Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

smacl wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

For there to be an objective standard there has to be something immovable and fixed to measure against - the carefully controlled metre stick in Paris for example.

Without fixed and immovable you've got subjective (majority view of the time, the Unitied Nations (which is just a different expression of the majority view of the time)).

Whilst God (if he exists) would provide the fixed reference, not everyone believes. And whilst a believer might concievably and accurately represent His view, non believers and believers with alternative (inaccurate in this event) theologies won't accept the objective as objective.

The athiest isn't even at the races in this regard. All he can ever have is the subjective.

The believer has the potential to have an objective view.

Nonsense.

What you're obliquely referring to there is terms of absolute objectivety is observer effect. This only relates to the physical world, whereas even children can and do deal with perfect abstracts all the time without needing a God. e.g. in a right angle triangle, the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square on the other two sides.

Humans rights standards, arrived at through consensus and revised on an ongoing basis are similarly abstract and rather more objective than anything you're likely to find in the bible. We also understand that they're aspirational ideals and not a pretense of absolute truth. So for example Christians often say "though shalt not kill". Except of course when it suits them, like when our infallible friend Pope Innocent III took the hump with the Cathars and had them slaughtered en-masse on a point of minor theological difference in what become Europe's first genocide.

Some of the fundamental human rights we collectively aspire to are as follows;

• The right to live your life free of discrimination
• The right to control what happens to your own body and to make medical decisions for yourself
• The right to freely exercise your religion and practice your religious beliefs without fear of being prosecuted for your beliefs
• The right to be free from prejudice on the basis of race, gender, national origin, color, age or sex

All of the above are basic human rights that Christianity has fought to oppress in the past and that some supposed Christians still feel the need to oppress.

I'm afraid your holier than though arguments once again are more holey than holy.

Much ado.

You haven't said a single thing to move fundamental beyond subjective. Collective subjective.

I'd agree with certain human rights and derive that view from whence I derive it. Others derive it as they derive it. Presumably where we share view we somehow share derivation method. Where we don't share we don't, our derivation method obviously differing.

Words like consensus and collective add not one jot of objectivity. There is no nearer to or further from .. the bible .. inherent in such terms. Other than supposing collective approaches objective.

Whether or not a christian practices what he preaches is besides the point. The point is for objective rights and wrongs (from whence human rights) you need an objective measure.

For that you need God.

And so, there is no need for me to adhere to the subjective collective. Since it is, and remains subjective.

Forces cause large scale subjective flows. We are sheep and can be moved en masse. I call the result the mood of the times (be it the persecution of homosexuals or the normalising of homosexuality). I don't see any reason to laud such movement any more than I need laud the aforethought and consideration of rocks involved in a landslide. I'm not impressed by majority rule, whether cultural Christianity or anything else.

Pherekydes wrote: »

recedite wrote: »

But as antiskeptic points out, If your collective exists inside its own little bubble...

Like the bible bubble?

Precisely. Worldview roots produce output. One worldviews advancement is another worldviews regression.

A flaw in athiest thinking is that modern means good and old equal bad (whilst both have demonstrable problems). And whats modern now will soon be old.

And so, the reliance on the onwards and upwards presumption.

antiskeptic wrote:

A flaw in athiest thinking is that modern means good and old equal bad..

robindch wrote: »

You're free to believe whatever crusty, old religious stories...

Quite.

you happen to like, but where something can be figured out easily (say, by asking your fellow-posters)

You have a bit of a graw for the "fellow members" device. You seem to forget the fellow members aren't exactly a neutral viewpoint.

All creative-writing padding for the main event though. You've clearly been gagging on the bit to find application for some buzzword you picked up recently.

Zero-sum thinking at its finest - yet another thing you seem to believe which is so trivially false, it verges on the embarrassing to have to point it out.

"Zero sum score". Sounds like one of those (thankfully defunct) internet discussion forum memes of the noughties. Remember when folk reamed off lists of logical fallacies others had supposedly committed? Or sprinkled "cognitive dissonance" all over the place?

antiskeptic wrote:

One worldviews advancement is another worldviews regression.

When the pro-abortion side celebrated as progress, the outcome of the recent referendum and the anti-abortion side saw the result as societal regression, they were both engaging in "zero sum scores"?

Let's hope this effort of yours doesn't find meme-purchase. You would do well to read your own link.

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps, but unless you can think of a time in the past where ethics and human rights had been superior, there's clearly been progress and that progress is ongoing.

Hmm.

Ethics and human rights (to me) isn't something that's written down on a piece of paper. It's something that happens in practice.

1. Wealth is concentrated in greater quantity/in fewer people that it ever has been before. The sophisticated mechanisms permitting such wealth concentration are modern day occurrences. Before it took expensive wars to achieve and maintain wealth concentration. Lawyers, politicians and tax consultants are a damn sight cheaper army to run.


2. Imperialism isn't a new idea. But modern day imperialism, lead by our "friends" across the pond have brought global levels of misery to untold hundreds of thousands, either directly or by proxy. The military/industrial/political complex diverts huge swathes of US wealth into perma-war. Perma-war is great if your a line worker for McDonnell Douglas. Not so good if you're on the receiving end of their products. Necessity (keep the business going) is the mother of invention

3. Captalism's final days. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that finite resources and ever increasing growth will never make successful bedfellows. Yet onwards and upwards with that model. This ties in, of course to the point 2. above. The raping of the planet is big business. And big business will swat human rights like so many flies. Poor you, if your non-developed country happens to contain copper, zinc, oil, magnesium, beryllium, chromium. I mean, we need the latest iteration of the iphone like we need air.

You sound like a man who considers the sentiment in a Corporate Mission Statement as gospel? They should all read "to make as much money as we possibly can by any means we think we can get away with" Didn't work for Volkswagen but hey...

4. Climate Change Global Warming (Climate Change is a term which was pushed to displace the term Global Warming - it sounds more innocuous). Do you know that boards.ie doesn't have a dedicated Global Warming forum? I mean, even the dog in the mainstream media street (owned by those in whom wealth is concentrated) knows we're in big trouble. Human rights involves not having to abandon your country because the developed worlds desire to maintain comfort and joy in the momentary distraction provided for by a Happy Meal toy. Doubtlessly, those affected will express their human rights in no uncertain terms. They, like those whose human rights have been trampled all over by perma-war, will simply come here. And when they do, you just watch the West protect those unfortunates human rights. They can feckin' drown in the Med is what they can do.


It's ongoing alright. But I wouldn't call it progress.



And, of course, it's all going to come to an end. Whether dwindling resources or climate change, it will come to an end. And as the end approaches, when things start getting to the pointy end of trouble, then there is only one sure thing that will happen.

War.

Fighting for resources, fighting to maintain comfort, fighting to prevent those worst affected from fleeing to places less affected. The same as now (we in the West are resource addicts afterall, and there ain't nothing lacking in empathy quite like an addict) but cranked up by the need, not for a Happy Meal toy or an iphone or the latest model car (for that is why people's rights are being trampled over now) but for survival of the good life. And then for the fight for survival.

Then watch what happens human rights. The problem won't be thinking of a time in the past when ethics were superior. It will be trying to find a time (including the holocaust and any other horror mankind has managed to produce) when they were inferior.

Mankind: onwards and upwards. Discuss.