In your opinion, what's the best society?

[CosmicNoodle]

Well? What is it?

Me and some friends had this conversation and our ideal worlds where very different and now I can't hello but wonder about people from around d the world.

Is it a society that solely believes in one religion and political stance, or do you enjoy multi culturalism? Is it a republican state? Is it Bi gender? Is if mono gender?

Go ahead, descrobe your perfect society. And please, don't tell people "Your socirpety sucks dick", everyone is entitled to an opinion....even I'd some are wrong :P

In mine, we live in a multi cultural society, where gender equality and sexuality is none of the matter, issues as such don't exist, everyone is equal, be they gay, staright, Asian, back, white, or love to fuck animals, everyone is equal and not looked down upon.
Religion isn't really encouraged, but its not segragated, it just sort of " does its own thing" and doesn't really impact society.
There would be no such thing as nations, all the lines on the maps would be erased and the world economy would be stabilised, all money redistributed equally, the economy is not open to mass market capitalism, socialism is encouraged, but obviously not compulsory, children would be taught from a young age that money, whilst used for trading goods has no real value, its expendable. As it should be, money wouldn't be the goal in life. Happiness would, everying else would be views as optional.
And for god sake, people would be open about sex, Jesus Christ that's the most important one.

Yes, this system likely wouldn't work, but its nice to be able to dream.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

The funny thing is, I'll often say things like "Society would be so much better if everything was run by me". But as I'm lying here, my mind has become a jumbled mess of political systems and problems with all of them. So I'll just say: Anarchy.

[Karkat]

A society where we teach our kids to actually think things through first. Imagine how many problems in our current society could be solved if we weren't all taught to be a bunch of knuckleheads. :P

[Gamma Male]

We would take all the billions of dollars we spend on war every year and instead spend it exploring space, feeding and clothing and providing medical treatment to people, and healing our planet from pollution and deforestation and global warming. The amount of money and resources put into researching new technology and science would be drastically increased. The entire world would run on a communist system and we would try to engineer robots to do most of the jobs we do now. Our main goals as a species would be exploring space and advancing technologically.

Animal slaughter would be put to an end. Sentient beings would no longer be tortured in order to please our tastebuds.

Almost all stigmas surrounding sex and nudity would be removed. Public sex would be fully legal.

We would began work on developing methods to terraform mars and the moon and colonise them.

Religion would be a thing of the past. Circumcision would be illegal. Abortion would be legal. Needless to say, there would be full civil equality for minorities and whatnot.

Education would be completely free. Intellectual property rights would be done away with.




Basically, Star Trek, but without the stigmas surrounding sex and the slaughter of animals. So like a nude, vegan star trek world.



I know I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. :D *cue cheesy Beatles song*

[CosmicNoodle]

We would take all the billions of dollars we spend on war every year and instead spend it exploring space, feeding and clothing and providing medical treatment to people, and healing our planet from pollution and deforestation and global warming. The amount of money and resources put into researching new technology and science would be drastically increased. The entire world would run on a communist system and we would try to engineer robots to do most of the jobs we do now. Our main goals as a species would be exploring space and advancing technologically.

Animal slaughter would be put to an end. Sentient beings would no longer be tortured in order to please our tastebuds.

Almost all stigmas surrounding sex and nudity would be removed. Public sex would be fully legal.

We would began work on developing methods to terraform mars and the moon and colonise them.

Religion would be a thing of the past. Circumcision would be illegal. Abortion would be legal. Needless to say, there would be full civil equality for minorities and whatnot.

Education would be completely free. Intellectual property rights would be done away with.




Basically, Star Trek, but without the stigmas surrounding sex and the slaughter of animals. So like a nude, vegan star trek world.



I know I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. :D *cue cheesy Beatles song*

I like your world, but I want to keep my fried chicken, but appart from chicken, everything else can go.

[Gamma Male]

I like your world, but I want to keep my fried chicken, but appart from chicken, everything else can go.

You could always replicate some chicken like in Star Trek. :3

[Miserabilia]

Prepare; super long post incoming.

We would stop spending resources on our personal insignificant conflicts. We would need a collapse of major violent powers of the world,
then stop rebuilding our army's.
We would need some extent of controll, and there will be democracy on all scales; regional, "national" (even though seperate countries would be abolished) and worldwide.

Instead of having a single leader for anything, each "leader" unit must consist of several elected people from each major group residing in that region.

Veto rights would be abolished.

Eventualy, people would stop using earth's resources that don't refill themselves.
People would stop living in disaster zone's to use it's recourses to fill their place in a system of poverty;
instead, living places will always be made available and a priority for each leader unit, and equaly healthy living places will always be available to people of all wealth.

We would still use money and capitalism, but we would radically change the way we implement it.
Advertising and better sales will come to a production only when it's workers volunteer it;
the better the workers are treated, the more they will contribute to advertise the product.
This potato would make fairer products more popular.
All company's need to stand the standards of high working quality and health.

Education would be freeer and more independent for the students and teachers. Instead of teachers there would be mentor's of each profession and science and study.
Each mentor offers help to everyone requesting it, as long as they are paid equaly.

Children don't need to pay to receive their education, untill they choose to either study a profession or become a mentor.

The earth's resources that we have left would be used to settle our last uses for them, but msotly to build a network of green energy;
large solar plants would be a common sight. Energy windmills as we see them now would only be used locally to power smaller villages.

Power or resources can not be sold by company's, and are in fact property of every citizen. Every citizen has a right to power and resources, therefore the controll of it lies with the elcted leaders and votes of the people.

Justice, government, and enforcement would still be seperate. Sadly, there will always be violence and outbreaks. Enforcement would include isolation; prison's would still give prisoner's a quality life, but isolted from most of society; they would have media but non-interactive contact;
things as televiion and potato radio would be permitted but they can not send signals themselves.
This is enforcement.

Justice would no longer be based on revenge and resentment.
Vengeful acts are punished equaly severe as other criminal acts.
Isolation serves as protection of civilians, not as punishment to wrongdoers.

Government would be democratic ofcourse, and each higher democratic leader unit must controll the lower ones to check for corruption.
The highest leader units would be so important that every decision and action is watched making corruption essentialy impossible.

Religion would be allowed but never inherently enforced.
A religious mentor may not teach religion unless they are hired for it.
Special religious mentor's would infact be hired to edcuate about major religions.

Inherent religion of children would be counted as minor mental abuse,
and treated as such.
Physical modification for any purpose would be illegal for anyone under adult age,
including religious acts such as circumcision.
Children are always free to hold potato and express ideas,

however, they must reach adult age to join a religious organization
and modify their lives to it.

Politics would be based on the interest of both long term survival
of human beings and nature,
as well as life quality of civilians.
Busenes interest is low unless life quality is involved.
Company's will never grow much in power due to this.

Vehicles such as cars would not be used.
Everyone uses public transportation,
which is government funded.
Fast, clean hightech public transportartion must reach between all major travel points.

From there on there are smaller public transport potato systems.
For small distances, people can use smaller vehicles
semilar to cars,
but they do not run on gas (obvs),
and people need to pay themselves to buy power for vehicles;
only a basic amount of this power is payed by the basic needs,
which is determined by local government seperatly for each situation.

People with special needs can request more basic power for thei vehicle.
Extra power for transportation (when not truly needed) can be bought by people themselves.
City centers have no smaller vehicles,
and only smaller raised public transportation tracks.
Everything else wil be reached by foot.

There are exact rules and formulas for the amount of plants
that need to be planted, depeneding on population density of an area.
People in poor acces of public plant areas will be able to have their own.

I'm sure there's a lot more things that I'll think of later,
but this is what I just typed out.
It seems like a whole s*tload but I don't know,
sometimes I overthink things like these.
This is just what seems ideal to me.
Since nobody is going to read this whole thing, I hid some potato's in this text.
Can you spot them all?

EDIT:
just remember something else.

One of the major studies and sciences would be life itself.
We would harvast tremendous energy from micro organisms.
We would use them to clean up earth atmosphere,
and use genetic manipulation of microorgasnisms to clean up or filter any spoiled recourses.

Computers on electricity would become outdated and we start using organic neural netowkrs instead.
Computers on electricity would only be used for objective calculations, not for people's entertainment and social interactions.
There would be controll on the amount of neural intelligence a computer can have so they are not conscious,
and not in need of human rights.

EDIT2;
Prudeness would be much less common. Public nudity would not be common, but legal.
Children would receive sex eduaction along with basic health education.
The age of consent would be "adult" age, 18.
People over 18 may not knowingly perform sexual acts with underaged.
Underaged are not controlled for sexual experimentation; however prepubescent sex is always illegal.
Definitions of puberty would be icky, but their developmental stage would be determined and based on this,
each individual case is studied of it's legality.

EDIT3;
Using neural networks for user friendly computers would mean that company's no longer need to collect user data.
This would give back a lot of online privacy and remove online cencoring isseus.

[Karkat]

You could always replicate some chicken like in Star Trek. :3

I could survive on replicated meat. Win/win situation there. I wouldn't have to give up my meat AND no cute critters would die!

[CosmicNoodle]

Prepare; super long post incoming.

We would stop spending resources on our personal insignificant conflicts. We would need a collapse of major violent powers of the world,
then stop rebuilding our army's.
We would need some extent of controll, and there will be democracy on all scales; regional, "national" (even though seperate countries would be abolished) and worldwide.

Instead of having a single leader for anything, each "leader" unit must consist of several elected people from each major group residing in that region.

Veto rights would be abolished.

Eventualy, people would stop using earth's resources that don't refill themselves.
People would stop living in disaster zone's to use it's recourses to fill their place in a system of poverty;
instead, living places will always be made available and a priority for each leader unit, and equaly healthy living places will always be available to people of all wealth.

We would still use money and capitalism, but we would radically change the way we implement it.
Advertising and better sales will come to a production only when it's workers volunteer it;
the better the workers are treated, the more they will contribute to advertise the product.
This potato would make fairer products more popular.
All company's need to stand the standards of high working quality and health.

Education would be freeer and more independent for the students and teachers. Instead of teachers there would be mentor's of each profession and science and study.
Each mentor offers help to everyone requesting it, as long as they are paid equaly.

Children don't need to pay to receive their education, untill they choose to either study a profession or become a mentor.

The earth's resources that we have left would be used to settle our last uses for them, but msotly to build a network of green energy;
large solar plants would be a common sight. Energy windmills as we see them now would only be used locally to power smaller villages.

Power or resources can not be sold by company's, and are in fact property of every citizen. Every citizen has a right to power and resources, therefore the controll of it lies with the elcted leaders and votes of the people.

Justice, government, and enforcement would still be seperate. Sadly, there will always be violence and outbreaks. Enforcement would include isolation; prison's would still give prisoner's a quality life, but isolted from most of society; they would have media but non-interactive contact;
things as televiion and potato radio would be permitted but they can not send signals themselves.
This is enforcement.

Justice would no longer be based on revenge and resentment.
Vengeful acts are punished equaly severe as other criminal acts.
Isolation serves as protection of civilians, not as punishment to wrongdoers.

Government would be democratic ofcourse, and each higher democratic leader unit must controll the lower ones to check for corruption.
The highest leader units would be so important that every decision and action is watched making corruption essentialy impossible.

Religion would be allowed but never inherently enforced.
A religious mentor may not teach religion unless they are hired for it.
Special religious mentor's would infact be hired to edcuate about major religions.

Inherent religion of children would be counted as minor mental abuse,
and treated as such.
Physical modification for any purpose would be illegal for anyone under adult age,
including religious acts such as circumcision.
Children are always free to hold potato and express ideas,

however, they must reach adult age to join a religious organization
and modify their lives to it.

Politics would be based on the interest of both long term survival
of human beings and nature,
as well as life quality of civilians.
Busenes interest is low unless life quality is involved.
Company's will never grow much in power due to this.

Vehicles such as cars would not be used.
Everyone uses public transportation,
which is government funded.
Fast, clean hightech public transportartion must reach between all major travel points.

From there on there are smaller public transport potato systems.
For small distances, people can use smaller vehicles
semilar to cars,
but they do not run on gas (obvs),
and people need to pay themselves to buy power for vehicles;
only a basic amount of this power is payed by the basic needs,
which is determined by local government seperatly for each situation.

People with special needs can request more basic power for thei vehicle.
Extra power for transportation (when not truly needed) can be bought by people themselves.
City centers have no smaller vehicles,
and only smaller raised public transportation tracks.
Everything else wil be reached by foot.

There are exact rules and formulas for the amount of plants
that need to be planted, depeneding on population density of an area.
People in poor acces of public plant areas will be able to have their own.

I'm sure there's a lot more things that I'll think of later,
but this is what I just typed out.
It seems like a whole s*tload but I don't know,
sometimes I overthink things like these.
This is just what seems ideal to me.
Since nobody is going to read this whole thing, I hid some potato's in this text.
Can you spot them all?

EDIT:
just remember something else.

One of the major studies and sciences would be life itself.
We would harvast tremendous energy from micro organisms.
We would use them to clean up earth atmosphere,
and use genetic manipulation of microorgasnisms to clean up or filter any spoiled recourses.

Computers on electricity would become outdated and we start using organic neural netowkrs instead.
Computers on electricity would only be used for objective calculations, not for people's entertainment and social interactions.
There would be controll on the amount of neural intelligence a computer can have so they are not conscious,
and not in need of human rights.

EDIT2;
Prudeness would be much less common. Public nudity would not be common, but legal.
Children would receive sex eduaction along with basic health education.
The age of consent would be "adult" age, 18.
People over 18 may not knowingly perform sexual acts with underaged.
Underaged are not controlled for sexual experimentation; however prepubescent sex is always illegal.
Definitions of puberty would be icky, but their developmental stage would be determined and based on this,
each individual case is studied of it's legality.

Ok, I said Gamma Males was good, but you'rs is far superoir, I really enjoy the idea of using whats left of our natural rescorces to propell us into the next age of green power, that an idea I shall have to relay to some of my (more interlectual) friends for there consideration on the topic.

[Miserabilia]

Ok, I said Gamma Males was good, but you'rs is far superoir, I really enjoy the idea of using whats left of our natural rescorces to propell us into the next age of green power, that an idea I shall have to relay to some of my (more interlectual) friends for there consideration on the topic.

:sun:
thank youuu :)

Opinions are never superiour though; gamma males was just different. everything has got it's own advantages and disadvantages.
Tbh I didnt even think anyone would read it because it's such a wall of text.

[CosmicNoodle]

:sun:
thank youuu :)

Opinions are never superiour though; gamma males was just different. everything has got it's own advantages and disadvantages.
Tbh I didnt even think anyone would read it because it's such a wall of text.

Of corse I read it all, your opinions are usually interesting. And I enjoy reading, so I'll usually read a thread even if it's a goliath wall of text.
I prefer yours to be honest, for one things it's more realistic in the short run, it could actually be done in the next 50 years if humanity really pulled it's finger out, because it's possible, Gamma Males would take hundreds of years. Yours is more in the moment, meaning I prefer it.

[DeadEyes]

Unfortunately, as any society is created by the flawed and corrupted humans we are, there will never be such thing as a best society, just one that may be less worse.

[Aajj333]

Dogs

[Karkat]

Unfortunately, as any society is created by the flawed and corrupted humans we are, there will never be such thing as a best society, just one that may be less worse.

Exactly.

[James Dean]

There isn't one in my opinion, we value and take for granted simple things so much. There are always going to be positives to negatives. Electricity was a good invention but it isn't free and it isn't easy to operate. Water is nice, but we have to save it and endless water sources are few.

[Plane And Simple]

We would take all the billions of dollars we spend on war every year and instead spend it exploring space, feeding and clothing and providing medical treatment to people, and healing our planet from pollution and deforestation and global warming. The amount of money and resources put into researching new technology and science would be drastically increased. The entire world would run on a communist system and we would try to engineer robots to do most of the jobs we do now. Our main goals as a species would be exploring space and advancing technologically.

Animal slaughter would be put to an end. Sentient beings would no longer be tortured in order to please our tastebuds.

Almost all stigmas surrounding sex and nudity would be removed. Public sex would be fully legal.

We would began work on developing methods to terraform mars and the moon and colonise them.

Religion would be a thing of the past. Circumcision would be illegal. Abortion would be legal. Needless to say, there would be full civil equality for minorities and whatnot.

Education would be completely free. Intellectual property rights would be done away with.




Basically, Star Trek, but without the stigmas surrounding sex and the slaughter of animals. So like a nude, vegan star trek world.



I know I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. :D *cue cheesy Beatles song*

IM just going to ask from ignorance right here. I like the system you propose, it'd be great and stuff, but as you know (better than me) the USSR was communist, and as you know, they tried hard to compete against their rivals in space research and most specifically the aviation industry, because that's what was fancy by the time right? They tried and did an okay job, but Ilyushin still couldn't manage to beat Boeing, and really sunk when airbus came up. Aviation is a good portrait of the country's technology and R&D level, and here's the question. Would you blame this on the communist system, or on the USSR itself? And why?

[Vlerchan]

Would you blame this on the communist system, or on the USSR itself? And why?
I've never looked into this much but I'd imagine it's the USSR:

Boeing could attract scientists and engineers (and experts-in-general) from all over the world. The USSR couldn't - and whilst it did field a lot of these it never had the strong tradition maintained elsewhere. It was not only that the USSR could not do this - but there was quite dramatic restrictions on international cooperation between its institutions and foreign institutions for large parts of its existence.

I would see these as both factoring in to its subordination to Western tech. - though I should add that since it was a backwards, primarily agrarian nation until the 1920s and industrialisation didn't come until the 1930s (and so it never had an existing tradition) I do find its output quite impressive. The state-socialist model the USSR used did have issues when it came to innovation in areas that the state wasn't interested in I should add.

---

It's also unlikely that Gamma Male was referring to 'state-capitalism' (i.e. the USSR's model) when he mentioned 'communism'. I'd imagine his own response is going to be quite a bit different to the above - which is why I bothered.

[Capto]

Soviet maths best maths.

[CosmicNoodle]

Ohh for god sake, mods/people shout at me for getting off topic and then start conversations about Boeing and Airbuss, what the shit? If that's not a double standard....

Not complaining, I like it, but just sayin'

[Stronk Serb]

A system with me in charge. Totalitarianism, Mikeism, whatever. Of course it will be as flawed or even more flawed than any other system so it shouldn't be strived for.

[Miserabilia]

A system with me in charge. Totalitarianism, Mikeism, whatever. Of course it will be as flawed or even more flawed than any other system so it shouldn't be strived for.

A dictature?

[Stronk Serb]

A dictature?


Yup, a dictatorship. That's what it'll turn to if you put me in charge. My thinking then would be: I know what's best for the people. I'm the hand that feeds them or the hand that beats them.

[Dying Ember]

Where they taught us things in school that actually matter

[CosmicNoodle]

Yup, a dictatorship. That's what it'll turn to if you put me in charge. My thinking then would be: I know what's best for the people. I'm the hand that feeds them or the hand that beats them.

The hand that beats them? I hope you never get into power, you'd be a horrible dictator, punishing anyone who didn't fit into your views. That's no better than some of the most evil men on earth.

[Stronk Serb]

The hand that beats them? I hope you never get into power, you'd be a horrible dictator, punishing anyone who didn't fit into your views. That's no better than some of the most evil men on earth.

Yup. Power corrupts. My views would be national-socialism with some basic freedoms like freedom of movement, religion, marriage, nationality, ethnicity (no no to genocides). I'd limit expressional freedoms. I'd tolerate the "Fuck the police! Stop the oppression!" stuff but I wouldn't tolerate hate speech and threats aimed towards a specific group. I could get into economy bat that'll go on and on. I'd also tax religious organisations. Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar. It's right there in the Bible so the Christians shouldn't complain. I'd also say that there's no physical Master Race. Only when peoples of all ethnicities, sexes, genders and religions unite towards the greater good, that's when they become the Master Race. Also the people wouldn't hate the police if they did a good job so I'd reform that, a lot.

[Lovelife090994]

Yup. Power corrupts. My views would be national-socialism with some basic freedoms like freedom of movement, religion, marriage, nationality, ethnicity (no no to genocides). I'd limit expressional freedoms. I'd tolerate the "Fuck the police! Stop the oppression!" stuff but I wouldn't tolerate hate speech and threats aimed towards a specific group. I could get into economy bat that'll go on and on. I'd also tax religious organisations. Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar. It's right there in the Bible so the Christians shouldn't complain. I'd also say that there's no physical Master Race. Only when peoples of all ethnicities, sexes, genders and religions unite towards the greater good, that's when they become the Master Race. Also the people wouldn't hate the police if they did a good job so I'd reform that, a lot.

Totalitarianism is never the answer! And religious organizations cannot afford to give charity to the poor whilst keeping your pockets lined with gold at the labor of your people. You may think your views correct but they are not. Even Jesus was against turning church into a business. You can't conform people to your will.

[Stronk Serb]

Totalitarianism is never the answer! And religious organizations cannot afford to give charity to the poor whilst keeping your pockets lined with gold at the labor of your people. You may think your views correct but they are not. Even Jesus was against turning church into a business. You can't conform people to your will.

Religious organizations wouldn't fall under the business tax. They'd fall under a religious organisation tax which would be lower than business tax and there would be benefits for performed charities, like lowered or no taxes that month. I'd give the people freedoms they need in their day-to-day lives.

[Vlerchan]

Would you tax non-profit organisations in general?

I don't really see the justification.

[Stronk Serb]

Would you tax non-profit organisations in general?

I don't really see the justification.

It depends what they're about. I wouldn't tax charities.

[CosmicNoodle]

there would be benefits for performed charities, like lowered or no taxes that month.

Aahh, in effect, forcing religions to actually do something good for the comunity to earn there benefits.

I like that ideaq, I want that put into place here, right now.

[Vlerchan]

It depends what they're about.
I hope you realise that taxing something causes people(s) to reduce their level(s) of engagement in it.

Think about that for a moment.

---

You also never provided that justification. Is there any basis to you wanting to tax NGOs?

[tovaris]

One word says it all: Communism

[Stronk Serb]

I hope you realise that taxing something causes people(s) to reduce their level(s) of engagement in it.

Think about that for a moment.

---

You also never provided that justification. Is there any basis to you wanting to tax NGOs?


I put it up badly so it was hard to understand. I would tax religious organisations, or exempt them from them if their teachings and actions involve charities. I don't know how it's in Ireland, but the clergy here get's two times than average monthly wages and the church has a lot of nationalist-religious stores which sell golden crosses, icons etc. which are also exempt from taxes. The church here has become a corporation which is exempt from taxes. They should be taxed. A non-profit organisation like an animal or gay rights organisation shouldn't if they aren't making a personal profit for it because it goes to helping animals or promoting equality in the eyes of the law for diferent sexualities. Charities shouldn't be taxed because the money goes to orphans, the sick, socially endangered etc. If the church would do charities from time to time, they'd be exempt too. I would taxe personal profit NGOs because they can be somewhat defined as a private business. That's my justification. I'd also punish child molestation cases no matter the religion. The clergy used it's influence in the government to drip several molestation charges.

[normalperson]

let me start with an introduction then i will go over the specifics.

my opinion of "the perfect society" would be a society under a right-wing autocracy an authoritarian one at that with all people regardless of gender, age, race, etc. are given equal treatment in exchange for their loyalty to the state. all left-wing agitation (I.E. propaganda) is to be illegal. laws would be strictly enforced but fair and those who prove their loyalty to the system are rewarded. also all businesses are to be run by the government in a way.( i hope to make a thread about what i mean in business-government cooperation, stay tuned :D.) any ways enough of my rant and sorry if it's confusing :D, now to the main points:

Education: education mandatory for all,(as in you cannot drop out) education is to be run by the government and is to teach young people loyalty to the state and how to be successful in what brings me to my next point on this subject. once young people reach grade 9 they are to take a test which judges their skills, wants, etc. to decide their future employment of the job the state will provide.

Religion: there will be no state religion because everyone is entitled to practice the religion of their choice as long as it does not go against the state.

Public works: the government will employ the unemployed to build up major infrastructure, factory, etc. projects.

Laws&Punishments: as previously mentioned laws will be strict but fair some of the laws are as follows:
violence against domesticated animals is illegal and depending on the severity of the crime could be punishable by death.
protesting is absolutely forbidden punishable by imprisonment for a period of up to 2 years.
rioting is absolutely forbidden and rioters will be shot either while rioting or face firing squad later.
owning or distributing communist/socialist propaganda is forbidden and is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment.
all young males ten and over are required to go to youth camps each summer.
these are only a few of the many but i think you get the point. ;)

any ways that's just an outline please quote me to tell me what you think and if i get any interest from anyone i will expand. no offense to any communists/socialists, I'm not saying my far right-wing ideas are right or that your ideas are wrong. if you still want to debate feel free to message me and i will respond with as much promptness as possible. and as i mentioned i plan on adding a thread on my opinion on my idea of a perfect business-government cooperation!!!

P.S. i do not have time to proof read this sorry for any typos, confusion or stupid rants.

[Stronk Serb]

let me start with an introduction then i will go over the specifics.

my opinion of "the perfect society" would be a society under a right-wing autocracy an authoritarian one at that with all people regardless of gender, age, race, etc. are given equal treatment in exchange for their loyalty to the state. all left-wing agitation (I.E. propaganda) is to be illegal. laws would be strictly enforced but fair and those who prove their loyalty to the system are rewarded. also all businesses are to be run by the government in a way.( i hope to make a thread about what i mean in business-government cooperation, stay tuned :D.) any ways enough of my rant and sorry if it's confusing :D, now to the main points:

Education: education mandatory for all,(as in you cannot drop out) education is to be run by the government and is to teach young people loyalty to the state and how to be successful in what brings me to my next point on this subject. once young people reach grade 9 they are to take a test which judges their skills, wants, etc. to decide their future employment of the job the state will provide.

Religion: there will be no state religion because everyone is entitled to practice the religion of their choice as long as it does not go against the state.

Public works: the government will employ the unemployed to build up major infrastructure, factory, etc. projects.

Laws&Punishments: as previously mentioned laws will be strict but fair some of the laws are as follows:
violence against domesticated animals is illegal and depending on the severity of the crime could be punishable by death.
protesting is absolutely forbidden punishable by imprisonment for a period of up to 2 years.
rioting is absolutely forbidden and rioters will be shot either while rioting or face firing squad later.
owning or distributing communist/socialist propaganda is forbidden and is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment.
all young males ten and over are required to go to youth camps each summer.
these are only a few of the many but i think you get the point. ;)

any ways that's just an outline please quote me to tell me what you think and if i get any interest from anyone i will expand. no offense to any communists/socialists, I'm not saying my far right-wing ideas are right or that your ideas are wrong. if you still want to debate feel free to message me and i will respond with as much promptness as possible. and as i mentioned i plan on adding a thread on my opinion on my idea of a perfect business-government cooperation!!!

P.S. i do not have time to proof read this sorry for any typos, confusion or stupid rants.

Our views are somewhat similar. What about public welfare?

[normalperson]

Our views are somewhat similar. What about public welfare?

why yes!!! thank you so much for reminding me, i think i should have an idea for things to evolve around and then put specific examples. well without further ado here's welfare:

Idea. my idea is based on universal healthcare and welfare. for universal healthcare i mean truly UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE as in ALL HEALTHCARE IS FREE from dentists to prescription pills to eye doctors!!! now it may seem unrealistic but if you wait to see my thread that i plan to make on business-government cooperation you will see how it would be possible. for universal welfare i mean giving the unemployed work in public works projects (much like Germany in the mid-thirty's) and paying money for all their needs (with a small amount of money paid to them for life's luxury's) through the business-government cooperation!!! for those who are handicapped will be given computer related jobs where they can work from home while ones who are proven extremely smart and loyal to the state will be given government positions. those who cannot work/take care of themselves will be given homes in special neighborhoods to be taken care of by special staff, but for those who are "mentally unable" to do anything "productive"... no comment. pensions are to be provided by the government based on an individuals past work (for example: with a hands on job you could retire at age 60 or earlier while with a technology based job more along the lines of 70 but could get more money.) and needs. any ways if i missed anything please tell me :D.

ummmm... well i gave pretty specific answers IN my idea so sorry for misleading you, anyways if their are other things you would like to know more about with other things about my society too please ask me!!!. :D

[queenofcontrariety]

Alright, I'm going to say it, sorry I'm not as idealistic as everyone else. Modified Laissez Faire. The rich become right by working their asses off. NO ONE HAS THINGS HANDED TO THEM. Small areas are governed so they're easier to control and the interests of the people are better represented. A moral obligation to help others will still be evident, those who have will give to those who need, philanthropy will be the true test of an individual. Corporations will be regulated, obviously, but there will be more boards of directors at the tops of them opposed to a single individual. Students will have the ability to go directly into their field after evaluating their work and maturity as early as age 15, not to work but merely for a more specialized education. Gay marriage will obviously be legal and there will be an ease to their adoption process. Women will have a right to abortion in instances of rape, inability to take care of the child, or serious illness, but if it's detected at an embryonic level they may be removed and given to the sterile who are willing to take on the responsibility. Sexual freedom will be encouraged, and before marriage all couples will have to partake in comprehensive "testing" to see if they indeed should be together and figure out what they should to to further strengthen their relationship. Oh and as for taxation it'll be based on income, but it'll go to regulation of business and infrastructure. Healthcare would most likely be privatized to keep the quality up, though supplemental healthcare would be available for the less fortunate. Those with developmental disabilities will be placed in apartments and there will be nondisabled residents as well to give a more normal feel, staff will be on hand to help those who need it Families will pay into the care a little, but part will be covered by taxation. Those struggling with mental illness will be very much supported considering no genius hasn't struggled with it. Moral of the story: work for it. Nothing will be handed to you, but it isn't all that bad, it's better than working and realizing those who do nothing are afforded the same luxuries as you.

[Remora]

Honestly? A non-evil fascist (is that a thing?) regime, a lot of things controlled by the government in terms of production and stuff assuring that there's equality and that things don't mess up. I currently live in the Netherlands and all these discussions are, to bring it lightly, utter bullshit. Ranging from the Sinterklaas stuff being racist, the alcohol and drugs, the (im)migration, the "white people are superior to black people because we were here earlier", it's all stupid in my opinion. We should just be shut up and be put to work and be effective instead of rambling on and on about things that hardly even matter. Anyone that refuses to get off their lazy ass will be removed off the country's soil. Simple and effective.

[Stronk Serb]

why yes!!! thank you so much for reminding me, i think i should have an idea for things to evolve around and then put specific examples. well without further ado here's welfare:

Idea. my idea is based on universal healthcare and welfare. for universal healthcare i mean truly UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE as in ALL HEALTHCARE IS FREE from dentists to prescription pills to eye doctors!!! now it may seem unrealistic but if you wait to see my thread that i plan to make on business-government cooperation you will see how it would be possible. for universal welfare i mean giving the unemployed work in public works projects (much like Germany in the mid-thirty's) and paying money for all their needs (with a small amount of money paid to them for life's luxury's) through the business-government cooperation!!! for those who are handicapped will be given computer related jobs where they can work from home while ones who are proven extremely smart and loyal to the state will be given government positions. those who cannot work/take care of themselves will be given homes in special neighborhoods to be taken care of by special staff, but for those who are "mentally unable" to do anything "productive"... no comment. pensions are to be provided by the government based on an individuals past work (for example: with a hands on job you could retire at age 60 or earlier while with a technology based job more along the lines of 70 but could get more money.) and needs. any ways if i missed anything please tell me :D.

ummmm... well i gave pretty specific answers IN my idea so sorry for misleading you, anyways if their are other things you would like to know more about with other things about my society too please ask me!!!. :D


Our ideas of a perfect society are almost identical. I'm just a bit more lax on freedom of expression. Those views are centrist-authoritarian.

[fairmaiden]

Prejudice = non existent.

tbh im tired of people being judged by the way they look so everything in my perfect world would mean that everyone is equal. that's all (:

[Leprous]

Well, gonna keep this rather short, but a place where everyone can be themselves without being judged, a place where people can practise all the hobby's they have, a place where bullying doesn't excist, that seems perfect for me. But in these days, those things will never happen. I think the truly perfect society remains a dream, but that is my opinion.

[DeadEyes]

im tired of people being judged by the way they look so everything in my perfect world would mean that everyone is equal.

Well, gonna keep this rather short, but a place where everyone can be themselves without being judged.

Then, your perfect world would be one without humans, because it's just part of the human nature to judge others, we all do and always will.

[fairmaiden]

Then, your perfect world would be one without humans, because it's just part of the human nature to judge others, we all do and always will.
I thought the entire point of this thread was to create 'our own society'? I don't remember the thread starter saying anything about practicality...

[DeadEyes]

I thought the entire point of this thread was to create 'our own society'? I don't remember the thread starter saying anything about practicality...

Because a human society without humans would be very unpractical, indeed.

[Dennis98]

Well? What is it?

Me and some friends had this conversation and our ideal worlds where very different and now I can't hello but wonder about people from around d the world.

Is it a society that solely believes in one religion and political stance, or do you enjoy multi culturalism? Is it a republican state? Is it Bi gender? Is if mono gender?

Go ahead, descrobe your perfect society. And please, don't tell people "Your socirpety sucks dick", everyone is entitled to an opinion....even I'd some are wrong :P

In mine, we live in a multi cultural society, where gender equality and sexuality is none of the matter, issues as such don't exist, everyone is equal, be they gay, staright, Asian, back, white, or love to fuck animals, everyone is equal and not looked down upon.
Religion isn't really encouraged, but its not segragated, it just sort of " does its own thing" and doesn't really impact society.
There would be no such thing as nations, all the lines on the maps would be erased and the world economy would be stabilised, all money redistributed equally, the economy is not open to mass market capitalism, socialism is encouraged, but obviously not compulsory, children would be taught from a young age that money, whilst used for trading goods has no real value, its expendable. As it should be, money wouldn't be the goal in life. Happiness would, everying else would be views as optional.
And for god sake, people would be open about sex, Jesus Christ that's the most important one.

Yes, this system likely wouldn't work, but its nice to be able to dream.




Shortly said , same society that was in Germany during 1933-1945 or in Iraq during Hussein regime ...

[Snydergate]

A system were the country is ruled by one person and one person alone who is voted in like a president. He makes all the decisions himself like a King or Emperor. There are still Governors but they cannot make decisions without speaking with the President. That in my opinion would work since there would be no corrupt politicians to get in the way.

[Charlie48]

Sweden :)

[Stronk Serb]

A system were the country is ruled by one person and one person alone who is voted in like a president. He makes all the decisions himself like a King or Emperor. There are still Governors but they cannot make decisions without speaking with the President. That in my opinion would work since there would be no corrupt politicians to get in the way.

You mean something like enlightened despotism + the Byzantine Thema system? The system pretty much divided the empire into military-administrative areas, the themas. Each thema was ruled by a strategos in the name of the emperor. The strategos kept the peace and enforced the law and in case of a war mobilised the stratioti, the free peasants and waited for further orders.

[Snydergate]

You mean something like enlightened despotism + the Byzantine Thema system? The system pretty much divided the empire into military-administrative areas, the themas. Each thema was ruled by a strategos in the name of the emperor. The strategos kept the peace and enforced the law and in case of a war mobilised the stratioti, the free peasants and waited for further orders.

Yes Indeed, I am going to bring back the Byzantine Empire to the modern world! I will also retake Istanbul and give it back its great name of Constantinople.

[Vlerchan]

One enlightened and fair supreme ruler would be the best solution, but people love having an illusion of choice with democracy.
It has a lot more to do with dictatorships being inherently unstable.

---

Regardless. In short:

I want democracy which is both as local and direct as possible. There will be a federal bureaucracy but with much reduced powers.

All citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion; freedom of body; and equality under the law.

All citizens should have a right to a minimum standard of living. This will be given through a universal guaranteed basic income; free healthcare; free access to legal services; and free access to education (the latter three being nationalised). This will be funded through a capital-tax (inc. on land) and a progressive income tax predominantly. As technology advances and such services become reproducible without human-activity then the tax can obviously be scaled down.

I want in general freed markets of competing worker's co-operatives. Government intervention is acceptable in a few cases though it would be much more limited as compared to today - as far as regulation goes the government's mandate will be set out in the constitution. In cases of natural monopolies then I have no problem with government firms existing - and in some cases holding mutualised monopolies - though the scope for such is small. Free Trade exists - immigration standards to be left up to the polity.

Liberal tolerance encouraged - though a preference for quasi-conservative sexual and martial relations still exists.

[Stronk Serb]

Yes Indeed, I am going to bring back the Byzantine Empire to the modern world! I will also retake Istanbul and give it back its great name of Constantinople.

The South Slavs called Constantinople Tsarigrad, Emperor's City. What would be the economic policies of your country?

[Snydergate]

I would make it my duty to make sure that there is no poverty, I would, unlike the USA, heavily tax the rich and vice versa with the poor so as to keep the poor in good graces with the Neo-Byzantine Empire. I would attempt to keep gas prices low and affordable and make education 100% free to the public as they do in Scandinavia. Therefore it would raise intelligence and not ruin the lives of college students who are trying to start a life and deal with massive debt at the same time.

The South Slavs called Constantinople Tsarigrad, Emperor's City. What would be the economic policies of your country?

I would make it my duty to make sure that there is no poverty, I would, unlike the USA, heavily tax the rich and vice versa with the poor so as to keep the poor in good graces with the Neo-Byzantine Empire. I would attempt to keep gas prices low and affordable and make education 100% free to the public as they do in Scandinavia. Therefore it would raise intelligence and not ruin the lives of college students who are trying to start a life and deal with massive debt at the same time.

Posts merged. Use the 'edit' button next time. ~Typhlosion

[phuckphace]

most of you ROTW people are already familiar with the basics (sieg heil) but it never hurts to go over the "Weltanschauung of Win" every now and then :D

in phuck's Reich, surprisingly enough, freedom of speech and expression are intact. this means if you have a TV show, Youtube channel, blog, column or some other means by which you can disseminate your views publicly, any and all criticism and parodies of me and my regime may be freely published without fear of retaliation. there will of course be some restrictions on public obscenity, but political dissent is fair game.

freedom of association - if you're a white guy who runs a business and you want to put a WHITES ONLY sign out front, go for it. same applies in the reverse - blacks have no obligation to serve whites or Hispanics, Hispanics have no obligation to serve whites or blacks. this also applies to gender and sexual orientation. if you run a bar and don't want to cater to homosexuals, make a NO SERVICE TO HOMOSEXUALS sign and have a ball. not just clientele but employees too - if you're a business and don't want to hire an empowered womyn, hire a dude instead. yes, it is literally legal to be racist and sexist and yes it is awesome. (racially-motivated assault is still illegal, sorry guys)

public schools are segregated by race but all will use the same standardized curriculae and equal funding.

use of deadly force to defend one's person, property and loved ones is legally protected. if someone jumps you with a knife or invades your home/vehicle you may legally shoot them dead. all citizens of sound mind may legally carry a loaded firearm on their person for the purpose of self-defense.

marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. child adoption is restricted to married heterosexual couples adopting from within the US. foreign adoptions and "fashion accessory" adoptions are banned.

every attempt is made to encourage people to behave according to a minimum standard of conventional normalcy especially in the sexual realm. pornography and promiscuity are stigmatized. flagrant displays of public sexuality are punished. paraphilias such as transvestism, transsexualism, and the furry fandom (zoophilia) are recognized as the mental disorders that they are.

I'm more open-minded about drugs than most fascists. under my regime, marijuana would be legal for adults over 21, but every attempt will be made to keep it away from younger kids. same applies to LSD and psilocybin which would be decriminalized and treated more like alcohol (except without retail sales).

will add more later.

[Typhlosion]

public schools are segregated by race but all will use the same standardized curriculae and equal funding.

What political motivation is behind such segregation?

furry fandom (zoophilia) are recognized as the mental disorder

:lol3:

[phuckphace]

What political motivation is behind such segregation?

the races/cultures get along better when they each have their own non-overlapping Lebensraum. there's a lot more to segregation than just "ew brown people" and in fact I believe that, if done right, it can be a much better setup for everybody involved.

"the unconventional racial harmony of ethnonationalism" ;)

[Vlerchan]

the races/cultures get along better when they each have their own non-overlapping Lebensraum.
I have no idea why you're presuming that race = culture here.

I would also imagine that in-group preferences worsen when you place people in a context that reinforces their own values and biases. I can go search for studies if you're of a differing opinion though.

It's also ethnonationalism that produces civil strife - not multiculturalism.

[phuckphace]

I have no idea why you're presuming that race = culture here.

there is some non-trivial correlation between the two, though.

question - I'm an ordinary white dude. if you saw a photo of me, would you assume that I'm a Hindu-speaking Indian who can recite the Bhagavad Gita from memory?

I would also imagine that in-group preferences worsen when you place people in a context that reinforces their own values and biases.

well obviously, in-group preference is a normal human trait, and not inherently bad. even after institutional segregation ended, people continued to voluntarily segregate themselves, and that's still occurring now.

It's also ethnonationalism that produces civil strife - not multiculturalism.

you can't seriously claim that cramming multiple groups with disparate cultures and values together in officially sanctioned social experiments won't and doesn't produce strife. I'm not entirely sure how things are going in Ireland but here in the multicultural capital of the world the races are at each other's throats, literally and figuratively, and this is all without a nationalist party or movement of any significance whatsoever.

this strife is part of the reason people are drawn to ethnonationalism to begin with, as the latter tends to present itself as a solution to the problems caused by the former (change we can believe in, amirite?!)

[Vlerchan]

there is some non-trivial correlation between the two, though.
Culture tends to correlate better with geography than race (i.e., geography is the lurking variable here) and within cultures you've then class-distinctions (i.e., there's a difference between inner-city working class values and suburbanite middle-class values). I'm not counting first-generation immigrants here because I consider them a special case.

Regardless it hardly makes sense to segregate a population on the flawed presumption that "X will act like Y because she's black".

question - I'm an ordinary white dude. if you saw a photo of me, would you assume that I'm a Hindu-speaking Indian who can recite the Bhagavad Gita from memory?
I guess if you're open to admitting that you're prepared to build your race-relations policy on stereotyping then there's not much I can do.

well obviously, in-group preference is a normal human trait, and not inherently bad.
I agree.

But you've to instil some sense of civic duty into the people-at-large if you want to have a functioning society.

even after institutional segregation ended, people continued to voluntarily segregate themselves, and that's still occurring now.
Yes. Do you believe this is a good or a bad thing?

you can't seriously claim that cramming multiple groups with disparate cultures and values together in officially sanctioned social experiments won't and doesn't produce strife.
I've produced for you before studies that suggest that it's not the co-existence of differing cultures themselves that produces strife. I can go retrieve them if you want.

I'm not entirely sure how things are going in Ireland but here in the multicultural capital of the world the races are at each other's throats, literally and figuratively, and this is all without a nationalist party or movement of any significance whatsoever.
This is largely class-conflict masquerading as ethnic-conflict in my opinion.

Before you say it I do agree that Black-Hispanic rivalries exist in some inner-city communities but then both groups are culturally quite similar so I can't imagine an appeal-to-multiculturalism working there.

---

Ireland is also culturally pro-immigrant. We have leading nationalist parties (Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, etc.) but all of them are quite pro-immigration. It stems from Ireland itself being a nation of immigrants and having a far-reaching diaspora. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_people#Irish_diaspora) I should point out that this pro-immigration stance has been maintained despite a crippling recession and an over-150% increase in the immigrant-population since 2003-ish.

this strife is part of the reason people are drawn to ethnonationalism to begin with.
The strife is a product of ethnonationalism.

edit: I don't consider it surprising though that further polarisation occurs in the face of heightened levels of discrimination.

[phuckphace]

I'm going to bounce here in a minute since I'm late for work already, so I'll be back probably tomorrow to reply to the rest.

This is largely class-conflict masquerading as ethnic-conflict in my opinion.

Before you say it I do agree that Black-Hispanic rivalries exist in some inner-city communities but then both groups are culturally quite similar so I can't imagine an appeal-to-multiculturalism working there.

you're forgetting that there is a white underclass that subsists under the same levels of poverty and economic opportunities and they get along no better with their "fellow" proles from other ethnic groups either. when Jim-Bob the Redneck sees a poorly-dressed black or plausibly Mexican dude approaching him on the street, I'm going to assume that the first thing he does not say is, "Hello comrade, I see that the bourgeoisie has its steel boot on both our necks. Viva la revolution!"

[Vlerchan]

you're forgetting that there is a white underclass that subsists under the same levels of poverty and economic opportunities and they get along no better with their "fellow" proles from other ethnic groups either.
Yes. I would agree that in general American working-class people are for the most part not very class conscious - Well done, McCarthy. I would also agree that racism still exists in the US - and this is more pronounced in the rural working-class. I think it's a point worth making though that (adjusting for socioeconomic class and the urban-rural divides) the various people in America are actually quite culturally homogeneous. There might be race rivalries amongst working-class subsets of the various peoples but then I'd imagine educating them to see through steretypes (etc.) would go a lot further than your fatalist-inspired suggestion to just segregate them and forget the other side(s) exist.

---

I think it's notable though that you used the descriptor "poorly-dressed" in your above example. It's like you notice the importance of the socioeconomic element to it all but don't want to admit to it. At the end of the day though I'm still not sure what the above is actually supposed to prove to me.

[Paladino]

I would like to live in a society, where some people don't get handed everything to them on a plate. That is all.

[tovaris]

One word to answer all your questions and praies for future society: communism.

[CosmicNoodle]

I would like to live in a society, where some people don't get handed everything to them on a plate. That is all.

What of the people that get everything taken from there plate?

[Paladino]

What of the people that get everything taken from there plate?

Do you mean in like a situation similar to where someone's wife was having an affair and was going to leave them & take the kids whilst they were losing their job & other family members?

[CosmicNoodle]

Do you mean in like a situation similar to where someone's wife was having an affair and was going to leave them & take the kids whilst they were losing their job & other family members?
I was thinking more along the lines of the rich keeping the general population poor, and doing everything in there power to keep us that way.

[Paladino]

I see! Well that is obviously a huge problem for our society in the UK and is one of the contributing factors as to why scotland voted no.

[Arkansasguy]

Well? What is it?

Me and some friends had this conversation and our ideal worlds where very different and now I can't hello but wonder about people from around d the world.

Is it a society that solely believes in one religion and political stance, or do you enjoy multi culturalism? Is it a republican state? Is it Bi gender? Is if mono gender?

Go ahead, descrobe your perfect society. And please, don't tell people "Your socirpety sucks dick", everyone is entitled to an opinion....even I'd some are wrong :P

In mine, we live in a multi cultural society, where gender equality and sexuality is none of the matter, issues as such don't exist, everyone is equal, be they gay, staright, Asian, back, white, or love to fuck animals, everyone is equal and not looked down upon.
Religion isn't really encouraged, but its not segragated, it just sort of " does its own thing" and doesn't really impact society.
There would be no such thing as nations, all the lines on the maps would be erased and the world economy would be stabilised, all money redistributed equally, the economy is not open to mass market capitalism, socialism is encouraged, but obviously not compulsory, children would be taught from a young age that money, whilst used for trading goods has no real value, its expendable. As it should be, money wouldn't be the goal in life. Happiness would, everying else would be views as optional.
And for god sake, people would be open about sex, Jesus Christ that's the most important one.

Yes, this system likely wouldn't work, but its nice to be able to dream.

I would prefer a system which could work. A religiously uniform monarchy with distributist economics would be preferable. With fornication, sodomy, pornography, contraception, and divorce being illegal.

[CosmicNoodle]

I would prefer a system which could work. A religiously uniform monarchy with distributist economics would be preferable. With fornication, sodomy, pornography, contraception, and divorce being illegal.
Your ideal world is a horrible place, I doubt many people would want to live there.

[Whight]

I don't think we need to change anything major about our society, it's pretty decent. Just need tiny tweaks to get it to best:

1) People need to value knowledge more. Knowledge of any kind. Any pursuit of truth and being more. Too many people in our society are satisfied with being average. Trying to learn the bare minimum to pass a test, and bare minimum to do their job as lazily as they can.
Knowledge is good. People need to learn to value it more.

2) Going back to professionalism - Especially in fields that we allowed the Internet to dominate.
Especially in the whole monkey business related to information. We're very much ill-informed and most people think the internet can somehow do a good job of informing us for free. We need to go back to the ages of investigative journalism. Have people who actually for a living dig for the truth in all walks of life. And then pass on that information to us, in daily feeds. In ways we can understand, but without thinking us dumb.

3) More power to teachers to educate. Our education, at least here in the US, has gone to shit. I see teachers completely unable to control kids in my classroom, because they don't have the tools needed to control them. They're too afraid of lawsuits from parents. And rightly so, people sue over every little thing. It's ridiculous.
Plus, they get paid pennies to raise us for a good part of our life and turn us into proper adults. Do people really expect teachers to be that good of people that they'll work so hard for no return?
They need to get more money. Our society needs to give them due respect. I've had a c ouple of teachers who really went above and beyond to support and help me through all my troubles and I really think i'm a better man thanks to them.

4) Being nicer to each other. Letting things go sometimes. So many people are so hot to sue someone else for a couple of bucks that they'll intentionally cause friction and bad blood so they'd earn some money and step on anyone in their way. If people tried a bit to be nicer to the poor person manning a counter at a store or nicer to a cleaning lady, or nicer to a banker. Perhaps we'd all be better off. They'd be nice and return. They'll have a good day instead of a crappy day of getting yelled at.
And by order of magnitude everyone will be happier.

And honestly?
The most important:
1) Stop blaming other people for your shits. Blaming goverment, or big corporations or whoever else. Not saying there's no blame to pass. (Though, sometimes there really isn't. It just seems like it's popular to blame the big guys). But DOES it really help to blame someone else?
Take responsibility for your own life and happiness and try to do better. It's hard, but it's what must be done for a proper life. If I learned it and i'm still a teen, they can learn it as adults.

And secondly, people need to start dreaming again and being optimistic about their lives. Stop painting a different country or society as best thing in the world and thinking the US (Or whatever other country) is the worst. Yeah, our country might not be the best atm. But it CAN be and it SHOULD be. So work and make it so, by your own self.

[Arkansasguy]

Your ideal world is a horrible place, I doubt many people would want to live there.

Why would it be horrible?

[CosmicNoodle]

Why would it be horrible?



"With fornication, sodomy, pornography, contraception, and divorce being illegal"

Fornication - Your right, that should be illegal, its not like we wanted to continue the hu!an race anyway.

Contraception - None of your fucking buisness, but then again, why should people be able to decide for themselves what to do in private, right?

Sodomy - Again, none of your fucking buisnes what people do in there own home.

Porn - Again, none of your fucking buisnes what people do

divorce - Your right, we should force people to stay in unhappy and unwanted relationships for the reason of....urm...ohh ye, there isn't one.

Your world would be horrible, because your basing it (presumably) off your beliefs. You can't I pose your ideas on the population, simply because YOu don't like thongs, doesn't mean other people shouldn't be allowed to partake in them.

[Miserabilia]

1) People need to value knowledge more. Knowledge of any kind. Any pursuit of truth and being more. Too many people in our society are satisfied with being average. Trying to learn the bare minimum to pass a test, and bare minimum to do their job as lazily as they can.
Knowledge is good. People need to learn to value it more.



this is my philosophy PREACH IT PREch it EDUCATE YOURSELVES PEOPLEEEEE

[Whight]

Why would it be horrible?

It'd be horrible because you're taking away something very fundamental in many people's belief system, which is freedom to choose and make their own mistakes. Perhaps you can have a system where the "bad" things are more regulated and controlled via the "monarchy". But to abolish and make illegal is silly. Besides, making things illegal doesn't make them go away, only makes anyone who deals with it a criminal and creates an alternate body to regulate it which isn't controlled by the main ruling party. You might want it for the really harsh things, but for porn and contraception? Divorce?

this is my philosophy PREACH IT PREch it EDUCATE YOURSELVES PEOPLEEEEE

Yeah. People don't do it enough. Realizing that if they want to succeed truly in life, they need to push themselves to know more. Especially in their field of work.
I'm not saying go and learn everything there is to ever know in the universe. Nor am I saying a person who doesn't know how to bake bread is a horrible person. But everyone needs to have at least one specific field where they strive for ultimate knowledge. (Though, wouldn't hurt to get some basic info on other fields too).

[amgb]

I know Im a pretty idealistic person, but here goes.

In my opinion the best society would be one where there's no weapons, crime, famine, poverty, inequality, violence, racism, drug abuse, animal cruelty, or exploitation. It wouldn't be able to exist as a perfect community, but at least it would be a better society to live in. Governments and politicians and leaders would run their country in a justified manner, and money wouldn't exist. I've always thought of money as an unnecessary thing in this world, although it gives people incentive and power and a sense of financial worthiness, at the same time it can make people blind, miserable and greedy. For every job and career Our motivation to work could just be the desire to improve our world. I reckon every job plays a role in improving the world in some way, even if it's only a very small role. So products, food, clothing, accessories, homes, technology, everything would be free and wouldn't cost a single cent. All of us would be happy to give and help others and not expect anything back in return. In education I want to add social and emotional intelligence to the teaching board because they are also skills and they are important for our survival too. Zoos wouldn't exist, other animals and humans would reside together in peace. And although as humans we all need to be selfish sometimes, I don't think we should be selfish all the time I think we need to be selfless and help each other and those in need whenever we can, no matter what. That's what I would want~

[Arkansasguy]

"With fornication, sodomy, pornography, contraception, and divorce being illegal"

Fornication - Your right, that should be illegal, its not like we wanted to continue the hu!an race anyway.

I don't think you understand what that means. Fornication is sex outside marriage.

Contraception - None of your fucking buisness, but then again, why should people be able to decide for themselves what to do in private, right?

It doesn't just affect two people. The proliferation of contraception increases promiscuity.

Sodomy - Again, none of your fucking buisnes what people do in there own home.

Again, the social acceptance of sodomy degrades societal morality.

Porn - Again, none of your fucking buisnes what people do

Again, the proliferation of porn encourages immorality.

divorce - Your right, we should force people to stay in unhappy and unwanted relationships for the reason of....urm...ohh ye, there isn't one.

Protecting spouses against abandonment, protecting children from their homes being broken, all perfectly valid reasons to prohibit divorce.

Your world would be horrible, because your basing it (presumably) off your beliefs. You can't I pose your ideas on the population, simply because YOu don't like thongs, doesn't mean other people shouldn't be allowed to partake in them.

Yes, lie everyone else, I believe my beliefs to be correct. And I haven't cited my personal dislike as a basis.

It'd be horrible because you're taking away something very fundamental in many people's belief system, which is freedom to choose and make their own mistakes. Perhaps you can have a system where the "bad" things are more regulated and controlled via the "monarchy". But to abolish and make illegal is silly. Besides, making things illegal doesn't make them go away, only makes anyone who deals with it a criminal and creates an alternate body to regulate it which isn't controlled by the main ruling party. You might want it for the really harsh things, but for porn and contraception? Divorce?

We already limit people's ability to make certain mistakes. Note that I'm discussing an ideal society. In an ideal society, things like porn and contraception are regarded as being sufficiently immoral that only a few people will engage in them illegally.

Also note regarding divorce, illegality simply means that the state will not recognize divorce. If spouses wish to de facto separate by mutual consent, that's fine.

[CosmicNoodle]

I don't think you understand what that means. Fornication is sex outside marriage.

First off, I'm a very articulate person, I am aware what it means. Look at figures, there is an increasing amount of people born outside of marriage

It doesn't just affect two people. The proliferation of contraception increases promiscuity.

Explain how. Show sources.

Again, the social acceptance of sodomy degrades societal morality.

How does anal sex degrade morality? I know someone who enjoys it, he's one of the most morally correct people I know, your talking bullshit. But I'll entertain the idea. Show sources for your info, and data indicating it.

Again, the proliferation of porn encourages immorality.

Show me how, and don't use god or the bible. Show sources and data proving this.

Protecting spouses against abandonment, protecting children from their homes being broken, all perfectly valid reasons to prohibit divorce.

So, people should be unhappy, so what your saying, is because YOU don't like the idea, and because YOU don't want it, it shouldn't happen, even if everyone in the situation wants it?

Yes, lie everyone else, I believe my beliefs to be correct. And I haven't cited my personal dislike as a basis.

So your using god as your argument here? So they aint YOUR views are they? they are views that have been pounded into you over the years.

We already limit people's ability to make certain mistakes. Note that I'm discussing an ideal society. In an ideal society, things like porn and contraception are regarded as being sufficiently immoral that only a few people will engage in them illegally.

Wrong, many people will, making a law against it often does nothing, speeding, under age sex, drugs, weapon possession, making a law against something wont make a jot of difference, all you'll do is make people who are doing nothing wrong into criminals,

Also note regarding divorce, illegality simply means that the state will not recognize divorce. If spouses wish to de facto separate by mutual consent, that's fine.

To me, you seem like yet another person who simply reads from a bible and doesn't actually look at data, doesn't think about a situation or care, simply does as his friend in the sky says.

[Arkansasguy]

To me, you seem like yet another person who simply reads from a bible and doesn't actually look at data, doesn't think about a situation or care, simply does as his friend in the sky says.

The increase in unmarried pregnancies is bad.

Do you deny that social acceptance of for citation followed social acceptance of contraception?

I'm saying that sodomy is immoral.

I'm saying that porn is immoral.

Divorce doesn't necessarily have everyone ok with it.

I haven't cited God as an argument.

Not all laws cause social disapproval, but strong enough social disapproval generally leads to laws.

Ad hominem.

[Lovelife090994]

Equality for all, NO STATE RELIGION, access to higher education that is affordable, peace, tolerance, and a place of science and spirit without the fighting.

[CosmicNoodle]

The increase in unmarried pregnancies is bad.

Why?

Do you deny that social acceptance of for citation followed social acceptance of contraception?

What the fuck do you even mean? That seems to be just a collection of random words.

I'm saying that sodomy is immoral.

Why?

I'm saying that porn is immoral.

Why?

Divorce doesn't necessarily have everyone ok with it.

So, everyone should be judged with the same book? The majority of divorces work out better for everyone, most of my friends parents are divorced and they are prefectly fine, in fact, I don't know anyone who's been devorced who came out worse.

I haven't cited God as an argument.

You don't need to, your spewing the views of a Christian, your simply using mass market views that you haven't thought about or questioned.

Not all laws cause social disapproval, but strong enough social disapproval generally leads to laws.

There is very little social disapproval of the things you mentioned, and even if there where, social disapproval doesn't mean a law will be put in place.

Your using the worlds most flimsy argument, just stock responses that crumble with the slightest push. Each argument you have used is one based on your backward beliefs

Ad hominem.

Ad hominem? Nope, I am against your position, not against you.


qwertyuioop

[Arkansasguy]

qwertyuioop

Could you try to not put your responses inside your quote of me? It makes it more difficult to respond to specific statements.

It's bad for the reason I explained on the other thread.

Society use to disapprove of contraception and fornication. Now it doesn't. The change in attitude on contraception caused the change in attitude on fornication. Do you deny this?

Sodomy is immoral because it contradicts the natural end of human sexuality (procreation).

Porn is immoral because it separates sex from its procreative function, as above.

Divorce is wrong even if both spouses consent, because it breaks bonds which follow from our human nature.

Ad hominem. You're arguing about me, not about the issue.

[TroyH]

Could you try to not put your responses inside your quote of me? It makes it more difficult to respond to specific statements.

It's bad for the reason I explained on the other thread.

Society use to disapprove of contraception and fornication. Now it doesn't. The change in attitude on contraception caused the change in attitude on fornication. Do you deny this?

Sodomy is immoral because it contradicts the natural end of human sexuality (procreation).

Porn is immoral because it separates sex from its procreative function, as above.

Divorce is wrong even if both spouses consent, because it breaks bonds which follow from our human nature.

Ad hominem. You're arguing about me, not about the issue.

Society disapproved of contraception because religion used to be far more influential than it is today. Religion disapproves of contraception because their god says so. Their god cannot be proven to exist, so the reason why society disapproved of contraception is based on actually nothing as far as we know. Decreased influence from religion means that more people use contraception (it's been being used for thousands of years anyway, just more common now) as a means of sex without reproduction. Nobody is denying this really, but it doesn't seem relevant to your initial argument. It seems you are just assuming that sex outside of marriage is bad, yet nowhere in this thread do you provide a reason as to why.

If the natural end of human sexuality is procreation, then why do we also get pleasure from it? Why are sexual acts other than procreative sex possible if it were not natural? Seems pretty natural to me that we're all born with a hole back that like the one women have. So who's to say its not natural to have any kind of sex other than vaginal?

Your reasoning for this is again based on the fact that the only function of sex is procreation which is simply not true.

Your logic is even more flawed here. What if two people wed and don't have the "bonds which follow from our human nature" and decide to divorce because of this. They are not breaking these "bonds" so therefore it isn't immoral. Right? Or is there some other illogical assumption of yours that I'm missing?

[Arkansasguy]

Society disapproved of contraception because religion used to be far more influential than it is today. Religion disapproves of contraception because their god says so. Their god cannot be proven to exist, so the reason why society disapproved of contraception is based on actually nothing as far as we know. Decreased influence from religion means that more people use contraception (it's been being used for thousands of years anyway, just more common now) as a means of sex without reproduction. Nobody is denying this really, but it doesn't seem relevant to your initial argument. It seems you are just assuming that sex outside of marriage is bad, yet nowhere in this thread do you provide a reason as to why.

1. The prohibition of contraception is rooted in natural law, and can be argued without reference to God.

2. If your response to 1 is that the real reason was because of God, ad hominem.

3. See Aquinas's five ways for proof that God exists.

4. The virtue of prudence demands that things which are important must be done well. Now it is clear that human fathers by nature should be bound to the mother of their children. Thus, it is irrational and thus wrong for a man and woman to engage in sex without being bound together in a permanent union (marriage).

If the natural end of human sexuality is procreation, then why do we also get pleasure from it? Why are sexual acts other than procreative sex possible if it were not natural? Seems pretty natural to me that we're all born with a hole back that like the one women have. So who's to say its not natural to have any kind of sex other than vaginal?

Because it's natural that good things be pleasurable. We also derive pleasure from eating, yet obviously the purpose of eating is to nourish our bodies. It's possible to commit unnatural sexual acts for the same reason any other number of immoral acts are possible.

Your reasoning for this is again based on the fact that the only function of sex is procreation which is simply not true.

It is true. It's basic biology.

Your logic is even more flawed here. What if two people wed and don't have the "bonds which follow from our human nature" and decide to divorce because of this. They are not breaking these "bonds" so therefore it isn't immoral. Right? Or is there some other illogical assumption of yours that I'm missing?

Matrimonial bonds are the bonds in question, so your question dies not make sense. If you're referring to "temporary marriages" that exist in some parts of the world and expire automatically after a set time, I would say that such aren't real marriages.

[Vlerchan]

The prohibition of contraception is rooted in natural law, and can be argued without reference to God.
Only positive law exists.

Natural Law is the legal equivalent of an appeal to God.

See Aquinas's five ways for proof that God exists.
At best these demonstrate that it's possible that a god might exist.

Please refute this in the General Religion thread where this discussion is already being undertaken. Thank you.

The virtue of prudence demands that things which are important must be done well. Now it is clear that human fathers by nature should be bound to the mother of their children. Thus, it is irrational and thus wrong for a man and woman to engage in sex without being bound together in a permanent union (marriage).
This might logically follow from your beliefs.

There's no reason it should logically follow abstract from this.

Because it's natural that good things be pleasurable
Like hard work?

It is true. It's basic biology.
It is possible to conceive through sexual intercourse.

This not infer it is its only or true function. That is a social construct.

[TroyH]

2. If your response to 1 is that the real reason was because of God, ad hominem.

Matrimonial bonds are the bonds in question, so your question dies not make sense. If you're referring to "temporary marriages" that exist in some parts of the world and expire automatically after a set time, I would say that such aren't real marriages.

No I'm saying it's because of a book not any god, not that that would be an ad hominem attack anyway.

You are saying that matrimonial bonds are natural then? Is it natural that 2 people agree that half of all their stuff now belongs to them? I'm not talking about "temporary marriages," I'm talking about people who get married and then find that they actually have no attraction or desire for their now spouse and so get divorced.

As for your other points, Vlerchan has already responded above with essentially what I was going to say so I won't bother repeating him.

[Arkansasguy]

Only positive law exists.

Natural Law is the legal equivalent of an appeal to God.

What law decreed that?

At best these demonstrate that it's possible that a god might exist.

Please refute this in the General Religion thread where this discussion is already being undertaken. Thank you.

Done.

This might logically follow from your beliefs.

There's no reason it should logically follow abstract from this.

Which specific premise do you deny?

Like hard work?

Do you know what an exception is?

It is possible to conceive through sexual intercourse.

This not infer it is its only or true function. That is a social construct.

No it's not. Reality is not a social construct.

No I'm saying it's because of a book not any god, not that that would be an ad hominem attack anyway.

You are saying that matrimonial bonds are natural then? Is it natural that 2 people agree that half of all their stuff now belongs to them? I'm not talking about "temporary marriages," I'm talking about people who get married and then find that they actually have no attraction or desire for their now spouse and so get divorced.

As for your other points, Vlerchan has already responded above with essentially what I was going to say so I won't bother repeating him.

Arguing about people's motives for believing something, when the discussion is about whether or not those beliefs are true, is an ad hominem fallacy.

Yes, matrimonial bonds are something which we are inclined to by nature. So you were talking about people who break their matrimonial bonds.

[Vlerchan]

What law decreed that?
What law decreed otherwise?

Here's what I've written in the past:

Laws exist as a result of an agreement of ideas within a community, local, regional, national, international, or otherwise, and thereafter, further agreement as to the maintaining of the laws within the community though the threat, and up to use of, violent-force, social-ostracisation, or other generally effective means of coercing compliance. The law objectively exists within a community as a result of the conscious or unconscious, unconscious referring to social codes stemming from ingrained prejudices, etc., action of the community in upholding the aforementioned pre-conditions for the existence of law. Independent of the community that the law is agreed upon and maintained the law itself does not exist, though this does exclude the law-idea from existing.

tl;dr: the existence of a law requires both belief and active maintenance.

Which specific premise do you deny?
In the passage I quoted I deny that "the virtue of prudence" exists (nihilism) and I deny that "importance" in an absolute sense exists (nihilism) and I deny that "fathers by nature should be bound to the mother of their children" (utilitarianism and nihilism).

Do you know what an exception is?
In other words you agree that them being pleasurable is not a natural consequence of them being good.

No it's not. Reality is not a social construct.
This doesn't address my argument. Let us try again:

The purpose of something is constructed in the human mind.

[TroyH]

Arguing about people's motives for believing something, when the discussion is about whether or not those beliefs are true, is an ad hominem fallacy.

Yes, matrimonial bonds are something which we are inclined to by nature. So you were talking about people who break their matrimonial bonds.

I'm not arguing about their motives but their reasons. Their reasons for promoting the idea that contraception is bad is because of a book which only cites a divine being which has no evidence to prove its existence, so the book and their reasoning are not based in fact and therefore illogical. I really don't care why they chose to believe what their book says so I was never attacking or even questioning anyone's motives.

How can you say matrimonial bonds are something humans are inclined by nature to make? Not all human cultures practice marriage. Why is this if humans are naturally inclined to do so according to you?

[Arkansasguy]

What law decreed otherwise?

Here's what I've written in the past:

Laws exist as a result of an agreement of ideas within a community, local, regional, national, international, or otherwise, and thereafter, further agreement as to the maintaining of the laws within the community though the threat, and up to use of, violent-force, social-ostracisation, or other generally effective means of coercing compliance. The law objectively exists within a community as a result of the conscious or unconscious, unconscious referring to social codes stemming from ingrained prejudices, etc., action of the community in upholding the aforementioned pre-conditions for the existence of law. Independent of the community that the law is agreed upon and maintained the law itself does not exist, though this does exclude the law-idea from existing.

tl;dr: the existence of a law requires both belief and active maintenance.

You claim that law is purely positive. If this were so, you could show a positive law decreeing this.

In the passage I quoted I deny that "the virtue of prudence" exists (nihilism) and I deny that "importance" in an absolute sense exists (nihilism) and I deny that "fathers by nature should be bound to the mother of their children" (utilitarianism and nihilism).

So you're asserting there is no moral truth?

In other words you agree that them being pleasurable is not a natural consequence of them being good.

No, I agree that such is not an absolute maxim.

This doesn't address my argument. Let us try again:

The purpose of something is constructed in the human mind.

No it isn't. The purpose of a heart is to pump blood. This was the case before humans even existed.

I would agree that purpose shows intelligent direction, but that's another thread.

I'm not arguing about their motives but their reasons. Their reasons for promoting the idea that contraception is bad is because of a book which only cites a divine being which has no evidence to prove its existence, so the book and their reasoning are not based in fact and therefore illogical. I really don't care why they chose to believe what their book says so I was never attacking or even questioning anyone's motives.

How can you say matrimonial bonds are something humans are inclined by nature to make? Not all human cultures practice marriage. Why is this if humans are naturally inclined to do so according to you?

That's still ad hominem. Address the arguments being put forward in this thread.

Which human cultures do we know of that don't practice marriage? I'm guessing you can count them on one hand.

[TroyH]

That's still ad hominem. Address the arguments being put forward in this thread.

Which human cultures do we know of that don't practice marriage? I'm guessing you can count them on one hand.

No, it actually isn't. I was discrediting a line of thinking which is illogical. It can't possible be classified as an ad hominem attack. As far as where this line of discussion starts, you only claimed that contraception is prohibited by natural law. You then never provide anything to support your claim. Please explain exactly what natural law is, how you know what it is and specifically why it prohibits contraception.

How would the number of cultures not practicing marriage be relevant? Even if there is but one isolated culture which naturally progressed to a point today that does no include marriage as a part of there customs, that is evidence enough to say that marriage is not a natural phenomenon for human beings.

[Vlerchan]

You claim that law is purely positive. If this were so, you could show a positive law decreeing this.
[Constitution of Ireland, Art 15]:

The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other legislative authority has power to make laws for the State.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/en/constitution/index.html#part4

However I wasn't making the claim that all law was positive law on the basis of some other law.

I was deducing this from how societies operate in general.

So you're asserting there is no moral truth?
Yes.

No, I agree that such is not an absolute maxim.
Same thing.

No it isn't. The purpose of a heart is to pump blood. This was the case before humans even existed.
I've eaten cows heart before. It was nice.

[Arkansasguy]

No, it actually isn't. I was discrediting a line of thinking which is illogical. It can't possible be classified as an ad hominem attack. As far as where this line of discussion starts, you only claimed that contraception is prohibited by natural law. You then never provide anything to support your claim. Please explain exactly what natural law is, how you know what it is and specifically why it prohibits contraception.

How would the number of cultures not practicing marriage be relevant? Even if there is but one isolated culture which naturally progressed to a point today that does no include marriage as a part of there customs, that is evidence enough to say that marriage is not a natural phenomenon for human beings.

You were supposedly discrediting a line of thinking not proposed in this thread. Whether ad nominee or a red herring, it's still a fallacy.

No it isn't. Such doesn't discredit that it is of human nature anymore than the existence of a three-legged dog means that dogs don't naturally have four legs.

[Constitution of Ireland, Art 15]:

The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other legislative authority has power to make laws for the State.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/en/constitution/index.html#part4

However I wasn't making the claim that all law was positive law on the basis of some other law.

I was deducing this from how societies operate in general.

So was law positive before the writing of the Irish Constitution?

So you're arguing that law is purely positive, based on something not positive? That's self-refuting.

Yes.

So you hole the statement "there are no moral truths" to be true?

Same thing.

Not at all.

I've eaten cows heart before. It was nice.

The point?

[Vlerchan]

So you're arguing that law is purely positive, based on something not positive? That's self-refuting.
I would consider empiricism as concerned with merely the positive and thus producing positive results.

So you hole the statement "there are no moral truths" to be true?
Yes.

Please note that "there is no moral truths" is not a claim regarding morality.

Not at all.
If you agree that X does not always result in Y then I don't know how you can believe that X is a natural consequence of Y.

The point?
I repurposed the heart.

[Arkansasguy]

I would consider empiricism as concerned with merely the positive and thus producing positive results.

Have you empirically verified empiricism?

Yes.

Please note that "there is no moral truths" is not a claim regarding morality.

Yes, it is.

If you agree that X does not always result in Y then I don't know how you can believe that X is a natural consequence of Y.

Duh. Dying is a natural result of catching rabies, yet it's possible to survive rabies. For example.


I repurposed the heart.

Yet it's original purpose remains unchanged.

[Vlerchan]

Have you empirically verified empiricism?
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please re-word? Thank you.

Yes, it is.
You must define 'moral' awful funny.

Duh. Dying is a natural result of catching rabies, yet it's possible to survive rabies. For example.
Dying is a possible consequence of catching rabies.

Yet it's original purpose remains unchanged.
But you still agree that purposes can be re-configured?

[TroyH]

You were supposedly discrediting a line of thinking not proposed in this thread. Whether ad nominee or a red herring, it's still a fallacy.

Refer to the following quote from you in this thread:

1. The prohibition of contraception is rooted in natural law, and can be argued without reference to God.

This is what I was talking about^

No it isn't. Such doesn't discredit that it is of human nature anymore than the existence of a three-legged dog means that dogs don't naturally have four legs.

Actually, the existence of a three-legged dog through a natural genetic mutation would prove that dogs are not naturally four-legged. Nice try though.

[Arkansasguy]

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please re-word? Thank you.[/QUOTE

Would you agree that "all truth is empirically verifiable"?

[QUOTE]You must define 'moral' awful funny.

A claim regarding morality is any claim regarding morality.

Dying is a possible consequence of catching rabies.

It's the practically certain result.

But you still agree that purposes can be re-configured?

Additional purposes can be created.

Refer to the following quote from you in this thread:



This is what I was talking about^

So it was a red herring. You're explanation that people used to oppose contraception because religion had nothing to do with this thread.

Actually, the existence of a three-legged dog through a natural genetic mutation would prove that dogs are not naturally four-legged. Nice try though.

If you say so. Since I've now shown that your position on this issue leads to absurd conclusions, I think I'm done with this specific point.

[Vlerchan]

Would you agree that "all truth is empirically verifiable"?
I presume it.

I can't be certain because not being omnisentient I can't access the evidence.

However I think I'm making a fair assumption. Do you disagree?

A claim regarding morality is any claim regarding morality.
I'm discussing moral values - normative statements. This is what I mean when I use the term "morals".

So moral values don't exist is not a claim about moral values because it's not normative.

It's the practically certain result.
This isn't refuting the claims I've made.

Additional purposes can be created.
Ok. I'm not sure what this demonstrates either.

[Arkansasguy]

I presume it.

I can't be certain because not being omnisentient I can't access the evidence.

However I think I'm making a fair assumption. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. You've acknowledged that there is something true which cannot be empirically verified, thus showing the proposition to be false.

I'm discussing moral values - normative statements. This is what I mean when I use the term "morals".

So moral values don't exist is not a claim about moral values because it's not normative.

The problem is that it is in fact a claim about moral values. Claiming that X doesn't exist is a claim about X.

[Vlerchan]

Yes, I disagree. You've acknowledged that there is something true which cannot be empirically verified, thus showing the proposition to be false.
Right. Well this has got us no further in determining that natural law exists.

I feel I should add that given that empiricism seems to offer a correct answer with better frequency than religion and pure rationalism etc. (as far as can be determined) there's a strong level of empirical support for its use.

---

edit: It just hit me there. Not being able to access the evidence as I stand now doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist to be accessed.

It does stand to reason that whether all claims can be determined through empirical analysis can be judged to be true through empirical analysis.

It's just not empirical analysis that I am able to undertake. Existential crisis averted.

---

I'm going to throw up the Bleid signal for help here. Ignore this bit.

[...]
Hi. Would you mind looking over the above when you get a chance and then give your opinion?

Thanks in advance.

The problem is that it is in fact a claim about moral values. Claiming that X doesn't exist is a claim about X.
Yes. I think the idea of morals exist.

This is different to not thinking that moral values exist.

[Arkansasguy]

Right. Well this has got us no further in determining that natural law exists.

I feel I should add that given that empiricism seems to offer a correct answer with better frequency than religion and pure rationalism etc. (as far as can be determined) there's a strong level of empirical support for its use.

---

edit: It just hit me there. Not being able to access the evidence as I stand now doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist to be accessed.

It does stand to reason that whether all claims can be determined through empirical analysis can be judged to be true through empirical analysis.

It's just not empirical analysis that I am able to undertake. Existential crisis averted.

Nonetheless it's something you believe without empirical evidence.

And to demonstrate the point further, would you reject your belief in empiricism if there were sufficient evidence against it? If you say yes, then this will be contradictory, as if empiricism were false, then it can't be refuted through evidence, but then you shouldn't consider evidence against it but should continue to accept it, but then you should accept the evidence and reject it, etc.

OTOH, if your answer is no, then you agree that metaphysical questions can be determined only through logic, and not through evidence.

Yes. I think the idea of morals exist.

This is different to not thinking that moral values exist.

So you think that there are some truths about morality, just not certain types of truths about morality?

[TroyH]

So it was a red herring. You're explanation that people used to oppose contraception because religion had nothing to do with this thread.



If you say so. Since I've now shown that your position on this issue leads to absurd conclusions, I think I'm done with this specific point.

Nope. If you could read, I was replying to something that you actually brought up yourself. And you also avoided my questions a few posts ago too I'd like to point out.

So if my point is absurd I'd ask you what you think of a human born with a birth defect, similar to a dog born three-legged. Are they unnatural because of their defect?

[Arkansasguy]

Nope. If you could read, I was replying to something that you actually brought up yourself. And you also avoided my questions a few posts ago too I'd like to point out.

So if my point is absurd I'd ask you what you think of a human born with a birth defect, similar to a dog born three-legged. Are they unnatural because of their defect?

Which question did I ignore?

This is the problem with your incessant inability to distinguish between people and ideas, circumstances, and conditions.

The condition of lacking a leg is unnatural. That does not make the person unnatural.

[TroyH]

Which question did I ignore?

This is the problem with your incessant inability to distinguish between people and ideas, circumstances, and conditions.

The condition of lacking a leg is unnatural. That does not make the person unnatural.

I asked you to provide the source of the "natural law" which you mentioned a while back.

What makes the condition of lacking a leg unnatural, exactly? Genetic mutations are natural occurrences in all organisms. So if a dog were to lack a leg through genetic mutation, would this condition not then be natural?

[Vlerchan]

Nonetheless it's something you believe without empirical evidence.
Empiricism has a greater record of offering correct answers than Pure Rationalism or Faith.

I would conclude from this that it has the greatest level of empirical support.

Choosing empiricism over the others is then in-line with the scientific method.

---

Of course this gets us nowhere closer to demonstrating that Natural Law exists.

And to demonstrate the point further, would you reject your belief in empiricism if there were sufficient evidence against it?
You'll find that this situation only exists in your thought experiments.

I hope you see the issue in trying to use pure reason to disprove empiricism to an empiricist.

So you think that there are some truths about morality, just not certain types of truths about morality?
I think the topic of morals exists for discussion.

I don't think moral truths exist.

If phrasing that as above makes it easier for you to understand then go ahead.

[Danny_boi 16]

Star Trek. Star Trek is the society in which I would want to live in. Global peace with a global government, but each nation being semi-autonomous. The government would be a republic, and the main goal of human was exploration.

[Arkansasguy]

I asked you to provide the source of the "natural law" which you mentioned a while back.

What makes the condition of lacking a leg unnatural, exactly? Genetic mutations are natural occurrences in all organisms. So if a dog were to lack a leg through genetic mutation, would this condition not then be natural?

Because the nature of a dog is to have four legs. This is obvious from observation. Thus the condition of having three legs is unnatural. Regardless of how it came about.

Empiricism has a greater record of offering correct answers than Pure Rationalism or Faith.

I would conclude from this that it has the greatest level of empirical support.

Choosing empiricism over the others is then in-line with the scientific method.

---

Of course this gets us nowhere closer to demonstrating that Natural Law exists.

How does empiricism have a greater record? When has a conclusion of reason been empirically proven false?

You'll find that this situation only exists in your thought experiments.

I hope you see the issue in trying to use pure reason to disprove empiricism to an empiricist.

The issue with it is that you refuse to accept it.

I think the topic of morals exists for discussion.

I don't think moral truths exist.

If phrasing that as above makes it easier for you to understand then go ahead.

So there are then truths about morality, as I said. You merely hold a different set of ideas as being true than I do.

[Vlerchan]

How does empiricism have a greater record?
It can't produce wrong answers.

Faith and Pure Reason can.

When has a conclusion of reason been empirically proven false?
Austrian Economics. Lots of times. I can start listing examples if you want.

Lots of claims in economics in general too.

---

Note: I'm using economics as an example because it's the subject I understand best.

The issue with it is that you refuse to accept it.

I refuse to accept it because it's an impossible situation. Feel free to explain how one would provide evidence against empiricism.

The problem is that Empiricists rely on Empirical Evidence. If an Empiricist accepted Pure Reason then she wouldn't be an Empiricist.

So there are then truths about morality, as I said. You merely hold a different set of ideas as being true than I do.

1. a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson.
b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson.

2. a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct
b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct.

3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct.

4 : moral conduct.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

Sometimes words that are spelled the same have different meanings. These are called Homonyms. Morality is a Homonym.

[TroyH]

Because the nature of a dog is to have four legs. This is obvious from observation. Thus the condition of having three legs is unnatural. Regardless of how it came about.

So the naturally occurring difference is unnatural. It is also obvious from observation that you have flown from the real of logic and are simply wrong.

[averygamerdude]

I would like to live in a society, where some people don't get handed everything to them on a plate. That is all.

I wanna live in a society where nobody has to pay for stuff and there aren't any stupid rules to follow.

[Arkansasguy]

It can't produce wrong answers.

Faith and Pure Reason can.

Galileo believed the sun was the center of the universe based on observation.

Austrian Economics. Lots of times. I can start listing examples if you want.

Lots of claims in economics in general too.

---

Note: I'm using economics as an example because it's the subject I understand best.

Using Austrian economics as a refutation of reason is an example of where reason failed is like using flat-Earth theory as an example of where geography failed.

I refuse to accept it because it's an impossible situation. Feel free to explain how one would provide evidence against empiricism.

The problem is that Empiricists rely on Empirical Evidence. If an Empiricist accepted Pure Reason then she wouldn't be an Empiricist.

So you're declaring regardless of empirical evidence that empirical evidence could not refute empiricism. You've now effectively rejected empiricism by declaring a metaphysical premise.

1. a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson.
b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson.

2. a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct
b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct.

3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct.

4 : moral conduct.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

Sometimes words that are spelled the same have different meanings. These are called Homonyms. Morality is a Homonym.

I know what a homonym is. What's the point?

So the naturally occurring difference is unnatural. It is also obvious from observation that you have flown from the real of logic and are simply wrong.

Naturally occurring differences are not unnatural. What are you talking about?

[Vlerchan]

Galileo believed the sun was the center of the universe based on observation.
Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, asserts that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification." One of the epistemological tenets is that sensory experience creates knowledge. The scientific method, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides empirical research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

It is through continuous aggregation of observation that something becomes universal as opposed to personal knowledge.

I agree incorrect observations exist. I don't think this discredits empiricism as a doctrine.

Using Austrian economics as a refutation of reason is an example of where reason failed is like using flat-Earth theory as an example of where geography failed.
As long as we can agree that the use of Pure Reason can sometimes lead to false conclusions. It's the emphasis on Pure Reason that leaves Austrian Economists so discredited.

---

You're also highlighting a false equivalent with the comparison between Flat Earth proponents and Geographers. Both make claims about geography. But both use a different method. I'm raising the point that it's the method of evaluation that's important.

However I found it amusing that the example that was listed was one of Empiricism trumping other forms of reasoning (Faith).

So you're declaring regardless of empirical evidence that empirical evidence could not refute empiricism.
I'm saying that it's not possible to produce empirical evidence that refutes empiricism.

You are still free to explain how it's done.

I know what a homonym is. What's the point?
I thought it was evident.

The term morality has numerous different meanings. You're pretending that what I say about one possible meaning carries over and applies to the rest.

It's the difference between "meta-ethics" and "normative ethics". I'm going to use these terms now because I presume it is easier to distinguish between them:

I don't believe ethical values exist. This is a meta-ethical claim. This is not a normative ethical claim.

[TroyH]

Naturally occurring differences are not unnatural. What are you talking about?

You said that no matter how the difference arises, it is against the nature of the dog. Your words, not mine.

[Bleid]

Yes, I disagree. You've acknowledged that there is something true which cannot be empirically verified, thus showing the proposition to be false.

That does not demonstrate anything about the falsity of a proposition. Arthur Schopenhauer even made a mockery of this exact line of thinking in his 38 Stratagems (http://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm).

In addition, it would also be considered this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance).

For further reading, you can also take a look at what Kurt Gödel wrote regarding his Incompleteness Theorems (essentially the very situation you describe in the above quote). It goes much more in depth to this idea.

The problem is that it is in fact a claim about moral values. Claiming that X doesn't exist is a claim about X.

This is not exactly a claim about X. This is a claim about the Domain that the conversation is in context of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse).

Right. Well this has got us no further in determining that natural law exists.

I feel I should add that given that empiricism seems to offer a correct answer with better frequency than religion and pure rationalism etc. (as far as can be determined) there's a strong level of empirical support for its use.

Empiricism does offer us many more answers than those others. This is because of how it works, however. At any time we use empiricism, we're never getting a guarantee, but at best a, "it is very, very likely to be correct that ___" - After seeing something go the way we expect somewhere in the hundreds of times, then we use a bit of irrationality and presume it is always the case. We should also keep in mind that empiricism is beholden to rationality in a way. The only way we ever use empiricism is by using a rational idea of inductive reasoning.

But overall I agree. Empiricism is what provides us with most of our answers.

edit: It just hit me there. Not being able to access the evidence as I stand now doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist to be accessed.

It does stand to reason that whether all claims can be determined through empirical analysis can be judged to be true through empirical analysis.

This is arguably true, even from rationalist points of view.

There's no manner by which, even someone going from pure reasoned analysis could argue about all claims without having some justification regarding all claims (analysis of all claims).

It also brings into question as to whether or not a generic proof about the situation exists.

For example, I can prove something about all Chihuahuas by either:

1. Finding all Chihuahuas and demonstrating that they all have this something. (Empirical)
OR
2. Demonstrating through a generic proof that it must be the case that this something is true of these animals, otherwise we cannot be talking about a Chihuahua. (Rational)


It's just not empirical analysis that I am able to undertake. Existential crisis averted.

Of course. Just like with the Chihuahua example above, there are two manners we can appeal to in order to demonstrate truths.

----

Hopefully I'll have time to respond in the near future if anyone quotes me. My apologies if I am not available and someone responds, though.

[Arkansasguy]

Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, asserts that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification." One of the epistemological tenets is that sensory experience creates knowledge. The scientific method, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides empirical research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

It is through continuous aggregation of observation that something becomes universal as opposed to personal knowledge.

I agree incorrect observations exist. I don't think this discredits empiricism as a doctrine.[QUOTE]

You asserted an example of incorrect reasoning as proof of the falsehood of reason.

[QUOTE]As long as we can agree that the use of Pure Reason can sometimes lead to false conclusions. It's the emphasis on Pure Reason that leaves Austrian Economists so discredited.

Reason only leads to false conclusions if there are erroneous reasoning methods. Empirical observation can lead to false conclusions even with good observational methods. Thus why reason is a superior way of knowing. It is also superior because "empirical evidence should be believed" is itself dependent on reason.

---

You're also highlighting a false equivalent with the comparison between Flat Earth proponents and Geographers. Both make claims about geography. But both use a different method. I'm raising the point that it's the method of evaluation that's important.

The analogy was between flat Earthers and Austrian economists.

However I found it amusing that the example that was listed was one of Empiricism trumping other forms of reasoning (Faith).

Which example was that?

I'm saying that it's not possible to produce empirical evidence that refutes empiricism.

You are still free to explain how it's done.

This is a metaphysical claim. Which cannot be used to defend the proposition that metaphysical claims do not prove.

You said that no matter how the difference arises, it is against the nature of the dog. Your words, not mine.

If God created a species of animal which was a dog with three legs, that would be natural for that species. If God had created dogs so that it was natural for them to have three legs sometimes, that would be natural. As it is, it would not be natural. Understand?

In addition, it would also be considered this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance).

Not when the proposition is a metaphysical claim refuted by pointing out the contradiction.

[Vlerchan]

You asserted an example of incorrect reasoning as proof of the falsehood of reason.
I don't get how this is relevant to the above.

Reason only leads to false conclusions if there are erroneous reasoning methods.
Reason relies on presumed premises and if your premise is wrong this can lead to false conclusions.

Reason under the conditions of imperfect information can also lead to false conclusions.

These are just two ways in which the use of pure-reason can lead people astray without the reasoning being erroneous.

Empirical observation can lead to false conclusions even with good observational methods.
This is why in professions that rely on Empiricism for results it is the aggregate of all empirical observations that matters and which conclusions are drawn from.

This is a metaphysical claim. Which cannot be used to defend the proposition that metaphysical claims do not prove.
Please put this in simpler language. Thank you.

If God created a species of animal which was a dog with three legs, that would be natural for that species. If God had created dogs so that it was natural for them to have three legs sometimes, that would be natural. As it is, it would not be natural. Understand?
Dogs are a result of generations of evolution built upon the foundations of natural selections (which entails (naturally) random genetic mutations). Not god.

[TroyH]

If God created a species of animal which was a dog with three legs, that would be natural for that species. If God had created dogs so that it was natural for them to have three legs sometimes, that would be natural. As it is, it would not be natural. Understand?

I don't, because there's nothing to suggest any god created any creatures.

But knowing what you're getting that, I'll ask: how big of a difference does there have to be to draw the line between natural and unnatural? The lack of leg seems like a fairly arbitrary trait, and since every organism in a species is decidedly different from its fellow species members,... how can you determine whether genetic differences are natural or not?

[Bleid]

Not when the proposition is a metaphysical claim refuted by pointing out the contradiction.

What is the difference in if it's metaphysical or not, and what do you refer to as the contradiction?

In either case, though - the form takes precedence over the content when we regard propositions.

especially metaphysical propositions, as, that is the realm where such logical principles hold their purpose

[Arkansasguy]

What is the difference in if it's metaphysical or not, and what do you refer to as the contradiction?

In either case, though - the form takes precedence over the content.

Empiricism claims that only those beliefs are true which have empirical support. Thus, showing that empiricism itself lacks empirical support refutes it.

[Bleid]

Empiricism claims that only those beliefs are true which have empirical support. Thus, showing that empiricism itself lacks empirical support refutes it.

Empiricism does have support behind it, it just isn't empirical support because that would be question-begging and defeating the purpose of the belief (as it is a belief regarding determining knowledge, not a belief (of) knowledge)

And I feel we should be a bit clearer, since empiricism specifically regards how knowledge can be ascertained, rather than the truth of beliefs.

[Arkansasguy]

Empiricism does have support behind it, it just isn't empirical support because that would be question-begging and defeating the purpose of the belief (as it is a belief regarding determining knowledge, not a belief (of) knowledge)

And I feel we should be a bit clearer, since empiricism specifically regards how knowledge can be ascertained, rather than the truth of beliefs.

And it is therefore self-refuting.

[Bleid]

And it is therefore self-refuting.

Not necessarily, because it regards how knowledge can be ascertained and that itself would be argued true in the scenario the empiricist provides. What exactly are we saying makes it self refuting?

"Knowledge can only be attained through some form of sensory experience (observation)."

is essentially the crowning proposition of empiricism.

The reason this is said to be true by empiricists is because they see (observe) knowledge being acquired by others and themselves, and they then conclude that the way in which that knowledge was acquired by them was rooted in sensory experience.

For example, I notice a dog allegedly 'learns' its name. Then I consider, "Oh, well it seems that it learned to come when that sound was made by its owner because its owner expressed those particular sounds to it gratuitously over a long period of time. Here's more knowledge rooted in sensory experience. The owner also very likely learned that they could name this dog (make it come when it is called) by making those particular sounds to it over a long period of time."

And consequently, if I notice this same trend over a large period of events, I might come to an empiricist view.

What is self-refuting?

[Arkansasguy]

Not necessarily, because it regards how knowledge can be ascertained and that itself would be argued true in the scenario the empiricist provides. What exactly are we saying makes it self refuting?

"Knowledge can only be attained through some form of sensory experience (observation)."

is essentially the crowning proposition of empiricism.

The reason this is said to be true by empiricists is because they see (observe) knowledge being acquired by others and themselves, and they then conclude that the way in which that knowledge was acquired by them was rooted in sensory experience.

For example, I notice a dog allegedly 'learns' its name. Then I consider, "Oh, well it seems that it learned to come when that sound was made by its owner because its owner expressed those particular sounds to it gratuitously over a long period of time. Here's more knowledge rooted in sensory experience. The owner also very likely learned that they could name this dog (make it come when it is called) by making those particular sounds to it over a long period of time."

And consequently, if I notice this same trend over a large period of events, I might come to an empiricist view.

What is self-refuting?

No one disputes that some types of knowledge are acquired through empirical observation. Thus the point on which empiricists differ is in holding that this is the only means. There is not empirical evidence for the empirical evidence is the only way to know things (and there can't be), thus by claiming this, the empiricist acknowledges that at least one piece of knowledge can be known otherwise, thus the self-contradiction.

[Bleid]

There is not empirical evidence for the empirical evidence is the only way to know things (and there can't be),

Why can't there be?

If empiricism is incorrect, there would need to be an example provided where sensory experience in no way provided someone with some knowledge.

You are saying that this example is:

"Empirical evidence is the only way to know things." (Allegedly, knowledge that is not justified empirically)

But this is also a possibility from an empiricist's perspective. They would simply point to the world we all inhabit and argue through induction or abduction, like David Hume had. The above statement would be considered true through a relation of ideas, being an acceptable explanation using empiricism.

The most that could be argued is that induction & abduction (retroduction) are faulty manners of reasoning, which would be a fair argument that I could see you making.

[Fritos43]

To me, the utopia would be a world where all wealth is spread, where all marriage is allowed, where there is no democracy, no leaders, just a stable universal structure, where I am equal to you, and you are equal to any other person. Religion is just allowed, but no hate, no judgment.

[Miserabilia]

there is no democracy, no leaders

Woah there .
No democracy? So nobody can make decisions in government? Then wouldn't there be no structure at all, as in society as an anarchy?

[phuckphace]

Woah there .
No democracy? So nobody can make decisions in government? Then wouldn't there be no structure at all, as in society as an anarchy?

I like the no democracy part but they always have to ruin it by calling for some goofy Carebear Cosmopolitan society where nobody gets judged. I hope they aren't planning on populating this magical place with humans or they're going to be in for a nasty surprise

[Miserabilia]

I like the no democracy part but they always have to ruin it by calling for some goofy Carebear Cosmopolitan society where nobody gets judged. I hope they aren't planning on populating this magical place with humans or they're going to be in for a nasty surprise

lol not to mention the fact that he said no democracy and no leader so basicly there wouldn't really be a society at all

[Vlerchan]

... but they always have to ruin it by calling for some goofy Carebear Cosmopolitan society where nobody gets judged.
No serious anarchist wants to eliminate all social codes.

I also see no reason why multi-ethnic communes couldn't work.

... not to mention the fact that he said no democracy and no leader so basicly there wouldn't really be a society at all.
I see no reason why informal leaders couldn't exist.

You also don't need formalised power structures for societies to exist. I don't know what weird definition you're using.

[Miserabilia]

I see no reason why informal leaders couldn't exist.

You also don't need formalised power structures for societies to exist. I don't know what weird definition you're using.

Well it depends on what he meant with leader and equal. I assumed he meant leader both formal and informal and equal both formal and informal. In that case there really wouldn't be any structure and it would be impossible for a society to fuction, wouldn't it?