Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
  1. #21
    Hung Angel Platinum Poster trish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The United Fuckin' States of America
    Posts
    13,898

    Default

    The Golden Rule has been popularized in the "modern" western world by the biblical account of the Sermon on the Mount. However, the rule itself can be found in many earlier cultures and it is not always associated with a religion. Plato advocated the maxim (in the mouth of Socrates) in several dialogs: "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." It's an obvious heuristic that would occur to any species whose members show any tendency to empathize with other members...a tendency which is probably requisite for the "invention", development and the acquisition of language.

    In my opinion the heuristic functions best when applied universally. Its universal application is advocated by some religious texts. Religions, however, tend to be very sectarian, provincial and insular in their practices. As a consequence the Golden Rule is rarely applied to homosexuals, infidels, heretics, atheists, non-believers, evolutionists etc. etc. People who attempt to apply the rule more widely are accused by many religious conservatives of being "bleeding hearts".


    "...I no longer believe that people's secrets are defined and communicable, or their feelings full-blown and easy to recognize."_Alice Munro, Chaddeleys and Flemings.

    "...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.

  2. #22
    5 Star Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    2,215

    Default

    " the Golden Rule is rarely applied to homosexuals, infidels, heretics, atheists, non-believers, evolutionists etc. etc"

    Conversely those groups all have their own dogma's. I.e. the GLBT community. In the west even in place where glbt's theoretically have the same rights we have here (brazil, India) there are still arguments to be found about what western english label to impose on a Hijra, or thai Katoey. In the west the GLBT communities dogma is Islam and all Muslims are homophobic and therefore fare game for hate speech and hostility. (Heck I can't even get a kosher hotdog at a picknick for gods sake!)

    Seriously though another forbidden group seems to be Republicans. Say anything nice about a republican, even though there are many GLBT who are republicans and in some quarters you will be talked about like a dog or worse.



  3. #23
    Silver Poster hippifried's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    3,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrendaQG
    @ Hippie

    You decry religion then mention the golden ruel. That came from the scriptures of Christianity and was enunciated by the prophet Issa (Jesus, Peace be Upon Him). Even you base your philosophy on religion!
    Matthew 7 v12

    Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

    Luke 6 v31

    And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
    You misinterpret me. I don't decry religion. I just don't care about it & I don't buy into the meme that religious dogma is the be all & end all when it comes to a moral authority. We all know the difference between right & wrong whether there's someone preaching at us or not. The Code requires NO dogma, but the dogma requires the Code. All the great prophets worldwide preached the Code. Confucius, Gautama, Jesus, Muhammad, all of them. Our mythology from Gilgamesh to the modern cowboy is rampant with it. There's no society or culture on the planet who's base rules & laws don't revolve around the Code, & from what I can tell, there never has been. The Code predates recorded & even unrecorded history. It predates dogma. It certainly predates any kind of codification of arbitrary rules.

    Where dogma clashes with the Code is in the institutionalization of obedience. Obedience to God invariably ends up as a demand for obedience to those who claim to speak for God. People adhere to the Code because it makes sense & they want to. They don't need orders or threats to do what's right, but only to be forced or cajoled into acquienscence to those in power. The problems aren't just with the house of Islam. The problem is the development & use of dogma as a strategem to gain elite control over people's lives. It doesn't jive with the Code, therefore religious dogma isn't the moral authority.

    -------------------------------------------------------------

    Trish,

    This
    In my opinion the heuristic functions best when applied universally. Its universal application is advocated by some religious texts. Religions, however, tend to be very sectarian, provincial and insular in their practices. As a consequence the Golden Rule is rarely applied to homosexuals, infidels, heretics, atheists, non-believers, evolutionists etc. etc.
    is a bit round-about. The Universal Code of Human Interaction is just that. Universal. If it isn't applied universally, it isn't being applied. Any discrimination is a violation of the Code. The only way to justify it is through the dogma of caste (or whatever it's called in any given situation), & that's just bigotry. A violation of the Code is a violation of the Code, & it makes no difference who or why. Multiple generations of dogmatic memes can numb folks to to a continual violation of the Code, but they can never completely erase the recognizable fact that it's a violation to start with. The problem occurs when enforced or enforcable dogma overrides the voluntary Code. Keeping the homosexuals, infidels, heretics, atheists, non-believers, evolutionists etc... down keeps everybody down. It's an elitist mentality & a variation on the Boss Tweed remark that "one can always hire half the poor to kill the other half".


    "You can pick your friends & you can pick your nose, but you can't wipe your friends off on your saddle."
    ~ Kinky Friedman ~

  4. #24
    5 Star Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    2,215

    Default

    Here is what Human Rights watch and an Iranian filmaker questioning gaycitynews for it's shoddy reporting on cases like the much publicised executions of two "gay" men. You've seen the pictures.



    In many subsequent reports you will find that those boys were hanged not for gay sex but fore raping a third younger boy. Which in my opinion makes hanging too good for them! Having been attacked in that way myself once I would have only been satisfied by stoning. (I have to content myself with knowing my own main attacker went to Prizon for 20 years and got it in the end.)

    http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Executio...rs_controversy

    Apparently when it come to how GLTB's in the USA view Muslims and Islamic societies accusations are convictions and rumors are facts.

    :_( are we not human? Or do your "golden rules" only apply to other sometimes Christians?



  5. #25
    Hung Angel Platinum Poster trish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The United Fuckin' States of America
    Posts
    13,898

    Default

    If I understand you correctly, hippiefried, the Universal Code of Human Interaction is a sort of unarticulated Golden Rule that is “felt” by all human beings in their dealings with one another. We sense when the Code is being breached and we somehow understand when it is being observed. It nice to have it articulated, but the actual Code existed prior to its various codifications. I personally do not think there is a moral structure to the cosmos. I’m not sure whether you do or not, or whether it’s germane to this discussion or not. It seems to me that it is merely we humans who delineate for ourselves what constitutes moral behavior. I do think that there is such a thing as human nature and that human nature will influence our judgment of what constitutes moral behavior. I offer language as the possible evolutionary payoff of the capacity to empathize with one’s tribe. I offer empathy as the possible psychological origin of the notion of fairness, and of other moral notions and heuristics like the Golden Rule. I’m willing to grant that in the sense that these articulated notions and rules are derivative of something common to the psychology of all human beings, they are universal. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that means we can expect human beings to universally recognize the “authority” of the Universal Code of Human Interaction or any of its articulations. We can only each of us add the authority of our endorsement and hope the nugget of common humanity that sits as a seed within its simple reasonableness will transcend the promised appeal of heaven and the threats of hell.


    "...I no longer believe that people's secrets are defined and communicable, or their feelings full-blown and easy to recognize."_Alice Munro, Chaddeleys and Flemings.

    "...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.

  6. #26
    Gold Poster SarahG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Everywhere & Nowhere
    Posts
    4,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrendaQG
    As for what you say about SRS being seen as a cure for homosexuality... that is total BS. First of all that argument was used here in the USA 10-20-30 years ago and shown to be BS. Knowledgeable scholars of Islam who have taken the time to look closely at TG issues, as Ayatola Khomeni did, recognize the difference between homosexuals and transsexuals. ( He did this BEFORE he took control of Iran back in the late 70's.)
    Help me out here, I am confused. I don't see where he says anyone views srs as a cure for homosexuality:

    I know transsexualism is not a crime in Islamic countries. I never said it was.

    Homosexuality is, as is anal sex.

    Therefore telling homo's that they have to get SRS or face execution is an ultimatum, and has nothing to do with being tolerant of Transsexuals.

    Have you ever travelled to an Islamic country Branda?


    Edit: You are either a tolerant society, or you ain't.
    I think a big problem from in this thread, now that I've read it in its entirely, is that people are viewing the middle east as one nation, when it isn't.

    Iran has a lot of polices the UAE lacks and vice versa. I really can't comment on which nations outside of Iran have gov funding for trans related medical costs, because I don't know that information. Going so far as to say Iran has such programs, and UAE doesn't would be a guess on my part.

    That said Iran does have policies, that not all middle eastern countries have, i.e. allowing for the execution of homosexuals.

    This is relevant:

    Iran: Two More Executions for Homosexual Conduct

    (New York, November 22, 2005) – Iran’s execution of two men last week for homosexual conduct highlights a pattern of persecution of gay men that stands in stark violation of the rights to life and privacy, Human Rights Watch said today.

    On Sunday, November 13, the semi-official Tehran daily Kayhan reported that the Iranian government publicly hung two men, Mokhtar N. (24 years old) and Ali A. (25 years old), in the Shahid Bahonar Square of the northern town of Gorgan.

    The government reportedly executed the two men for the crime of "lavat." Iran’s shari`a-based penal code defines lavat as penetrative and non-penetrative sexual acts between men. Iranian law punishes all penetrative sexual acts between adult men with the death penalty. Non-penetrative sexual acts between men are punished with lashes until the fourth offense, when they are punished with death. Sexual acts between women, which are defined differently, are punished with lashes until the fourth offense, when they are also punished with death.

    “The execution of two men for consensual sexual activity is an outrage,” said Jessica Stern, researcher with the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. “The Iranian government’s persecution of gay men flouts international human rights standards.”

    In addition to the two executions last week, there have been other cases of persecution and execution of gay men in Iran in recent years.


    • In September 2003, police arrested a group of men at a private gathering in one of their homes in Shiraz and held them in detention for several days. According to Amir, one of the men arrested, police tortured the men to obtain confessions. The judiciary charged five of the defendants with “participation in a corrupt gathering” and fined them.

    • In June 2004, undercover police agents in Shiraz arranged meetings with men through Internet chatrooms and then arrested them. Police held Amir, a 21-year-old, in detention for a week, during which time they repeatedly tortured him. The judicial authorities in Shiraz sentenced him to 175 lashes, 100 of which were administered immediately. Following his arrest, security officials subjected Amir to regular surveillance and periodic arrests. From July 2005 until he fled the country later in the year, police threatened Amir with imminent execution.

    • On March 15, 2005, the daily newspaper Etemaad reported that the Tehran Criminal Court sentenced two men to death following the discovery of a video showing them engaged in homosexual acts. According to the paper, one of the men confessed that he had shot the video as a precaution in case his partner withdrew the financial support he had been providing in return for sex. In response to the man’s confession, his partner was summoned to the authorities and both men were sentenced to death. As the death penalty was pronounced against both men, it appears to have been based on their sexual activity.


    “These abuses have created an atmosphere of terror for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people throughout Iran,” said Stern. “But arrest, torture and execution are not limited to gays and lesbians. Any group of people deemed ‘immoral’ becomes subject to state-sanctioned persecution and even murder.”

    In Iran, executions and lashings are regular means of punishment for a broad range of crimes, not merely same-sex acts. Judges often accept coerced confessions, and security officials routinely deny defendants access to counsel. Late last year, the Iranian judiciary, which has been at the center of many reported human rights violations, formed the Special Protection Division, a new institution that empowers volunteers to police moral crimes in neighborhoods, mosques, offices and any place where people gather. The Special Protection Division is an intrusive mechanism of surveillance that promotes prosecution of citizens for behavior in their private domain.

    Human Rights Watch called upon the Iranian government to decriminalize homosexuality and reminded Iran of its obligations under Toonen v. Australia (1994), the Human Rights Committee’s authoritative interpretation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is party. Toonen v. Australia extends recognition of the right to privacy and the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation throughout human rights law.

    Furthermore, Human Rights Watch urged Iran to reform its judiciary in accordance with principles for fair trials enshrined in both the Iranian constitution and international human rights law. Finally, Human Rights Watch called upon Iran to cease implementation of capital punishment in all circumstances because of its inherent cruelty, irreversibility, and potential for discriminatory application.
    Source: http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005.../iran12072.htm

    My commentary:

    It is possible that Human Rights Watch is a biased source, I really don't know to what extent that observation can be made.

    The anarchist in me, albeit a very very small part of me, sees Tomfurbs ending assertion as being baseless, I have a tough time picturing any society or any government being truly tolerant on well, just about all issues.

    However on a given issue I do not see it as out of the question to compare existing societies or governments to draw conclusions based on relative levels of tolerance (on a given issue one country or society maybe more tolerant than another). How to express that subjectively I do not know, but there is a fundamental intolerance when people are being put to death for victimless crimes, under any system, for any reason [I say this as someone who is somewhat on the fence on capital punishment, obviously if the death penalty is always, in all cases unethical than that would be the more fundamental issue]. That people aren't put to death for homosexual acts in other countries shows if nothing else that some countries are more tolerant than others (regardless whether true complete tolerance is even possible) toward homosexuality.

    I am curious your position on natural rights, you can not use the "other cultures have other standards" argument if natural rights exist, in the form of freedom of religion, speech, and so on.

    The origin of multiculturalism is, unless I am mistaken (which happens) in sociology where it is used not to prevent comparisons or to make judgments, but as a tool for understanding the function of an element in a society. I.e. poverty has a function in societies, and multiculturalism is used in the analysis of that function, not to comment on its merits or ethics. That doesn't mean dialogs over ethics are impossible...

    Edit- I meant to add this:

    In many subsequent reports you will find that those boys were hanged not for gay sex but fore raping a third younger boy. Which in my opinion makes hanging too good for them! Having been attacked in that way myself once I would have only been satisfied by stoning. (I have to content myself with knowing my own main attacker went to Prizon for 20 years and got it in the end.)
    Even if that is true (I make no claims to the validity of any reports I mention even in vague reference), that does not address everything else that Human Rights Watch has mentioned in relation to this case, and others usually mentioned in close proximity to this one.

    How much of it is made up propaganda? Are all these reports, about ignoring due process et al fictional?

    Even if the most brutal crime imaginable to mankind occurs that doesn't give sovereigns the legal power to do whatever the hell they want in punishing the accused... especially if there are actions committed in the investigation of these crimes that call the accuracy of the accusals into questions.

    As an example that may or may not apply to this case, torture is well documented as being grossly inaccurate. People say what they think will end the torture which may or may not be the truth. A rape investigation going around torturing even the usual suspects is going to make it hard to see the reliability of that evidence especially in cases void of dna evidence (which itself is not always without accuracy problems). Police brutality likewise drains judicial processes along similar means.


    And maybe its easier to withdraw from life
    With all of its misery and wretched lies
    If we're dead when tomorrow's gone
    The Big Machine will just move on
    Still we cling afraid we'll fall
    Clinging like the memory which haunts us all

  7. #27
    Silver Poster hippifried's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    3,968

    Default

    The "Universal Code of Human Interaction" is my name for it.
    The "Golden Rule" is English speaking western society's name for it.
    I'm sure it's called a lot of different things around the world.

    No matter. It's the same thing. Articulated, the rule states: "Treat other people the way you would prefer to be treated by them.", or more commonly "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.". It needs no articulation though. It's innate. Any time we violate the Code, we know. Automatically & instantaneously, we know. The common term for that in English speaking western society is "conscience". Everybody knows when they're being an asshole.

    Nearly all people follow the Code most of the time & aren't even aware of it. It's not really something you have to think about. It's automatic. Whether it's malicious or just rash, you have to go out of your way to violate. This is our human nature that lots of folks like to talk about. You always hear about all the bad stuff that people do, & it gets attributed to human nature, but the reality is that those are anomalies. Real human nature is the day to day mundane following of the Code. It's part of the survival instinct. We're social critters who need that socialization or we don't crawl out of the cave. Hell, we don't even find the cave because we aren't well equipped to survive on our own. Compared to other critters, we're weak for our size, have no fangs or claws, & we're slow. Without numbers, we're just easy prey that goes extinct before we ever get started. Our conscience allows us to live communally without killing ourselves off, & that allows us to survive in the world of critters that actually do have fangs & claws.

    I don't know for cosmic moral structure. We're not the cosmos. The theologians can argue that all they like. But we do have a moral compass, & all cultures, societies, & religions recognize that. I maintain that the Code is the moral compass & the moral authority. "Let your conscience be your guide." We've all heard that over & over, from multiple sources, & it can't possibly be an American coloquialism. That little twinge in the back of our mind is the fist inkling that something isn't right.

    If not the Code, what? Take the Code out of the moral equasion & all you have left is pontifications. Just somebody telling you what to do & how to think. It's impossible to codify all contingencies, so "Well nobody told me not to!" is the perfect excuse. There's no morals or ethics because the only rule is what's been publicly stated. Inversely, if you take the pontifications out of the equasion, you still have the Code. The morals & ethics are still intact & not confused by conflicting dogma. Religion can't be the moral authority, because the beliefs are not universal. The Code is. It's basic & couldn't be simpler. Nothing else works.


    "You can pick your friends & you can pick your nose, but you can't wipe your friends off on your saddle."
    ~ Kinky Friedman ~

  8. #28
    Gold Poster SarahG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Everywhere & Nowhere
    Posts
    4,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hippifried
    The "Universal Code of Human Interaction" is my name for it.
    The "Golden Rule" is English speaking western society's name for it.
    I'm sure it's called a lot of different things around the world.

    No matter. It's the same thing. Articulated, the rule states: "Treat other people the way you would prefer to be treated by them.", or more commonly "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.". It needs no articulation though. It's innate. Any time we violate the Code, we know. Automatically & instantaneously, we know. The common term for that in English speaking western society is "conscience". Everybody knows when they're being an asshole.

    Nearly all people follow the Code most of the time & aren't even aware of it. It's not really something you have to think about. It's automatic. Whether it's malicious or just rash, you have to go out of your way to violate. This is our human nature that lots of folks like to talk about. You always hear about all the bad stuff that people do, & it gets attributed to human nature, but the reality is that those are anomalies. Real human nature is the day to day mundane following of the Code. It's part of the survival instinct. We're social critters who need that socialization or we don't crawl out of the cave. Hell, we don't even find the cave because we aren't well equipped to survive on our own. Compared to other critters, we're weak for our size, have no fangs or claws, & we're slow. Without numbers, we're just easy prey that goes extinct before we ever get started. Our conscience allows us to live communally without killing ourselves off, & that allows us to survive in the world of critters that actually do have fangs & claws.

    I don't know for cosmic moral structure. We're not the cosmos. The theologians can argue that all they like. But we do have a moral compass, & all cultures, societies, & religions recognize that. I maintain that the Code is the moral compass & the moral authority. "Let your conscience be your guide." We've all heard that over & over, from multiple sources, & it can't possibly be an American coloquialism. That little twinge in the back of our mind is the fist inkling that something isn't right.

    If not the Code, what? Take the Code out of the moral equasion & all you have left is pontifications. Just somebody telling you what to do & how to think. It's impossible to codify all contingencies, so "Well nobody told me not to!" is the perfect excuse. There's no morals or ethics because the only rule is what's been publicly stated. Inversely, if you take the pontifications out of the equasion, you still have the Code. The morals & ethics are still intact & not confused by conflicting dogma. Religion can't be the moral authority, because the beliefs are not universal. The Code is. It's basic & couldn't be simpler. Nothing else works.
    I don't see how you can draw such conclusions based on human nature from a statistical approach like that.

    Human nature is talking about biological instinct, not societal conditioning. Every time a human is found that had been in dramatic overwhelming isolation from being an infant onword, they are void of these characteristics.

    Everyone may have a "conscience" (or not) but what triggers it is the result of social conditioning exclusively. There are cds that will tell you the first time they tried it their conscience was bothering them as if they had just committed a wrong, that doesn't mean there is a biological prewired conscience that tells people what right & wrong are (nevermind being so specific as to make people think "cding is wrong").

    Sure there are common trends across various societies (past or present) but even if lacking a characteristic dooms a society to a fail, that doesn't mean that characteristic is biological or otherwise predetermined in origins.


    And maybe its easier to withdraw from life
    With all of its misery and wretched lies
    If we're dead when tomorrow's gone
    The Big Machine will just move on
    Still we cling afraid we'll fall
    Clinging like the memory which haunts us all

  9. #29
    Hung Angel Platinum Poster trish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The United Fuckin' States of America
    Posts
    13,898

    Default

    I can agree with SarahG to some extent. I think a lot of our socialized behaviors, good and bad, have to be learned. On the other hand, I also think we may also have evolved a biological disposition to empathize and a disposition to communicate. It seems dominance hierarchies in other mammals are innate rather than learned. It would be unusual if all human social capacities were learned rather than innate.

    I agree with hippiefried, that it’s anomalous to want to be jerk or not care about being a jerk. On the other hand, I’m not optimistic about people knowing when they are being jerks. Even if our social evolution has hardwired us with a sort of Golden Rule, it’s not clear that there aren’t other hardwired or innate behaviors in conflict with it. For example the “tit for tat” strategy works quite effectively in optimizing one’s payoff in games where players can choose to compete or cooperate. It’s not too unreasonable, therefore, to suppose that if indeed there are innate human responses to social situations, then “tit for tat” would be among them. It’s seems to me that often people who are being jerks do not see themselves that way. When pressed they will defend their behavior by citing “tit for tat”. Israel retaliates against Palestinian terrorism. Palestinian terrorists are responding to Israeli occupation of their land. The land was of course given to the Israeli’s by God Himself and on it goes. Every one thinks they’re justified. No one thinks he’s being a jerk. Yet everybody is a jerk.


    "...I no longer believe that people's secrets are defined and communicable, or their feelings full-blown and easy to recognize."_Alice Munro, Chaddeleys and Flemings.

    "...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.

  10. #30
    Silver Poster hippifried's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    3,968

    Default

    Every time a human is found that had been in dramatic overwhelming isolation from being an infant onword, they are void of these characteristics.
    Devoid of conscience or just overwhelmed by fear? There's only a couple of those. They lack social training, but I've seen no evidence that they lack a conscience. A better example is to look at young children themselves. Even upon first contact with their peers, when the inevitable conflict happens, both recognize any violation of the Code. Even if a child has never seen another child, if they do something to upset the other, their reaction is an immediate & visible remorse. That's not social training. The social training is in how they learn to deal with such situations & how to avoid them, but the recognition is innate. I'm thinking that social deprivation may be as much about social training as growing up surrounded by people. The brain develops regardless, & all humans have the ability to develop abstract thought. Such circumstances would necessarily create a different point of view from those who have socialized throughout their development. They would be devoid of social memes & dogma which is not the same as lacking conscience. They would create their own understandings of the world they live in, but do they create their own memes? Who knows?

    Nature?
    Nurture?
    The interminable debate goes on, & on, & on & on...
    My thinking is that although sociology adds a tremendous amount of technical data to the conscience, the base is already there. Otherwise there wouldn't be anything to add to. If it isn't out the realm of possibility that predominate gender characteristics are biologically innate, why would it be out of that realm that the moral compass that allows us to be the social critters we are could be innate also?


    "You can pick your friends & you can pick your nose, but you can't wipe your friends off on your saddle."
    ~ Kinky Friedman ~

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •