeated their foes against all odds? They used their greatest weapon, which was their mind!

Also, do you really think that the number of americans and our neighbors globally that are awake to what's happening are very significant? We will be like david versus goliath, but if we use our heads, once again we can prevail!

Waging war without a plan is certain death, but waging an intelligent war based on calculations and tactical preferences cannot and will not lose!



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


It's good to know there are superior beings such as yourself who can 'rationalize' things they have no experience of via textbooks, when the plain, raw experience of it is available to all who care to experience it first hand.

Us 'blind' folks will continue to get our information at the source, without the blinders of academic filters.

A word to the Superior Beings: don't try to bring an academic rationalization into the trenches. Reality has a way of eating that rationalization alive.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


It's good to know there are superior beings such as yourself who can 'rationalize' things they have no experience of via textbooks, when the plain, raw experience of it is available to all who care to experience it first hand.

Us 'blind' folks will continue to get our information at the source, without the blinders of academic filters.

A word to the Superior Beings: don't try to bring an academic rationalization into the trenches. Reality has a way of eating that rationalization alive.


It's called extrapolation...

It's nothing a superior being does...

It's what humans do... Unless they are being intellectually dishonest with themselves.

Yes, it's not a claim to my supremacy but a claim to the emotionality of the human race at large that bias exists. One can however come to realizations through the study of peoples through sociology and anthropology and in conjunction with their own experiences come to the basic conclusion that different cultures have different moralities...

But it does require them to see themselves, their culture, their situation, their religion, and their logic as something that exists along with others which are completely different.

Now let's go back to your original statement which has been shown to be false...


Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


"Morality" is an absolute. It's not dependent on what a "group" wants, it exists entirely outside the "group", or "collective", and independent thereof. It's "right", and "wrong" and not subject to legislation.

Your kind of morality would condone the erasure of an individual simply because the "group" wanted them to go away, not necessarily because of anything they had done to injure the "group".



We've already established that each group has different moralities... so there is no "absolute morality" as you have asserted.


Secondly, more's which constitute the whole of a groups morality do not emanate from top down, but rather from bottom up. It's not a group dictation of a formalism, it's the emergent of an informal sense of priorities and concerns which defines a group, and eventually becomes codified as a formal system of morality. Such as what Hammurabi was attempting to do with his code of laws... Codify the collective sensibilities of justice...



[edit on 2-6-2009 by HunkaHunka]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


I aspire to someday be 'intellectually honest' enough with myself to realize that the evidence before my eyes is not reality at all, and that the 'truth' proceeds only from the halls and textbooks of academia, sociological discussions at cocktail parties and such like.

Then I will know that 'truth' is not truth at all, the evidence of my eyes is not really there at all, and that all reality is in truth what a remote academia defines it to be. I will realize that the evidence of my eyes is not REALLY there at all, but is only a mask for whatever it is you WANT me to see.

When that day comes, and my intellect has been expanded and made 'honest', I might be able to figure out what in the devil you're trying to say in that last post.

However, until that day of dawning enlightenment comes, I will continue to believe what my eyes and experiences tell me, over any text book.

Until that day comes, I will continue to perceive truth as that which puts blood on my hands, dirt under my fingernails, and defiance in my heart.

I reckon I'm just a low-brow, intellectually challenged Neanderthal after all.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

We've already established that each group has different moralities... so there is no "absolute morality" as you have asserted.

[edit on 2-6-2009 by HunkaHunka]


Unless you have a mouse in your pocket, "we" haven't established any such thing.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by James Random

By constantly recycling the same boring, dusty old people who used extraordinarily long and unecessary words, produced documents 500 pages too long for what they were supposed to be communicating and generally arguing like children until people decided American Idol was much more interesting and switched channels.


Smart people can generate as well as read a long document as well as watch American Idol.

Guess what that says about those who can only watch American Idol.

The smartest people I know create things not just sit on their asses waiting to consume entertainment.

They end up making decisions for others because they've learned how to.


Mike



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join