|
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by boost
You're making the argument that I parenthetically addressed. But lets dig in a bit. Imagine a religion that holds that the path to a glorious afterlife of eternal bliss can only be reached by doing your best to bring about hell on earth. Think of it as a sort of religion that applies the laws of conservation to happiness. If you can't make the case that this religion is worse than Buddhism, then I'd kindly ask you to take your head out your ass and try again.
I can say that Buddhism sounds like it appeals to me more. I can only hope I'm not in the minority, and that causing direct harm to people remains illegal on many levels across the world. But like... if the hell on Earth is to wear goth clothes or make film noir or be generally a dick to people, then meh. I'm cool with that about as much as Buddhism. If they're being criminals, whether they say their dog or their god told them to do it, they should be prosecuted as criminals. If not, then let them be their own kind of crazy.
I can only appeal to democratic rule. If the savages outnumber the sane, then the savagery reigns.
Historically, there've been some pretty dark times. It seems naive to think there wont be more. I don't think attacking someone's religion is a move in the right direction. Maybe, but Christians get all in a tizzy once a year over non-Christians suggesting that maybe shoving Christmas-themed crap into every corner of retail America is on the overkill side of things. They're all, "Ehrmagherd it's a war on Christmas!" and nothing changes.
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by boost
This is all sorts of faulty. They aren't the same inputs and they aren't opposing outcomes. People who bought and sold human beings as slaves also loved their children.
Huh?
I'm saying a Muslim terrorist attack against Muslims is responded to by Muslim police forces and Muslim firefighters and Muslim EMTs and Muslim doctors. All of them say they do it for their religion.
It doesn't add up.
If the same thing - Islam - explains opposing outcomes - the terrorism and the fight against terrorism - then we're not getting at the truth.
The religion is a common factor used to explain disparate outcomes. Therefore, the religion is not the real, underlying, motivating factor. It's a false positive.
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by boost
Culture and religions are complex systems which result in a plethora of outcomes if any one variable shifts. The point I'm aiming at is that on balance no two set of complex ideas are going to produce equally desirable outcomes. Take this point independently. Don't imagine where it will lead you. Actually contemplate how absurd the notion is.
"Equally desirable" can't be well-defined across all people.
In terms of socio-political-economic systems, history shows that different schemas excel on different scales and that humans can be quite adaptable to making a schema work beyond its optimal bounds.
Are North Korean people really any less happy than you or I on average?
I legit don't know, but I suspect you'd find about the same ratios of happy people, grumpy people, people that can tell a joke, people that are quick to anger, etc. in any human population. Cultures vary, but humanity doesn't really.
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by boost
(1)Is it your position that Nazi Germany had a disproportionate number of sociopaths? (2)That Nazi rhetoric and doctrine had no influence over a large number of people's decision to carry out or stand by and watch a genocide? (3)Nazism is an abhorrent set of ideas that, on balance, had atrocious outcomes. But guess what, Nazi's also produce engineering marvels, carried out marvelous public works projects, and had a great sense of style. (4)What's wrong? (5)Don't wanna play post-modernist mumbo-jumbo with this set of ideas?
(1) no. Just a few prominent ones that got to ride the charismatic wave of Hitler and found themselves in positions of tremendous consequence. (I'm not trained to diagnose sociopathy, but for my layman's understanding, it seems like a safe bet.)
(2) no
(3) yes
(4) Nothing's wrong. Both are true. The morality of the non-fiction, irl world is rarely black and white. Evil can be charismatic. (IDK about the style thing, but I wouldn't)
(5) What? I'm not hip to the lingo. I'm totally fine with acknowledging that the holocaust part of Nazism was evil, but the technological and military advancements they made were impressive. For a while there, it was Germany against everyone, it seemed, and Germany's tech was keeping up with all of them. We love to brag about how we beat them at the end, but it was at the end. German tech is still impressive.
|