and other times, MD&D creeps me out...

[_mfbukowski]

MFB:

Earlier in the thread, you mentioned something about the cultural environment of Utah being "suffocating" or "intolerable," or something like that. I was curious about your thoughts on that. Since Utah society was (per you) so crappy, does this mean that this Mormon-saturated environment was devoid of "The Golden Rule," or whatever you want to call it? I.e., do you think that TBMs in Utah lack "common sense" (or however you want to characterize it)?

I wouldn't say that. Mormons represent a large portion of the population of a very small state and there seems to be a lot of polarization. It seems the population is either LDS or anti-LDS to one degree or other. I think that goes with a small town attitude.

It's a lack of diversity I think. Diversity breeds tolerance.

[_asbestosman]

It's a lack of diversity I think. Diversity breeds tolerance.

Too bad tolerance doesn't breed diversity.

Welcome to the tolerance board--except when it comes to bad spelling. Do that too much and you will incur the wrath of Herr Shades.

[_Doctor Scratch]

So, Mormonism by itself cannot create an ideal/utopian/"optimal" society? Or Mormonism is incapable of accommodating "diversity"?

[_EAllusion]

What theory of truth you adopt does not determine what normative theory you adopt anymore than it determines what model of the solar system you accept.

I think you can reform mfb's posts into a respectable, albeit minority position of serious professionals. It goes something like this: Moral cognition is an evolved phenomenon that is really a game between individuals and their kin to maximize their evolutionary advantages. You can best conceptualize what is going on in morality by understanding it in terms of intuitive contractual interactions that place rules on behavior that are designed to maximize interests while hedging against everyone else's interest to do the same. This is the basis for understanding concepts like fairness, justice, right, wrong, heroic, evilness, etc. To figure out what is right or wrong, what you need to do is imagine what would fit within a social contract that an ideally rational population would devise in a moral game.

I don't think this is what mfb is arguing mind you. I think he was arguing what I replied to in my first post. But he needs an out and I'm giving it to him.

[_MrStakhanovite]

First of all, your interpretation of my statements are total distortions, I didn't say anything "in the OP"- you quoted me out of context from a different board.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

I quoted the entire post, and linked the thread where it took place. That is about as much context that can reasonably be given.

Broken record?

I was speaking of moral behavior being civilized behavior, which provides humanity a superior, peaceful environment for reproduction, indisputably allowing for those to survive who would not under the "law of the jungle", and you turn it into a bi-conditional falsifiable by eugenics.

Eugenics provides humanity a superior, peaceful environment for reproduction, , indisputably allowing for those to survive who would not under the "law of the jungle".

You even say "Which CAN be read as:" clearly implying that it CAN be read other ways as well.

I was expecting some kind of paragraph to follow this, clearly explicating an alternative reading. Disappointed to find this was next:

But I already of course specified that eugenics was immoral.

Yeah, like I said waaaaaay back on page two when your confusion manifested:

Do I think you believe in eugenics? No, but you seem as to be completely unaware of what your ideas entail, which is frightening.

No one here thinks you endorse eugenics, the criticism is that your hackneyed ideas allow for eugenics, and you couldn’t fumble your way into fixing this if someone held your hand, say…like this!

I don't think this is what mfb is arguing mind you. I think he was arguing what I replied to in my first post. But he needs an out and I'm giving it to him.

I've had about enough. I think there are a few here who clearly understand me and understand how distorted your criticisms really are, because they have said as much.

Pep pep!

Love ya tons!

[_mfbukowski]

I don't think this is what mfb is arguing mind you. I think he was arguing what I replied to in my first post. But he needs an out and I'm giving it to him.

Well thanks I suppose but I don't think I need an "out".

I don't disagree with the sense of your post though it uses a different vocabulary than I typically use for a Mormon audience, and after all, I have been using the same vocabulary here since that quote kind of forced me, I feel, into keeping the same language game.

You already know I thought your first post misunderstood my position.

You know I am a linguistic/social constructivist and your post is in that context of course.

But of course stak has to turn my agreement into me accepting another insult. I really don't care.

I enjoy our discussions EA and wish they could be carried on in a more civilized venue and did not want to skp this comment regardless of what stak would make of it.

[_mfbukowski]

Stak

The context was a Mormon board the post was written for TBM's and you brought it over here. I am not the only one on this thread who has pointed this out. The context was in a discussion about the nature of morality.

Eugenics IS the law of the jungle- it is using force against individuals, against their reproductive rights, as I have said before and is not regarded as "civilized" behavior since it is virtually universally condemned.

This is the third time I have made that point.

Rave on as much as you like. I truly hope your self image improves, though the macho stevedore image is much better than the round-headed bobble heads you used to favor.

Kissy kissy

[_mfbukowski]

So, Mormonism by itself cannot create an ideal/utopian/"optimal" society? Or Mormonism is incapable of accommodating "diversity"?

I made a comment about small towns, and I told you I have no idea what would constitute an ideal society.

I don't know where you get the other stuff. Maybe it is because you are obsessed with Mormonism.

You need to move and become a bit more cosmopolitan.

[_MrStakhanovite]

The context was a Mormon board the post was written for TBM's and you brought it over here. I am not the only one on this thread who has pointed this out. The context was in a discussion about the nature of morality.

I’m amazed you think that this wasn’t known and it some how changes anything. Just because you posted that for other Mormons, and that it's about the nature of morality doesn’t make your ideas any less terrible or immune to criticism.

Eugenics IS the law of the jungle

Eugenics isn’t “ONLY THE STRONG SURVIVE!!!!”, it’s a method to try and eliminate debilitating features. Not some kind of system where only the biggest male gets to mate.

- it is using force against individuals, against their reproductive rights, as I have said before and is not regarded as "civilized" behavior since it is virtually universally condemned.

This is the third time I have made that point.

The best part is that you think that point needs to be made, just because eugenics is taboo right now doesn’t even begin to mount of a defense for your half assed normative ethic, since how you’ve defined morality has nothing to do with what is presently accepted.

Let me try it again:

(_X has survival value_)------v------(_X is moral_)

Eugenics clearly has survival value, so the left hand side is obtained, but eugenics is clearly not moral. This means, the counter example of eugenics is successful, unless you can come up with something that draws a distinction, or a caveat that saves your grand ethic.

The defense you have mounted is basically, “ Eugenics is currently condemned by everyone, it can’t be moral, so eugenics must not have survival value.”

The problem for you is twofold; (1) morality isn’t legislated by consensus, so making the observation that eugenics is unpopular at the present has no bearing on how you’ve defined morality. (2) There is overwhelming evidence that eugenics has clear value in a civilization.

What you need to do is somehow come up with some kind of rationalization that eugenics doesn’t have survival value. The only thing you have come up with thus far, is the Nazis, which leads you down a perilous road because that starts looking like success in war is a sign of superior morality (which is even creepier than what you‘ve said thus far).

[_EAllusion]

Eugenics is artificial breeding to select for traits. It takes two forms: Voluntary eugenics is where people decide who to mate with based on traits they want in their offspring or when people use genetic engineering to the same end. Involuntary eugenics is when people are forbidden from mating to remove undesirable traits from the population or people are forced to mate to encourage desirable ones.

When people think of eugenics, they first think about removing disabled people from the breeding pool to remove undesirable traits from future generations. If the ultimate end of morality was to increase the evolutionary fitness of the population, then this eugenics would be a good thing. If you were a rational, moral person you would argue in favor of it. It would be an advanced way of accomplishing that goal. The eugenics fad at the turn of the century didn't fade away because it was unsuccessful. It died out because people who weren't the target of those programs morally objected to it strongly on other grounds.

Mfb -

I know you felt that I misunderstood your position. I still think I understood it. I view your response to me as a way of backtracking and trying to work out your thoughts in light of the expressed criticism in this thread. I don't think you're being dishonest. I think your initial position was a naïve, grasped at one. I certainly don't think you were expressing the modern bargaining theory defense of contractarianism. Though, I think you would be well-served to reform your position into it.