Comments?
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583461,00.h...
Comments?
Charity is a kindness, and should never be expected, merely accepted as the generous deed it is. While it does look good on those that give it, people shouldn't try to shame those that don't.
Obviously, Saudi Arabia and Iran have sent a whopping total of ZERO!
Hmmm...
I would be curious to see if any Muslim nation has ever given any money to any non-Muslim nation...
For such a terrible, capitalist, imperialist, evil, dominating country, we sure do spend a lot of money to other countries...
I would be curious to see how many, if any, Muslim nations sent money and how much money was sent.
Obviously, Saudi Arabia and Iran have sent a whopping total of ZERO!
Hmmm...
I would be curious to see if any Muslim nation has ever given any money to any non-Muslim nation...
For such a terrible, capitalist, imperialist, evil, dominating country, we sure do spend a lot of money to other countries...
According to the article itself, Senegal sent $1 million. According to Wikipedia, Senegal has a 94% Muslim population.
Saudi Arabia is, as per the article, the only one who hasn't sent something. Argentina (not Muslim, but oil-rich, which is the basis for the article, not Muslim/non-Muslim) and Iran have donated food, and "Some oil-producing countries might be donating indirectly" - via charities.
*shrug*
I think it would be worth it to note, if one is going to compare who sent how much, the percentages of available money for the countries.
Of course, I also agree with EE, in that it's charity, not obligation. Obviously, it's nice to do, but it's also not required.
I would be curious to see how many, if any, Muslim nations sent money and how much money was sent.
Obviously, Saudi Arabia and Iran have sent a whopping total of ZERO!
Hmmm...
I would be curious to see if any Muslim nation has ever given any money to any non-Muslim nation...
For such a terrible, capitalist, imperialist, evil, dominating country, we sure do spend a lot of money to other countries...
According to the article itself, Senegal sent $1 million. According to Wikipedia, Senegal has a 94% Muslim population.
Good!
So there is one.
Any more?
Charity is a kindness, and should never be expected, merely accepted as the generous deed it is. While it does look good on those that give it, people shouldn't try to shame those that don't.
A virtue - but if it leads to the sin of pride, what good is it?
I would be curious to see how many, if any, Muslim nations sent money and how much money was sent.
Obviously, Saudi Arabia and Iran have sent a whopping total of ZERO!
Hmmm...
I would be curious to see if any Muslim nation has ever given any money to any non-Muslim nation...
For such a terrible, capitalist, imperialist, evil, dominating country, we sure do spend a lot of money to other countries...
According to the article itself, Senegal sent $1 million. According to Wikipedia, Senegal has a 94% Muslim population.
Good!
So there is one.
Any more?
I'd suggest you do your own research, but it's not worth it. The article itself doesn't list every country that donated, it just says Saudi Arabia "stands alone", which implies that there are many other oil-rich countries that are donating - which was the focus of the article, not Muslim countries.
So yeah. Your bias is showing.
I think the point I'm getting at is, everybody likes to bad mouth and put down the States, but whenever a disaster hits, the US is the first country people turn to for help.
It's two sides to the same coin. The US is (one of, if not) the biggest, most powerful nation - meaning, it has a lot of people who will criticize it, and also a lot who need its help.
Not to mention that one can disagree with and/or disapprove of someone and still need their help.
And also not to mention that one can have major flaws and still do nice things too.
I don't see your point very well illustrated, either with the article or your comments.
EDIT: What I find slightly mind-blowing is that the US has individuals donating more than entire countries. That amazes me.
So yeah. Your bias is showing.
*pulls pants up and looks to the rear*
It is?
Dang it!
Look, I just offered the question.
I really didn't know.
I had my suspicions, but I didn't know.
And now I know.
So my suspicions were wrong.
Wots the big deal?
So yeah. Your bias is showing.
*pulls pants up and looks to the rear*
It is?
Dang it!
Look, I just offered the question.
I really didn't know.
I had my suspicions, but I didn't know.
And now I know.
So my suspicions were wrong.
Wots the big deal?
You had suspicions based on your bias. I pointed out that they were wrong, and that your bias was showing. No big deal as far as I can see.
EDIT: What I find slightly mind-blowing is that the US has individuals donating more than entire countries. That amazes me.
It shouldn't, considering a lot of Hollywood stars are richer than some nations.
Which tells you something in and of itself...
EDIT: What I find slightly mind-blowing is that the US has individuals donating more than entire countries. That amazes me.
It shouldn't, considering a lot of Hollywood stars are richer than some nations.
Which tells you something in and of itself...
It can still amaze me, and still often does.
What it tells me may be different from what it tells you, but therein lies humanity. *shrug*
EDIT: What I find slightly mind-blowing is that the US has individuals donating more than entire countries. That amazes me.
Not me. I'm used to seeing the common american masses donate more than most countries.
Of course we gots to look at how easy it must be for americans to donate money to an organization like the red cross so that they can give aid using that money. most other people don't have the resources or access to knowledge/resources to do such. Also we have lots of guilty people in the US. Take a town of 100,000 adults and if they all donate a small $10 dollars then that is $1 mill for relief right there. Seeing as how the US is like 300 mil and so if half of the US could donate $10 dollars and it would add up to about 1.5 billion. It's not so much individuals but the individual as a collective (masses). Our poor are of course rich compared to poor from other country so they can get away with doing things like donating and with all the resources we can get a lot of donations. A lot of guilty and kind hearted people with many outlets can go a long way for aid world wide.
We've also got to remember that some of these countries donating 1 mil are 3rd world countries that are poor as heck and 1 mil for them is like 1 bil for us. I'd however like to see European nations be as generous in the future though. Or maybe the US to be less generous. Not sure which one though...
(but you probably already know this in which case just roll your eyes at me while still being amazed by the numbers)
EDIT: What I find slightly mind-blowing is that the US has individuals donating more than entire countries. That amazes me.
Not me. I'm used to seeing the common american masses donate more than most countries.
Of course we gots to look at how easy it must be for americans to donate money to an organization like the red cross so that they can give aid using that money. most other people don't have the resources or access to knowledge/resources to do such. Also we have lots of guilty people in the US. Take a town of 100,000 adults and if they all donate a small $10 dollars then that is $1 mill for relief right there. Seeing as how the US is like 300 mil and so if half of the US could donate $10 dollars and it would add up to about 1.5 billion. It's not so much individuals but the individual as a collective (masses). Our poor are of course rich compared to poor from other country so they can get away with doing things like donating and with all the resources we can get a lot of donations. A lot of guilty and kind hearted people with many outlets can go a long way for aid world wide.
We've also got to remember that some of these countries donating 1 mil are 3rd world countries that are poor as heck and 1 mil for them is like 1 bil for us. I'd however like to see European nations be as generous in the future though. Or maybe the US to be less generous. Not sure which one though...
(but you probably already know this in which case just roll your eyes at me while still being amazed by the numbers)
... actually, I'm wondering where you got off on the tangent of groups of Americans, which is much less amazing in terms of numbers vs population. I was talking about individuals like the stars mentioned, not the Red Cross or whatever. That isn't as amazing to me, for the reasons you just outlined - $10 from me is nothing, but $10 from me and everyone in my town adds up to a lot. I mean, it's cool, but yeah I get it.
And yes, I am remembering the 3rd-world countries. That is part of what makes it amazing. Celebrities have donated more than countries.
*shrug* I probably wasn't as clear as I meant to be in the first place.
The $10 dollar thing comes from many commercials I've seen about text haiti to a certain number and $10 will be charged to your phone bill. it will go to the red cross to help out people in haiti. And so when I read "individuals" I thought of just people not affiliated with any organization/government and so thought of adds like those.
It however doesn't surprise me that poor countries are hardly donating much and that actors and athletes that are worth millions upon millions of dollars are donating more than these poor countries. I don't know a lot of the messy tax stuff but as I understand it you get some tax write offs for donating and with the rich being heavily impacted by taxes IIRC it is worth it to donate quite a bit if it means you'll be able to keep much more from being taken away with taxes. Of course tax write offs probably aren't the main, or only, reason why a bunch of the wealthy individuals or businesses donated.
However, it is more their (the actual individuals) ability to donate that amazes me, not that they do. There are a number of uncharitable reasons to be charitable (taxes are one of them). I wasn't really talking about why people/countries do it, just about the raw ability to do so.
Yeah it is kind of amazing to think how billionaires like gates, the walton family and woods (Is he a billionaire?) as well as others have enough money they probably could buy some of those small impoverished nations if they wished.
I knew if I stuck to it, I could explain myself!
Charity is a kindness, and should never be expected, merely accepted as the generous deed it is. While it does look good on those that give it, people shouldn't try to shame those that don't.
Shaming someone into giving is extortion, plain and simple.
A virtue - but if it leads to the sin of pride, what good is it?
There is no such thing as sin and there is nothing wrong with pride.
There is no such thing as sin and there is nothing wrong with pride.
Incorrect on both counts. There is no such thing as lsjflskjdflsj (hence you won't find any references to it), you will find sin fairly well defined. Moreover, there is MUCH wrong with pride. This, as well, is adequately referenced.
There is no such thing as sin and there is nothing wrong with pride.
Incorrect on both counts. There is no such thing as lsjflskjdflsj (hence you won't find any references to it), you will find sin fairly well defined. Moreover, there is MUCH wrong with pride. This, as well, is adequately referenced.
Eh. It's a morality thing, and specifically it's a morality thing that's most frequently tied in to religion. So if you don't accep the religion, why should you accept it's sense of morality?
Further, while it is a concept, it has no being, no real essence. You could search the world over and never find a sin or virtue you can hold in your hand. They're not real, physical things, they're concepts, like justice, honor, and humility. They aren't a thing, and in that sense, they are very unreal, much like any other fantastic concept you can find.
edited to add: The trouble (and the reason I suspect that it needed to be brought up) is that too many equate it with religion. Religion tries to set a moral framework or guideline - it didn't create morality.
There is no such thing as sin and there is nothing wrong with pride.
Incorrect on both counts. There is no such thing as lsjflskjdflsj (hence you won't find any references to it), you will find sin fairly well defined.
A unicorn is well defined, that doesn't make it real.
Moreover, there is MUCH wrong with pride.
No, some people think there is something wrong with pride. They are wrong.
This, as well, is adequately referenced.
Again, adequate referencing does not mean something is necessarily real or true. Many things are "adequately referenced" which are fantastical, imaginary, in error, or flat-out wrong.
The comment, however, was "no such thing".
Concepts are, indeed, things - much like the others you mentioned.
If I had meant "no such concept" I'd have said so. Many things exist conceptually which do not exist in actually. Sin is one such thing.
As for the moral nature of it - morality, as it separates good from bad will exist so long as (wo)men pass judgment on one another. Given our history, I don't expect it to disappear any time soon.
Sin and morality are connected only insofar as sin is one mechanism by which some people attempt to dictate and control the morality of others.
edited to add: The trouble (and the reason I suspect that it needed to be brought up) is that too many equate it with religion. Religion tries to set a moral framework or guideline - it didn't create morality.
No, The trouble is that too many equate sin with morality. The former is unnecessary for, and unconnected to, the existence of the latter.
I'd however like to see European nations be as generous in the future though. Or maybe the US to be less generous. Not sure which one though...
What do you mean by that? I don't have access to adobe right now, so I can't see the full list (and I'd appreciate if someone would post it), but the article mentions that citizens of the US have donated 114.5 million $, and citizens of the UK have donated over 30.9 million $. This means that the US citizens combined have donated roughly 3.7 times as much money as UK citizens.
However the US has a population of around 308 million, while the UK has a population of around 61 million, or in other words, there are more than 5 times as many people in the US as in the UK, so for the average US citizen to have donated as much as the average UK citizen, the donation of the US ought to be over 5 times as high, not merely 3.7.
On the other hand, the citizens of France appear to have been less generous than the US. Calculating the average donation for each citizen, the UK has donated around 0.5 $ per citizen, the US 0.37, and France 0.25, assuming the numbers from wikipedia and the article were correct. This means that the average donation from UK and French citizens is almost exactly the same as the average donation from US citizens.
So unless wealthy European countries in general (taking into account that many eastern European countries especially, are somewhat poor by western standards, and shouldn't be counted on to be able to donate as much) have been more stingy than the UK and France, there's no reason to ask the European nations to be as generous as the US, since they already are.
Edit: I just got adobe to work, and a rough calculation (adding all the figures next to the word 'Denmark' together, not counting uncommitted pledges, comparing them to the size of the Danish population, and then doing the same for the UK and the US to make sure the figures match the numbers in the article so I can be sure I got right) shows me that the Danish donation is 0.6 $ per citizen, which isn't much in total aid given (since the Danish population is around 5.5 million), but is still far more generous than the US. Fancy that
If I had meant "no such concept" I'd have said so. Many things exist conceptually which do not exist in actually. Sin is one such thing.
failure to use language properly (or to know the definitions of the terms you use, one or the other). A concept is a thing (as stated), and they do exist in actuality.
Sin and morality are not the same thing. The former is unnecessary for the existence of the latter.
No - but highly related, as sin is defined to be a transgression of moral law.
No, The trouble is that too many equate sin with morality. The former is unnecessary for, and unconnected to, the existence of the latter.
incorrect - see the definition above. They are intimately connected for the reason I posted.
edited to add: and lest the concept of moral law come into play, recall the definition of law:
A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority. I fully understand that some rail against anything that even hints at religion. However, as stated, morals, and moral law will be with us for quite some time. Religion has nothing to do with it. Human nature does.
I read "individuals" and just thought of those not associated with a organization or government.
The $10 dollar thing comes from many commercials I've seen about {text haiti to a certain number and $10 will be charged to your phone bill.} it will go to the red cross to help out people in haiti. And so when I read "individuals" I thought of just people not affiliated with any organization/government and so thought of adds like those.
I wonder if there would have been as many people using that method if they knew the donations won't go immediately to the organisations helping Haiti. Most carriers won't transfer the donation until their clients pay their bill. {link}
Tis what happens when you donate through a middleman though...
failure to use language properly (or to know the definitions of the terms you use, one or the other). A concept is a thing (as stated), and they do exist in actuality.
Lucky I didn't use language incorrectly, then.
No - but highly related, as sin is defined to be a transgression of moral law.
Only by some and only to a specific defintion of moral law
incorrect - see the definition above. They are intimately connected for the reason I posted.
One does not need a concept of sin for morality to exist.
edited to add: and lest the concept of moral law come into play, recall the definition of law:
A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
Except you highlighted the wrong words. The key there is not "custom, agreement," it is "or authority."
I fully understand that some rail against anything that even hints at religion. However, as stated, morals, and moral law will be with us for quite some time. Religion has nothing to do with it. Human nature does.
Yes, and morality is not the issue. Sin, however, is inherently a religious concept and, as I stated before, is unnecessary for morality.
Lucky I didn't use language incorrectly, then.
Then you must truly be unfamiliar with the definitions.
Only by some and only to a specific defintion of moral law
Incorrect - by most - and it is the PRIMARY definition.
One does not need a concept of sin for morality to exist.
Correct - however, that was not my statement. One does need the concept of morality for sin to exist. (again, by definition)
Except you highlighted the wrong words. The key there is not "custom, agreement," it is "or authority."
Do you need the word "or" defined as well?
Yes, and morality is not the issue. Sin, however, is inherently a religious concept and, as I stated before, is unnecessary for morality.
Incorrect. Sin is a moral concept used by religion (by its very etymology). As said - you are apparently unfamiliar with the definitions. Or, my previous suspicion has "hit the mark" (cf. etymology of sin) and that is the reason for your continued arguing, though all evidence proves contrary to your claim.
I agree with PBN, while "sin" is heavily used by religions, it is no way a term that exists solely in religious context. Even if it is a term that originated with religious context, it definately is one used outside of religion in meaningful ways.
I remember when Boraxe tried to say there was no such things as human rights based on a definition that he created (or supplied). This remind me of that argument.
-snip-
For the most part it was not meant to be taken seriously. Just pokin' some fun at Europe.
As per the article, cuz I can't find a list with who's donated what so far, the US (I'm assuming just the government) has donated $114 mill. The UK, France and Italy also fall under the top 5 nations donating of which their total adds up to about $56 mill. Their total pop is that of 182 mill where the US is 300 mill. So the USA is 1.6 times larger than these 3 countries combined and the US donated 2 times more than what they did. So in all yes it does come out that they each have donated about the same amount as per the article.
Of course you could have just gone to the part where the article mentioned that The European Union has pledged $400 mill to Haiti aid. That would have blown my whole statement out of the water. But then the purpose of my statement wasn't to be factual but instead just to poke fun at.
~~~~
The European union is something like 500 mill in pop so that is something like $0.8 per person in the EU. That is on top of the individual government donations so we could say that Europe is being more generous than that stingy USofA.
I agree with PBN, while "sin" is heavily used by religions, it is no way a term that exists solely in religious context. Even if it is a term that originated with religious context, it definately is one used outside of religion in meaningful ways.
I remember when Boraxe tried to say there was no such things as human rights based on a definition that he created (or supplied). This remind me of that argument.
Though I thank you for the support, it is truly just a side-note. The only reason I will not go so far as to say it is off-topic, is that it serves to demonstrate the point I was making. It is, unfortuantely, human nature to judge others, by whatever standards and biases we may hold. As EE said below, charity is a courtesy (though not the word he used), or as I put it a virtue. Unfortunately, the tenor of thread is trying to exalt oneself to the denigration of others (the sin of pride). This changes the act, and demeans it, in my opinion. Does it matter who gave what? To me, it would be more pressing that help is given where needed, by whatever source, and in whatever form.
The comment, however, was "no such thing". Concepts are, indeed, things - much like the others you mentioned.
Neat. So "sin" and "virtue" about as real as unicorns and (non-komodo) dragons. I suppose we can file it under similar relevance?
For the most part it was not meant to be taken seriously. Just pokin' some fun at Europe.
Perhaps, but the number of Americans who keep talking about theirs being the most generous country in the world, and in the case of this thread, even use claims of superior US generosity to deflect criticism (though I admit that's a very special case ;)), it's hard to know if you're serious. And even if you weren't, I'm sure a lot of your countrymen (and perhaps some women too) would believe you were, and agree.
And apart from it being really annoying to listen to for people from other (and in some cases, more generous) countries, it is also the kind of thing that can have long-term negative consequences (at least if you count less charity as being negative), since US citizens could be less motivated to donate anything if they believed they were already doing so much more than any other people. And with the US having the population and wealth it has, less donations from Americans would be almost as disastrous as less donations from Europeans.
Of course you could have just gone to the part where the article mentioned that The European Union has pledged $400 mill to Haiti aid. That would have blown my whole statement out of the water. But then the purpose of my statement wasn't to be factual but instead just to poke fun at.
I wouldn't use that pledge as proof of anything (though I still believe Europe will end up donating more money than the US, if it hasn't already, despite being less wealthy on average. We're like that here in communist hell
), because I'm being fair. If you had said that the US had pledged to donate a billion $, I would have said that pledging is not the same as actually delivering. I'm a cynic like that, and sorry to say so, but US credibility is not at its highest (and to be realistic, I'm sure there are quite a few people Americans here who don't believe in EU pledges either.)I'm merely holding other countries to the same standards (counting funding only, not promises they might or might not keep), and trying to judge everybody on the same terms. That means the US (with no pledges) will appear more generous than it might end up being, and Denmark will be at a disadvantage (if I'd counted the money Denmark had pledged, it would have more than doubled our generosity, though we'd still be no match for Sweden, as usual ;)), but I don't have a problem with that. It still doesn't show the US as being the most generous country anyway, which was my point
Neat. So "sin" and "virtue" about as real as unicorns and (non-komodo) dragons. I suppose we can file it under similar relevance?
Not at all. (I assume you realize that and are just being hyperbolic)
Sin and virtue are real, and in practice. Moreover, for many (such as yourself, I would imagine) are given far too MUCH relevance in most cases. However, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. After all, is it not usually the claim that those in the ivory tower have no concept of "reality"?
Sin and virtue are real
Only as real as a fairy tale. Just because people do place value on something doesn't mean that the value is intrinsic or real.
Lucky I didn't use language incorrectly, then.
Then you must truly be unfamiliar with the definitions.
…
Do you need the word "or" defined as well?
Really? I knew you were argumentative but I thought you were better than that.
Only as real as a fairy tale. Just because people do place value on something doesn't mean that the value is intrinsic or real.
If you mean fairy tales as written and laid down, yes. If you mean as for the contents, then no. Again, either you aren't familiar with the terms, or are assigning meaning to them that is counter to their ACTUAL meaning. Sin and virtue mean respectively bad and good. No more, no less. I understand many like to push their relgious beliefs (pro- or anti-) into the terms, however, doing so is erroneous. Do people not judge others? Have you never been judged? Judgment is real. Good and Bad are real. Virtue and Sin are real. What is good and what is bad can be debated. the existence of those concepts, however, cannot.
Really? I knew you were argumentative but I thought you were better than that.
Perhaps I misread you then. As I highlighted the relevant terms, why did you attempt to refute my point by highlighting the optional (and irrelevant) in this case third? If the implication was that OR meant any of the above (as it should) your argument would hold no water. To use your own phrase - I thought you were better than that. If the implication was that OR meant an addition to the other two (which would be and, not or), then you are misunderstanding the term or when used as such a conjunction.
edited: clarified
As EE said below, charity is a courtesy (though not the word he used), or as I put it a virtue. Unfortunately, the tenor of thread is trying to exalt oneself to the denigration of others (the sin of pride). This changes the act, and demeans it, in my opinion. Does it matter who gave what? To me, it would be more pressing that help is given where needed, by whatever source, and in whatever form.
Thing is, I agree with the substance of your point. One should give because there is a need and one truly wishes to help, not in order to boost one's own esteem, and one should most certainly not shame others into giving.
Perhaps I misread you then.
Intentionally so, I think.
As I highlighted the relevant terms, why did you attempt to refute my point by highlighting the optional (and irrelevant) in this case third?
Because you had it backwards. The two terms you highlighted were not the relevant ones, they were simply the ones you chose to best bolster your point despite the fact they did not apply. I don't fault you for it, it is a very common argument technique (particularly on the net) but that doesn't actually make it correct and nor does it justify your rudeness in response.
If the implication was that OR meant any of the above (as it should) your argument would hold no water. To use your own phrase - I thought you were better than that. If the implication was that OR meant an addition to the other two (which would be and, not or), then you are misunderstanding the term or when used as such a conjunction.
Yes, in the quoted passage "or" means "any of the above". However, in the context you were discussing - "moral law" - only the last of the three applied.
Thing is, I agree with the substance of your point. One should give because there is a need and one truly wishes to help, not in order to boost one's own esteem, and one should most certainly not shame others into giving.
Careful - first HATER, now me. It means either the end of the world, or the coming of a golden age. (not sure which).
JC
I understand your viewpoint. Something you should realize (in case you haven't figured it out). Though not an atheist - I am not "religious". The trouble I find with people who are too "involved" with their faiths is that they tend to evangelize (this includes you). I am familiar with your faith's desire to curb words from use. However, you should realize that just because a religion uses a term, it does not make the term religious. Sin and virtue have been around forever. As I said - as long as judgment has been made. When you react as you do, realize that at that point you are preaching your faith. I doubt you would take react well to others of different faiths doing the same.
I understand your viewpoint. Something you should realize (in case you haven't figured it out). Though not an atheist - I am not "religious". The trouble I find with people who are too "involved" with their faiths is that they tend to evangelize (this includes you). I am familiar with your faith's desire to curb words from use. However, you should realize that just because a religion uses a term, it does not make the term religious. Sin and virtue have been around forever. As I said - as long as judgment has been made. When you react as you do, realize that at that point you are preaching your faith. I doubt you would take react well to others of different faiths doing the same.
Intentionally so, I think.
read my other comment. You have this backwards. I deflated your attempt to push your agenda. (see below)
Because you had it backwards. The two terms you highlighted were not the relevant ones, they were simply the ones you chose to best bolster your point despite the fact they did not apply. I don't fault you for it, it is a very common argument technique (particularly on the net) but that doesn't actually make it correct and nor does it justify your rudeness in response.
Not at all, this demonstrates your bias (see below)
Yes, in the quoted passage "or" means "any of the above". However, in the context you were discussing - "moral law" - only the last of the three applied.
Incorrect - as stated before. Moral law existed in even the most primitive tribes. Again, so long as people judge others and customs are set. Long before any established religion there was moral law. This includes societies where the authority was communal. (more akin to the first two).
There is no such thing as sin and there is nothing wrong with pride.
Some people would disagree my friend...
I never doubted their existence as concepts, what I've doubted is their existence as something real. As is, you've done nothing to establish that they're any more real then Snow White and her Seven Dwarves.
they are REAL by most every definition of the word real. Sorry, EE, symantical games will not get you out of this one. Concepts are real. What they are not is PHYSICAL. As far as demonstrating that they are more Real than Snow White, I already mentioned, that depends in what manner you are meaning Snow White. To my knowledge, however, no laws have been passed because of Snow White, while in another thread we were talking about sin taxes.
read my other comment. You have this backwards. I deflated your attempt to push your agenda. (see below)
You "deflated" nothing.
Not at all, this demonstrates your bias (see below)
Anyone who claims they are without bias is either lying, delusional, or both.
Incorrect - as stated before. Moral law existed in even the most primitive tribes. Again, so long as people judge others and customs are set. Long before any established religion there was moral law. This includes societies where the authority was communal. (more akin to the first two).
Which simply illustrates that morality is distinct from sin, which is a religious concept.
Some people would disagree my friend...
Of course, but I don't presume to speak for them. I am only qualified to give my opinion on an issue, no one else's.
Which simply illustrates that morality is distinct from sin, which is a religious concept.
Untrue - did you look into the etymology as I suggested? (your insistence indicates you did not). The word itself has pagan roots.
edited to add: "You "deflated" nothing." - apparently, as you are still preaching your faith.
Which simply illustrates that morality is distinct from sin, which is a religious concept.
Untrue - did you look into the etymology as I suggested? (your insistence indicates you did not). The word itself has pagan roots.
Wouldn't paganism be considered to be a religious practice?
Wouldn't paganism be considered to be a religious practice?
It depends on the point at which you define something as a "religion". This is a contested issue - as some would question whether the animistic and totemic peoples truly practiced "religion", or whether the advent of religion begins with the anthropomorphizing of the deities. However, for the time period in question, the word, and meaning derived meant simply "untrue".
Anyone who claims they are without bias is either lying, delusional, or both.
I am none of these as I readily admit to bias...
well... whether or not I am delusional is open for debate
Wouldn't paganism be considered to be a religious practice?
It depends on the point at which you define something as a "religion". This is a contested issue - as some would question whether the animistic and totemic peoples truly practiced "religion", or whether the advent of religion begins with the anthropomorphizing of the deities. However, for the time period in question, the word, and meaning derived meant simply "untrue".
Interesting. Could you elaborate?
(For clarification, I don't think I disagree with you.)
Interesting. Could you elaborate?
(For clarification, I don't think I disagree with you.)
On which? If you mean the evolution of religious practices - it begins in the early days of man. Questions existed without answers and over time various methods have been used to supply answers. Frazer (although in error in some places) is a good reference for this (The Golden Bough). Some of his speculations are off, but the overall evolution is fairly good. To demonstrate, I'll pick on one of the primal forces - thunder. (NOTE: this is EXTREMELY simplified)
At first, man "worshipped" the thunder directly. (nature)
perhaps at this stage, an idol would be made to depict the thunder (totemism)
next, the "spirit of thunder" would be incorporated into an animal, based upon some relation - perhaps, oh an eagle, for its high flight (animism)
perhaps at this stage,an idol would be made to depict either the eagle (totemism II - shamanism)
Eventually - as more human characteristics were associated with the thunder (rage, etc), it was given a human form - oh, let's say Zeus (normally, the animal associated originally would be associated with the new god) (religion)
So - where does religion start? Is there religion without a god?
Is it purely from a perspective of organization?
Interesting. Could you elaborate?
(For clarification, I don't think I disagree with you.)
On which? If you mean the evolution of religious practices - it begins in the early days of man. Questions existed without answers and over time various methods have been used to supply answers. Frazer (although in error in some places) is a good reference for this (The Golden Bough). Some of his speculations are off, but the overall evolution is fairly good. To demonstrate, I'll pick on one of the primal forces - thunder. (NOTE: this is EXTREMELY simplified)
At first, man "worshipped" the thunder directly. (nature)
perhaps at this stage, an idol would be made to depict the thunder (totemism)
next, the "spirit of thunder" would be incorporated into an animal, based upon some relation - perhaps, oh an eagle, for its high flight (animism)
perhaps at this stage,an idol would be made to depict either the eagle (totemism II - shamanism)
Eventually - as more human characteristics were associated with the thunder (rage, etc), it was given a human form - oh, let's say Zeus (normally, the animal associated originally would be associated with the new god) (religion)
So - where does religion start? Is there religion without a god?
What is the definition of "god" then? If religion means belief in a divine force, why are totemism and animism denied? Is the lack of a creator aspect? Where does, say, Taoist practices come to it?
I would also wonder at what point do moral or philosophical systems become religions. (And I'm not talking about legal status.)
Is it purely from a perspective of organization?
Philosophy? Never. It is based on human logic, whereas religion is based on faith.
Taoism has gods, BTW. Jade Emperor, Queen Mother of the West, etc.
Also, philosophies don't only follow logic. Philosophies typically have to make a value judgement somewhere. That's why there are so many different philosophies about similar things.
So you think religions require large elements of faith?
Also, philosophies don't only follow logic. Philosophies typically have to make a value judgement somewhere. That's why there are so many different philosophies about similar things.
I used to have a really nice comparison of "religion vs philosophy" from one of my classes, but I don't know where it is. And suffice it to say that I can't remember enough of the content to be helpful. But it is something that is discussed in such circles - they do overlap in a number of areas.
EDIT: And, being actively discussed, there is not one definitive answer it.
Oh wait...
That's one of my biggest pet peeves - when people refer to Buddhism and Taoism and other "Eastern religions" as "philosophies" and not religions. They're religions. I used to have a whole thing about it, but I don't feel like getting into it anymore.
It's all just semantics, tinged with both ethno- and exo-centrism. Give it enough time and they'll all be supplanted by the latest repackaging of ancient stories and simply become the newest additions to the redundancy catch-all "mythology".
I thought religious discussions were a banned topic?
Oh wait...
Now, now, don't feel affronted
. You should actually be proud and glad-your threads are just so very...OTTable.I thought religious discussions were a banned topic?
Oh wait...
Now, now, don't feel affronted . You should actually be proud and glad-your threads are just so very...OTTable.
But I've seen a certain individual get banned a lot for having/starting religious discussions, yet I see few, if any, others get disciplined for it...
Thats all.
I could care less what we talk about...
I never doubted their existence as concepts, what I've doubted is their existence as something real. As is, you've done nothing to establish that they're any more real then Snow White and her Seven Dwarves.
they are REAL by most every definition of the word real. Sorry, EE, symantical games will not get you out of this one.
Well, I wasn't playing semantics games before, but if you're going to try and discredit me with such claims, I may as well step up to the plate, eh?
Show
Main Entry: 1re·al ..."return au('real1001', 'real');" class="au" title="Listen to the pronunciation of 1real" type="button" />Pronunciation: \ˈrē(-ə)l\
I thought religious discussions were a banned topic?
Oh wait...
Now, now, don't feel affronted . You should actually be proud and glad-your threads are just so very...OTTable.
But I've seen a certain individual get banned a lot for having/starting religious discussions, yet I see few, if any, others get disciplined for it...
Thats all.
I could care less what we talk about...
When I saw your name, I figured... and now it seems I was right, too.
Also guys, you really know how to derail a thread
Also guys, you really know how to derail a thread
True.
Does it matter how much someone gives? Does it matter in comparison to others, or in comparison to what they can "afford" to give (ie: it doesn't negatively impact their chosen lifestyle)? Or should the act of giving be taken in good faith and appreciated no matter the amount?
Does it matter how much someone gives? Does it matter in comparison to others, or in comparison to what they can "afford" to give (ie: it doesn't negatively impact their chosen lifestyle)? Or should the act of giving be taken in good faith and appreciated no matter the amount?
Of course all charity should be appreciated no matter how small, but guilt it one of the primary weapons in Good's arsenal after all
Besides, if you are aiming for the moral high ground (e.g. "we sure do spend a lot of money to other countries", "the US is the first country people turn to for help"), it is worth taking into account how much you, or the people you're speaking for, are actually sacrificing for the benefit of others.Also, as much as I think people should donate out of sheer goodness themselves, and not try to make others feel obliged to be charitable, I also don't think the starving parents with 8 children and a sick grandfather to feed really care that much why they receive donations of food, as long as they get them. And these are the people that concern me the most, so if someone else make the decision to donate for the wrong reasons, even if it's just bragging rights, I can't say I mind.
Hi ;)
For the most part it was not meant to be taken seriously. Just pokin' some fun at Europe.
Perhaps, but the number of Americans who keep talking about theirs being the most generous country in the world, and in the case of this thread, even use claims of superior US generosity to deflect criticism (though I admit that's a very special case ;)), it's hard to know if you're serious. And even if you weren't, I'm sure a lot of your countrymen (and perhaps some women too) would believe you were, and agree.
And apart from it being really annoying to listen to for people from other (and in some cases, more generous) countries, it is also the kind of thing that can have long-term negative consequences (at least if you count less charity as being negative), since US citizens could be less motivated to donate anything if they believed they were already doing so much more than any other people. And with the US having the population and wealth it has, less donations from Americans would be almost as disastrous as less donations from Europeans.Of course you could have just gone to the part where the article mentioned that The European Union has pledged $400 mill to Haiti aid. That would have blown my whole statement out of the water. But then the purpose of my statement wasn't to be factual but instead just to poke fun at.
I wouldn't use that pledge as proof of anything (though I still believe Europe will end up donating more money than the US, if it hasn't already, despite being less wealthy on average. We're like that here in communist hell
I'm merely holding other countries to the same standards (counting funding only, not promises they might or might not keep), and trying to judge everybody on the same terms. That means the US (with no pledges) will appear more generous than it might end up being, and Denmark will be at a disadvantage (if I'd counted the money Denmark had pledged, it would have more than doubled our generosity, though we'd still be no match for Sweden, as usual ;)), but I don't have a problem with that. It still doesn't show the US as being the most generous country anyway, which was my point
Now sure how that would help that argument though. To me it just seems that a few of you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Edit:
Erato: Isn't it irresponsible to have so many kids if you're starving?
the reality of concepts
Well, I wasn't playing semantics games before, but if you're going to try and discredit me with such claims, I may as well step up to the plate, eh?
Oh goodie, I like this game...
We chose different sources, so this should be fun
1 : of or relating to fixed, permanent, or immovable things (as lands or tenements)
That same source defines permanent as: "continuing or enduring without fundamental or marked change. I would assert that either such concepts do INDEED meet that requirement, or there are NO things that meet that requirement. The world itself is constantly changing in more ways than the concepts espoused. In which case NOTHING is real.2 a : not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory : genuine ; also : being precisely what the name implies
artificial: they are no more artificial than any other label used to define any other thing. Again, by the definition given by this source - they are as real as EVERYTHING (or as artificial)
fraudulent: they are not fraudulent by any means, so I would assume this is not your issue with this part
illusory: as with fraudulent
b (1) : occurring or existing in actuality
I disagree with the assessment you make - again, cf actual from same source
(3) : existing as a physical entity and having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard — compare ideal 3b
granted
c : having objective independent existence
As the source shows objective to be defined to be "object of thought", this qualifies
d : fundamental, essential
Again - they qualify from the definitions given by the same source (MW, btw)
The rest are specialized (field related) definitions and not subject to this discussion
So... good thing I wasn't playing semantics games, eh? Believe me, I don't mind - I rather enjoy it actually
Now if you wish to compare the same from the source I was referencing when I wrote my post, I leave it to you: RealThey can be important. They can influence people. People can place value in them. But they do not exist indepently of people, and are not real. They're as real as a dream or a fairy tale. We can discuss them, debate them, base decisions on them. But belief and faith do not make something real.
That brings up a whole school of philosophy, as many would consider NOTHING to exist independant of people. The issue will revolve on how we "people" label and choose to define those aspects we encounter, and how we view them. In this (and the reason for mentioning the school) is that in the end, it all boils down to what we believe, and what we accept.That demonstrates nothing. People base decisions on ideas, on myths, on fabrications and lies all the time. So people basing laws on them? That demonstrates nothing.
Difference in source. For your source, I need only point to def 2d. SW fails the fundamental test.
[sblock]That quote turned into a big mess, so I'm starting a new one.
Re: 2a - Not artificial, fradulent, or illusory
hrm... let me think... being as I've said several times that sin, virtue, vice, etc. are all man-made concepts and wouldn't exist outside of man, that's a pretty clear-cut case of them being ariticial, no? They are artificial, they are not "real" by that definition. Convenient for my argument, but that's not really the context we were going for anyway. So not the applicable definition.
Re: b1 - occurring or existing in actuality
Actuality goes back to it being real, that's a recursive definition, which does us no good. Why do they make recursive definitions?
Re: c - having objective independent existence
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to a mideval philosopher. That definition doesn't fit the context "having objective independent existence", especially since it includes "independent existence" which clearly precludes things that cannot, by their very nature, have an independent existance as they're man-made constructs that have no meaning independent of man?
Re: d - fundamental, essential
Eh, this definition is odd. I can't think of any examples of using the word "real" with this definition, and it definitely doesn't fit the context I was using the word in. Not to mention it's not under your definition.
Not to mention that even if that were, contextually, a fitting definition for "real" as I've been using it, you have to give things like "fundamental" and "essential" for them to be meaningful. Salt may be essential to most cooking recipes, but it's certainly not essential to a bomb (note, if NaCl is actually essential to modern explosives, that just means I chose a bad example). So if you give it the context of this conversation... I'd disagree. Sins and virtues are not essential to the world, the world would keep spinning without them just fine.
Moving beyond the definitions from Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com has a better one. Definition six, for philosophy (which this is a debate of). "Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language." So unless you want to use a definition of "objectively" that clearly doesn't fit the usage...
That brings up a whole school of philosophy, as many would consider NOTHING to exist independant of people.
And why should I care about people who think the world revolves around them?
Difference in source. For your source, I need only point to def 2d. SW fails the fundamental test.
Ignoring that, contextually, it's clear that's not the definition I've been using all along, SW fails right along side your sins and virtues, as they are not fundamental or essential to reality either, and you merely saying they are isn't very convincing.[/spoiler]
EscherEgnima: Is your position that only physical things exist?
My position is irrelevant.
Only as real as a fairy tale. Just because people do place value on something doesn't mean that the value is intrinsic or real.
If you mean fairy tales as written and laid down, yes. If you mean as for the contents, then no. Again, either you aren't familiar with the terms, or are assigning meaning to them that is counter to their ACTUAL meaning. Sin and virtue mean respectively bad and good. No more, no less. I understand many like to push their relgious beliefs (pro- or anti-) into the terms, however, doing so is erroneous. Do people not judge others? Have you never been judged? Judgment is real. Good and Bad are real. Virtue and Sin are real. What is good and what is bad can be debated. the existence of those concepts, however, cannot.
The concept of the air being a liquid and human illness being caused by imbalanced humors also exist. That does not make them real or true. They are really ideas, they are not real ideas, if you get my distinction. The existence of teh concept of sin and virtue is not what they are protesting, rather they are arguing that they are imaginary concepts, that they do not actually describe anything in reality. AKA actual sin does not exist: people will still deem it to exist, and point to certain things and say they posses sin, but that such an accusation is no more relevant than pointing to a man and saying his ather is high or that his aura is in flux.
The concept of the air being a liquid and human illness being caused by imbalanced humors also exist. That does not make them real or true. They are really ideas, they are not real ideas, if you get my distinction. The existence of teh concept of sin and virtue is not what they are protesting, rather they are arguing that they are imaginary concepts, that they do not actually describe anything in reality. AKA actual sin does not exist: people will still deem it to exist, and point to certain things and say they posses sin, but that such an accusation is no more relevant than pointing to a man and saying his ather is high or that his aura is in flux.
Different use of concept. Sin and virtue, as stated, are no more than the result of judgments being passed. Sin does exist, so long as a one deems some aspect or action of another as "bad". The reaons that this may cause confusion, is that bad and good are moral judgments. Unlike the aether (which is, at least, unproven in its existence), moral judgments are made. The difference lies in that one man's sin may be another man's virtue (and vice versa). This, however, does not prevent them describing something in reality. In a way, they aren't "ideas" in the same sense you use above, but rather, just labels. A PERFECT analogy would be the concepts of hot and cold. Would any argue that they don't exist? (they - like sin and virtue, are labels used to describe something in terms relative to the speaker)
Show
Note: I believe this warrants its own thread]
Here is where you either do not understand the fundamental nature of sin and virtue, or we are talking past one another. Sin ad Virtue are judgment calls, as I've mentioned. They are man-made ONLY in the sense that man has made a judgment. Once that judgment has been made sin and virtue are no more than labels we use to describe that judgment. This moves the question to whether or not judgment is artificial, fraudulent or illusory. It isn't. It is a natural state for man, some even driven as physiological responses. Moreover, those same responses are seen amongst other species as well.
See above - they are not man-made constructs. They are labels that we use to describe the results of judgments that occur naturally. As stated, man is not even necessary in this equation. They do not exist independently of judgment - given. However, the ONLY manner in which would be to remove all species that have the ability to discern differences, and make judgments based on those differences. In other words - you are considering ONLY physical non-sentient objects.
different usage of essential, I imagine. Not the form of need, but the form of essence.
As shown below - I was avoiding field-specific definition. They aren't part of the real number system, for exampl.e.
See above for fundamental/essential.
Re: 2a - Not artificial, fradulent, or illusory
hrm... let me think... being as I've said several times that sin, virtue, vice, etc. are all man-made concepts and wouldn't exist outside of man, that's a pretty clear-cut case of them being ariticial, no? They are artificial, they are not "real" by that definition. Convenient for my argument, but that's not really the context we were going for anyway. So not the applicable definition.
Here is where you either do not understand the fundamental nature of sin and virtue, or we are talking past one another. Sin ad Virtue are judgment calls, as I've mentioned. They are man-made ONLY in the sense that man has made a judgment. Once that judgment has been made sin and virtue are no more than labels we use to describe that judgment. This moves the question to whether or not judgment is artificial, fraudulent or illusory. It isn't. It is a natural state for man, some even driven as physiological responses. Moreover, those same responses are seen amongst other species as well.
Re: c - having objective independent existence
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to a mideval philosopher. That definition doesn't fit the context "having objective independent existence", especially since it includes "independent existence" which clearly precludes things that cannot, by their very nature, have an independent existance as they're man-made constructs that have no meaning independent of man?
See above - they are not man-made constructs. They are labels that we use to describe the results of judgments that occur naturally. As stated, man is not even necessary in this equation. They do not exist independently of judgment - given. However, the ONLY manner in which would be to remove all species that have the ability to discern differences, and make judgments based on those differences. In other words - you are considering ONLY physical non-sentient objects.
Not to mention that even if that were, contextually, a fitting definition for "real" as I've been using it, you have to give things like "fundamental" and "essential" for them to be meaningful.Salt may be essential to most cooking recipes, but it's certainly not essential to a bomb (note, if NaCl is actually essential to modern explosives, that just means I chose a bad example). So if you give it the context of this conversation... I'd disagree. Sins and virtues are not essential to the world, the world would keep spinning without them just fine.
different usage of essential, I imagine. Not the form of need, but the form of essence.
Moving beyond the definitions from Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com has a better one. Definition six, for philosophy (which this is a debate of). "Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language." So unless you want to use a definition of "objectively" that clearly doesn't fit the usage...
As shown below - I was avoiding field-specific definition. They aren't part of the real number system, for exampl.e.
Ignoring that, contextually, it's clear that's not the definition I've been using all along, SW fails right along side your sins and virtues, as they are not fundamental or essential to reality either, and you merely saying they are isn't very convincing.[/spoiler]
See above for fundamental/essential.
But quite simply, anything that requires belief in it to be real, isn't.
But quite simply, anything that requires belief in it to be real, isn't.
Then it seems we are talking past one another. Does determining if something is hot "require belief"?
But quite simply, anything that requires belief in it to be real, isn't.
Then it seems we are talking past one another. Does determining if something is hot "require belief"?
And I'm going to play with your strawman because...?
And I'm going to play with your strawman because...?
Not a strawman - you are (seem to be) stuck on the words being religious. As such, you aren't dealing with them for what they truly represent. I mentioned earlier hot and cold are a PERFECT analogy (in almost all ways - subjective, determinant, based on judgment). In that regard, by your definition - Sin and virtue may not "be real". However, as they are defined, and as they are used, they are, indeed.
edited to add: I find it interesting. First (as is typical) you decide to just ignore the conversation (ie. lose your patience for the discussion, in light of contradictory evidence). Then, follow it up with a false accusation of fallacy.
(and clarified)
And I'm going to play with your strawman because...?
Not a strawman
I disagree. It is not an argument I presented, I do not feel it is an appropriate representation of what I have said, and I do not feel like defending your strawman.
edited to add: I find it interesting. First (as is typical) you decide to just ignore the conversation (ie. lose your patience for the discussion, in light of contradictory evidence).
I'm sorry, but just what obligation am I under to waste my time with pointlessly long posts that are clearly getting me nowhere? If I repeat a point nine times and you still don't understand where I'm coming from, then repeating it a tenth is just wasting my time.
I disagree. It is not an argument I presented, I do not feel it is an appropriate representation of what I have said, and I do not feel like defending your strawman.
No, it's an underlying premise. YOUR argument implies that sin requires belief. It does not. Therefore I attempted to understand if perhaps you are using the term belief in an odd sense, or merely continuing to assign the root of sin to be based in religion. So - I asked flatly if you consider something requiring the same judgment as also requiring belief. The fact that you would consider it a strawman is, again, further indication that you do interpret the terms incorrectly (sin and virtue, that is).
I'm sorry, but just what obligation am I under to waste my time with pointlessly long posts that are clearly getting me nowhere? If I repeat a point nine times and you still don't understand where I'm coming from, then repeating it a tenth is just wasting my time.
You are under no obligation to do anything. As for repeating the argument nine times. You are yet to address mine, rather you return to your erroneous concept of what the two terms entail. Of course, I try simply to figure out what you are getting at (despite having to guess because you won't just admit the overtones you insist on using for the terms) to continue justifying your claim. The Ivory Tower doesn't allow you to make pronunciation from on-high. Common usage still plays a key role when it comes to words and their definitions. I, at least, seldom encounter the terms in any religious context - yet always in judgment (the most recent of each being the living conditions for those effected by the earthquake in haiti, and my latest job review)
I disagree. It is not an argument I presented, I do not feel it is an appropriate representation of what I have said, and I do not feel like defending your strawman.
No, it's an underlying premise.
So you believe.
No, it's an underlying premise.
So you believe.
Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken here:
Further, while it is a concept, it has no being, no real essence. You could search the world over and never find a sin or virtue you can hold in your hand. They're not real, physical things, they're concepts, like justice, honor, and humility. They aren't a thing, and in that sense, they are very unreal, much like any other fantastic concept you can find.
But quite simply, anything that requires belief in it to be real, isn't.
Then it seems we are talking past one another. Does determining if something is hot "require belief"?
And I'm going to play with your strawman because...?
To use your own words - you could search the world over and never find heat or cold you can hold in your hand. You can, however, find many things that you JUDGE to be hot or JUDGE to be cold.
Seems to be the premise to me. The issue is that JUDGMENT, in many ways IS a belief. In which case your answer should be a simple NO - hot and cold are not real, as you are choosing to use the term. My question, however, did NOT pose a strawman - rather, as stated, was an attempt to clarify your position.
Seems to be the premise to me.
And with your oh-so-excellent track record of divining my meaning, what makes you think you managed to get it this time?
Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken here:
I've tried. Several times. You've ignored me every time. Is it a wonder I'm not interseted in arguing?
And with your oh-so-excellent track record of divining my meaning, what makes you think you managed to get it this time?
Perhaps the fact that I used your EXACT words this time?
I've tried. Several times. You've ignored me every time. Is it a wonder I'm not interseted in arguing?
No - that's deflection and denial. One of your original posts, in fact, states the religious connotation you use (odd, as I very seldom encounter the terms in a religious context - most likely because I'm not a religious person) and, yet, when I say as much, you say I don't follow you.
Different use of concept. Sin and virtue, as stated, are no more than the result of judgments being passed. Sin does exist, so long as a one deems some aspect or action of another as "bad". The reaons that this may cause confusion, is that bad and good are moral judgments. Unlike the aether (which is, at least, unproven in its existence), moral judgments are made. The difference lies in that one man's sin may be another man's virtue (and vice versa). This, however, does not prevent them describing something in reality. In a way, they aren't "ideas" in the same sense you use above, but rather, just labels. A PERFECT analogy would be the concepts of hot and cold. Would any argue that they don't exist? (they - like sin and virtue, are labels used to describe something in terms relative to the speaker)
In your example, it has described nothing. I can judge something to be frumpy. That does not mean that frumpy is a real thing. Yes, Sin is a label, but, like frumpy, it is a lable attached to something baised upon nothing aside from my own bias about how things should be. It lables things I disaprove of as things I disaprove of without the need to describe why I disaprove of them while imlying that you had damn well disaprove of them as well. (or so the argument would go, I imagine.)
Sin is unproven in its existence. Judging someone on their sinfullness or lack therof does not make sin exist anymore than judging someone on their resembalance in flavor to man flavored icecream makes man flavored icecream exist. Saying 'it is a real human concept' is worthless, anything anyone has ever concieved of is a real human concept, even canible icecream.
On the subject of 'Hot' and 'Cold', yes, they do not really exist. They are arbitrary lables applied to what we individually feel to be one extreem or the other of molecular motion. 'Hot' has not been proven to exist any more than unicorns, ather, or sin. The fact that shared experience leads to similiar bias among the occupants of our planet just means our personal prefrences are necessitated by survival to be similiar, not that there is really such a thing as 'Hot'.
But quite simply, anything that requires belief in it to be real, isn't.
Then it seems we are talking past one another. Does determining if something is hot "require belief"?
You cannot determin if something is hot. You can only decide if you belive it to have a temperature high enough to be hot. Yes, it requires belife to determine if something is hot.
To use your own words - you could search the world over and never find heat or cold you can hold in your hand. You can, however, find many things that you JUDGE to be hot or JUDGE to be cold.
Seems to be the premise to me. The issue is that JUDGMENT, in many ways IS a belief. In which case your answer should be a simple NO - hot and cold are not real, as you are choosing to use the term. My question, however, did NOT pose a strawman - rather, as stated, was an attempt to clarify your position.
.... so now your agreeing that sin, like hot, is not real. Atleast we are on the same page then.
And this I can accept. Moreover - I even offered it as a suggestion. That, simply, lets me know the connotation YOU are using when saying something is "real".
Edit:
Erato: Isn't it irresponsible to have so many kids if you're starving?
Sure, if you have access and knowledge about birth control, if you have legal, and practical, ownership over your own body at the time of conception (mostly goes for women), and if you know that you're facing a hard time years in advance (rather than, say, suddenly losing everything in an earthquake). But sadly, that's not always how the world works.
And with your oh-so-excellent track record of divining my meaning, what makes you think you managed to get it this time?
Perhaps the fact that I used your EXACT words this time?
And? If it were impossible to wrongly interpret my words this conversation would have been over after my first post on it.
No - that's deflection and denial.
No, it's disdain and apathy.
And? If it were impossible to wrongly interpret my words this conversation would have been over after my first post on it.
Considering I left your words for you to interpret, that doesn't speak well of your words now, does it?
No, it's disdain and apathy.
No, if it were apathy, you wouldn't have posted.
If you have no more jabs?
Pointless conversation is pointless.
If you have no more jabs?
No jabs - only counters. As demonstrated with TA - it would have been fairly simply to reach agreement some time ago. To that end, I even offered a potential means. As to why you didn't accept the olive branch, I (and others) can only speculate. However, I suppose that is the nature of charity and giving, and how it is affected by one's perceptions.
What I truly find curious is that somehow this diversion deserved more attention than the bit I posted concerning Liberia. It seems to me, after all, that such would have drawn more comment as it more clearly demonstrated the differences. /shrug/
No jabs - only counters.
Oh? Might I direct you to the end of that same paragraph?
However, I suppose that is the nature of charity and giving, and how it is affected by one's perceptions.
No jabs - only counters.
Oh? Might I direct you to the end of that same paragraph?However, I suppose that is the nature of charity and giving, and how it is affected by one's perceptions.
You are most welcome to. Why would you consider such a simple observation a jab?
No jabs - only counters.
Oh? Might I direct you to the end of that same paragraph?However, I suppose that is the nature of charity and giving, and how it is affected by one's perceptions.
You are most welcome to. Why would you consider such a simple observation a jab?
Context.
Context.
So let us review, then
As demonstrated with TA - it would have been fairly simply to reach agreement some time ago. To that end, I even offered a potential means. As to why you didn't accept the olive branch, I (and others) can only speculate. However, I suppose that is the nature of charity and giving, and how it is affected by one's perceptions.
As you say it is the context that leads you to consider the above a jab, it should be a fairly safe assumption that you were not pulling the sentence in question out of context (as that would invalidate the answer). The first sentence speaks for itself and is easily pointed to, as is the second. The third is a truth - as you've not given a reason for not accepting it, other than declare it pointless. This, however, was done after TA and I had shown that it did, indeed, have a point. So, we have two different people, who have reacted to the same offer in two different ways. So, what exactly could produce different results? I suppose that it is effected by the perceptions of those receiving it (not an absurd supposition, in my view. - in fact, quite likely to be the case). Moreover, I phrase it in the general context, rather than specific, as I can see how that notion may be related to the OP (especially in light of the news of Liberia going without comment).
I'd have to disagree. Unless you are somehow referring to context as a shortcut to denote whatever may have painted your perception, there is no way I could see context as being the reason for considering it a jab. Perhaps others may see it differently, but I cannot. I would point out, however, that it would both reinforce and generalize my supposition about one's perceptions having an effect.
edited to add: And yet another good example would be the negative reaction that some held when Venezuela (through Citgo) gave charitable aid (in the form of oil) to poor Americans
And you're ignoring in your little analysis the entire thread and everything that's been said before?
Not at all:
Unless you are somehow referring to context as a shortcut to denote whatever may have painted your perception,
I phrased it in such a manner, as the overall attitude that you present when responding to anything I post indicates that you MAY hold such a perception.
Two more interesting points. First - you often claim that others read more into what you write than is intended. Personally, I feel it would be better if you could avoid doing it to others. Second - the tone of even this latest post of yours can readily be perceived as another jab. (worthy of a counter). However, I will (as usual) try to keep my post more objective.
Personally, I feel it would be better if you could avoid doing it to others.
Now why would I give someone the benefit of the doubt when they've proven themselves undeserving? That's just a set-up for failure and disapointment.
Not to mention that, in case you haven't noticed, I'm pretentious, elitist, arrogant, and so-on. Not really any room for self-doubt in there.
Second - the tone of even this latest post of yours can readily be perceived as another jab.
Congratulations. Want a cookie?
However, I will (as usual) try to keep my post more objective.
Congratulations. Want a cookie?
No, apparently that's cake.
Why can't they both be lies?
No, apparently that's cake.
Why can't they both be lies?
Well. Because that would just be mean, man. Too mean.
see cookies are real. Cookies are true.@TA: On the subject of 'Hot' and 'Cold', yes, they do not really exist.
And this I can accept. Moreover - I even offered it as a suggestion. That, simply, lets me know the connotation YOU are using when saying something is "real".
Good, then we seem to have some agreement on how Sin is no more 'real' than Hot or Cold, now care to explain in what way it is more real?
It seems only a hollow word for discussing a hugely subjective subject as described by individuals most often derived from a religious source. Why is ignoring it as meaningless and/or non real somehow more incorect that discarding the words Hot and or Cold and instead discussing temperature?
Good, then we seem to have some agreement on how Sin is no more 'real' than Hot or Cold, now care to explain in what way it is more real?
I couldn't do so (and never claimed it was).
It seems only a hollow word for discussing a hugely subjective subject as described by individuals most often derived from a religious source. Why is ignoring it as meaningless and/or non real somehow more incorect that discarding the words Hot and or Cold and instead discussing temperature?
It is only as hollow as any other word. Words are mere labels used to aid in communication. Again, ignoring it or discarding it is no more incorrect as ignoring or discarding the notions of hot and cold. In fact, they are analogous (as stated). Like sin, to a particular person cold (for example) will not always be judged at the same temperature. The tolerance the person possesses, combined with the situation at the time in question will matter, and the nature of the item being described will all come into play.