A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

Dolphins rarely interact with humans as they don't share a common living space: dry ground.

Even dog trainers employ negative stimulus such as "no bark" collars that spray citronella in their faces and can be put on remote so the citronella is sprayed in other circumstances that are undesirable. You might consider what kind of collar will keep your humans in line and train them.

A negative deterrent such as citronella to keep a dog from barking is a far cry from blaming the dog and punishing him for doing what dogs do.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He's also a proponent of torture

Ol' peacegirl's really hitched her wagon to a star this time, hasn't she?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hold a completely different opinion. I don't care whether he is an atheist or a religious fanatic. His words ring true.

By which you mean, they are emotional bullshit.

You are not being honest with yourself if you can say that if you had one hour to get the truth out of someone before a bomb is detonated in a building where your child is being held hostage, you would keep this morally superior view and give up any hope of finding your child alive.

Why is it your own child? Right, because it's emotional bullshit.

Yeah, imagine this situation where there are terrorists in a building. They have taken hostages and one of them is your own beautiful little daughter. The others are a little puppy, Cinderella, and some elves and little orphans. They are crying. The terrorists are laughing with an evil voice and putting out their heroin cigarettes on the little orphans.

Then one of the terrorists sneaks outside to take a shit on a homeless person. You are angry, tough and full of testosterone and love for your beautiful little daughter. You look at the asshole. He has a moustache and looks foreign. You ask where your beautiful little daughter is. He spits in your face and tells you she is right at that moment being raped by the other terrorists in the building. You beat the shit out of him, but he doesn't stop laughing. He tells you there is a bomb inside that will detonate if anyone tries to rescue the hostages. Unless you have the secret PIN. You pull out the citronella and your set of dental tools. You ask "Is it 1111?" and pull out a tooth....

These bullshit hypotheticals make me sick, because that kind of stuff never happens in reality, but in the meantime, all sorts of unlucky people, some innocent, some not so innocent, are tortured to death, bombed to death, etc.

Then there are the violence porn movies where you get to enjoy the sight of people being brutally killed, but first they need to construct you a reason during the first hour or so. There was one where I really had to laugh, there was this fat Muslim rich guy who was kidnapping beautiful daughters to rape them and Dad is on the phone with him, doing the serious voice and telling him he is this really dangerous ex-special forces guy who can kill people with his bare hands and there will be blood and pain and whatever.

A good answer to that nonsense is "What? Right now? Oh, you mean hypothetically? Phew. Ask me again when that happens and I'll tell you what to do."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In my worldview torture is always wrong and should be completely off the table. Just as I think spanking children as a form of discipline is always wrong so it is completely off the table in raising our son.

This discussion has nothing to do with how we raise our children. In the new world there will be no corporal punishment.

Torture is a horrible thing, and people in the past have used it to get an advantage that was unusually cruel. I was just being the devil's advocate by saying that there are certain circumstances that may warrant this kind of action if by not trying to get someone to open up, you or someone you love will die. That's what Harris meant when he said there are rare exceptions to general rules, but that does not suggest that there is no objective moral landscape.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Therefore I judge Sam Harris a douchebag. You are of course free to hold a different opinion.

I try not to use words like douchebag. It's a label that no one is deserving of. There's no reason to degrade people just because you might not like their point of view.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You know you only glommed on to Sam Harris because, as you said, "he is one of {ours}". You figured that because he is an atheist and a neuroscientist we might pay more attention to what he says You seem to think we would pay more attention to an authority figure. You still don't understand that skepticism applies across the board, and we don't just accept shit because someone said it...no matter how smart or how well known.

That's not it at all LadyShea. I like his reasoning, and I think he's honest.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Ol' peacegirl's really hitched her wagon to a star this time, hasn't she?

There you go again missing the entire context in which this passage was expressed. You have a habit of doing that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

By which you mean, they are emotional bullshit.

No, it means I look for honest commentary or practical wisdom and I got both from him.

You are not being honest with yourself if you can say that if you had one hour to get the truth out of someone before a bomb is detonated in a building where your child is being held hostage, you would keep this morally superior view and give up any hope of finding your child alive.

Originally Posted by But

Why is it your own child? Right, because it's emotional bullshit.

I was just showing that you wouldn't know how you would react if you were pushed against a wall like in the above example.

Originally Posted by But

Yeah, imagine this situation where there are terrorists in a building. They have taken hostages and one of them is your own beautiful little daughter. The others are a little puppy, Cinderella, and some elves and little orphans. They are crying. The terrorists are laughing with an evil voice and putting out their heroin cigarettes on the little orphans.

Then one of the terrorists sneaks outside to take a shit on a homeless person. You are angry, tough and full of testosterone and love for your beautiful little daughter. You look at the asshole. He has a moustache and looks foreign. You ask where your beautiful little daughter is. He spits in your face and tells you she is right at that moment being raped by the other terrorists in the building. You beat the shit out of him, but he doesn't stop laughing. He tells you there is a bomb inside that will detonate if anyone tries to rescue the hostages. Unless you have the secret PIN. You pull out the citronella and your set of dental tools. You ask "Is it 1111?" and pull out a tooth....

These bullshit hypotheticals make me sick, because that kind of stuff never happens in reality, but in the meantime, all sorts of unlucky people, some innocent, some not so innocent, are tortured to death, bombed to death, etc.

Then there are the violence porn movies where you get to enjoy the sight of people being brutally killed, but first they need to construct you a reason during the first hour or so. There was one where I really had to laugh, there was this fat Muslim rich guy who was kidnapping beautiful daughters to rape them and Dad is on the phone with him, doing the serious voice and telling him he is this really dangerous ex-special forces guy who can kill people with his bare hands and there will be blood and pain and whatever.

A good answer to that nonsense is "What? Right now? Oh, you mean hypothetically? Phew. Ask me again when that happens and I'll tell you what do to."

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But research has found that punishing animals does not work as well as rewarding them. You don't see professional trainers screaming at dolphins. They give them fish as a reward which allows them to perform the behavior that gets them the reward. Reward is a strong motivator, where punishment can make an animal nervous and fearful.

Ah, animal behavior and animal training -- two more fields about which peacegirl apparently knows exactly nothing, yet for some reason feels qualified to prattle on about.

In animal training, reinforcement (both positive and negative*) is used to encourage "good" behavior (that's why it's called reinforcement, because the idea is to reinforce -- that is, strengthen -- behavior patterns that the trainer approves of), and punishment is used to discourage "bad" behavior.

Study after study after study has shown that if you want to discourage "bad" behavior, then punishment of some sort isn't just the most effective way to do so, it's generally a requirement.


Note that overly harsh punishment can be ineffective or even counterproductive, as can punishment that is inconsistently applied. But pretty-much the central understanding in the field of Animal Behavior is that if you want to eliminate "bad" behaviors, you must arrange conditions such that these behaviors are punished.

Note that punishment may not involve hitting the animal or other such things. It may be something as simple as withholding something the animal likes. Like praise, for example, if you're dealing with dogs.


Long story short: in the fields of animal behavior and animal training, we use two tools: reinforcement and punishment. Reinforcement is used to encourage (reinforce) desirable behaviors, while punishment (which is often just refusal to give the animal something it likes -- i.e., a reward) is used to discourage undesirable behaviors.


Saying that "research has found that punishing animals does not work as well as rewarding them" is just plain ignorant. Punishment and reward are used for entirely different purposes.



*In the fields of animal behavior and animal training, the term "negative reinforcement" does not mean what most people seem to think it means. Negative reinforcement is not related to punishment.

Positive reinforcement is when you give the animal something it likes when it performs the behavior you want it to. For example, you might give a dog a treat.

Negative reinforcement is when you remove a negative stimulus when the animal performs the behavior that you want it to. For example, if you want the animal to push a certain button, you might play a harsh, annoying tone -- when the animal pushes the appropriate button, the tone stops.

So whether it's positive or negative reinforcement, the animal is rewarded for doing what you want it to do. Either way, reinforcement is an effective tool for encouraging (reinforcing) desirable behaviors.

Of course, punishment is not an effective way to encourage desirable behaviors, because that isn't its purpose. But any student of animal behavior, or any animal trainer, will tell you that if you want to reduce or eliminate undesirable behaviors, some sort of punishment (even if it's just withholding of praise) is virtually always an absolutely necessity.



[I happened to catch an episode of The Big Bang Theory once in which the Sheldon character was going on and on and on about "negative reinforcement" when what he was describing was punishment. It really bugged me, because it was so obvious that the writers hadn't bothered to do even a little bit of research on the subject.]

[Awareness]

How about throwing everything overboard and start from scratch.
And give your own thesis, your own opinion of life and everything.
Of bringing up children, and whatever interests you.
So think what you like, and say what you think.
It's BORING to hear somebody else's opinion, and sitting on it for ever hoping it will hatch on Freethoughtforum, instead of yours
It would be much better to hear on what you have learned from life.
Because you are a complete stranger where I can not even pin point from what environment you come from, and even how old you are
You might just be even playing with us, or just collecting comments.
And when are you going to comment on my opinions?
Or is it trivial?

So here it is again

I left love out of it this time, strange not to read the L O V E word.
SO:
GOOD CAN NOT BE, WITHOUT EVIL OPPOSITES CAN NOT SURVIVE WITHOUT EACH OTHER
Just like the color red can not exist without light, red does not exist in blackness

NO EVIL? THEN THERE IS NO GOOD. NO LIGHT? THEN THERE IS NO COLOUR RED

If you think you can beat the devil in your brain, and the force around you PeaceGirl, then be my guest, happy hunting!


Do not tell people what to think or feel, but LET people find out for themselves.

EVILNESS is A FORCE PEACEGIRL, which only can be fought by only a single individual.

And where is the entrance for the devil? Only a window in your brain

First be REALLY AWARE of yourself, of life, of your surroundings, of people, then it WILL be much easier to fight the master of darkness, satan, Beelzebub etc.

THE WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but the truth you will not get, or else we would not be able to live any more.
But at least believing in the right direction makes you a happier person.
And is your THINKLINK a real good one.

Quote:
because this knowledge leads to an alteration of environmental conditions, making war and crime an impossibility.

Besides tsunamis, gay people, earth quakes, volcano eruptions ther is war and crime Peacegirl. The only one and ONLY way to HAVE peace is to TALK.

CRIME, now there is something to let your teeth sink in.
But it also comes down to really long talks, and just maybe the right words will spread.
Children you do not punish or even hit.
You may hit children with words, if you can, and they hurt much, much more.

A nun hit me once, I was the favorite, but she hit.
It did not do totally anything to me. I felt kind of sorry for her.

SO EVERYWHERE AND EVERYTIME WITH EVERYONE: GO STRAIGHT FOR THE HEART!

[Awareness]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now two bigots are in cohoots. You have just confirmed how truly nuts you are.

What kind of BULLSHIT is this??!!!!! They gave an opinion, and you just call somebody just like that nuts. One thing that is on the internet is that such words have no weight at all. Instead of commenting you play around.
What do you want anyway. REAL weird to have and want your way with a typewriter

[Awareness]

[quote=peacegirl;1101750]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There ya go, he even gives you the name of his book for your investigation

Whatever your take is on Harris, it is obviously incomplete and does not make him a douchbag. You are so judgmental. It's sickening.

You can not and never be judgmental with just words from a KEYBOARD Peacegirl! Everyone is free to write what they want, that is the freedom of a not known person.

I was real glad that discrimination is somewhat eliminated here on the internet, but you are pushing it to hate " white paper"

[Awareness]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you even read the article? Did you understand his reasoning? What would you do if your child was close to a ticking timb bomb? Would torture sound more reasonable to you if you could not find out where this bomb was located any other way? You not only have misinterpreted why he said what he said, you have set yourself up as god of sorts (here comes de judge), and you are slandering his reputation in the process.

Sounds also like:

UNTHINKABLE.

Have you seen it peace girl? Has any body seen it?

H questions whether Yusef will reveal the bombs' location unless Yusuf's wife is found. When she is detained, H brings her in front of her husband and threatens to mutilate her in front of him. Brody and the others begin to take her away from the room in disgust. Out of desperation, H slashes her throat and she bleeds to death in front of Yusuf. Still without cooperation, H tells the soldiers to bring in Yusuf's two children, a young boy and a girl. Outside of Yusuf's hearing, he assures everyone that he will not harm the children. Yusef's children are brought in and H makes it clear that he will torture them if the locations of the bombs are not divulged. Yusuf breaks and gives three addresses (in New York, Los Angeles and Dallas), but H does not stop, forcing the others to intervene. Citing the amount of missing nuclear material Yusuf potentially had at his disposal (some 15–18 lbs. were reported missing, with about 4½ lbs. needed per device), H insists that Yusuf has not admitted anything about a hence-unreferenced fourth bomb. H points out that everything Yusuf has done so far has been planned meticulously. He knew the torture would most likely break him, and he would have been certain to plant a fourth bomb, just in case.

Here it becomes clear that the purpose of the preceding torture was not to break Yusuf, but rather to make it clear to him what would happen to his children if he did not cooperate.

The official in charge of the operation demands that H bring Yusuf's children back in for further interrogation. H demands that Brody bring the children back in, because her decency will give him the moral approval that he needs to do the "unthinkable". When Brody refuses to retrieve the children for H, he unstraps Yusuf, sarcastically setting him free. The official draws his pistol and aims it at H to coerce him into further interrogation. Yusuf grabs the official's gun. He asks Brody to take care of his children and kills himself. Brody walks out of the building with Yusuf's children

[/I]

[Awareness]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is corrct thinking LadyShea. Some things are black and white, and this is one of them. In the sense that there are mitigating factors that limit our ability to act "freely" (the kind of freedom that offers unlimited options), does not change the fact that these two positions are mutually exclusive.

ONLY TWO THINGS ARE BLACK AND WHITE PEACE GIRL; the two colours

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is not about beliefs that are not true or true. This is about conscience not being the same for everyone. You seem to miss the point.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Yes, conscience is the same for everyone once they can no longer justify hurting others, and the only way to do that is in a "no blame" environment. If conscience was an individual thing like personality, that would be a different story, but it works the same way for everyone unless their conscience has become disabled. If will was free conscience would be unable to control our actions because we could hurt people in spite of changes in environmental conditions.

How strange. A few posts ago you said:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

You misunderstood what I said. Conscience can only work depending on what it is fed. If what is taught is a lie (e.g., homosexuals are lesser human beings than heterosexuals), then conscience will not think it is bad when homosexuals are not offered the same kind of protection as heterosexuals.

And yet now you say that conscience is the same for everyone in the "no blame" environment... which means conscience is not dependent on "what it is fed".

You seem to have trouble making up your mind.

Is it that when you say "no blame environment" you really mean is "An environment where everyone agrees with me" ?

Because that is what it seems to boil down to.

In any case, unless conscience is innate and homogeneous, in order for every single person to develop the same moral system, they would have to go through the same experiences as well as share the same natural tendencies.

This is clearly not the case now, nor does the "new environment" make it so. People will still have very different experiences, and very different natural tendencies.

Not true, but in order to understand these principles that can help humans and animals alike, man has to take the reins. Animals don't have the intellectual capacity to help themselves in the way humans can.

You seem to think that if you include animals as beneficiaries of your plan that that deals with the problem that your "God" has a plan at all. This plan is for our benefit (perhaps also for the benefit of other animals) and is there to make us happy. By definition that requires volition. Only a person can do that. Your God is a personal God with a light dusting of pantheism.

I did not put "volition" or "interest" in the same sentence as God. Man is definitely developing as he moves metaphorically from infancy to childhood to adolescence and finally to adulthood. We have absolutely no control over this development because we are compelled to move in a direction that we believe is in our best interest, which is spurring us forward. We have no choice in this matter.

You attribute plans to this God, plans for us. That requires volition and interest.

I also notice that you believe in a linear progression from an objectively worse position to an objectively better one for all of mankind. These are all articles of faith.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Awareness

What kind of BULLSHIT is this??!!!!! They gave an opinion, and you just call somebody just like that nuts. One thing that is on the internet is that such words have no weight at all. Instead of commenting you play around.
What do you want anyway. REAL weird to have and want your way with a typewriter

Words do hold weight. That's the problem. People think that it's okay to hurt other people anonymously. You may be insensitive to words. Most people are not.

[Awareness]

Rather, like many philosophers doing work in this area have stated (the list is quite extensive), it’s more likely that free will comes in degrees. Mitigating factors can limit our ability to act “freely”, such as various mental disorders and external factors, however, to claim that free will is an all or nothing sort of concept seems to miss both the folk intuition as to the importance of free will (see Nahmias, Morris, Turner, Nadelhoffer 05′) and our ordinary conceptions of its role in grounding moral responsibility and justifying our conventions of punishment, dealings in relationships, desert, and conscious experience.

Free will can not come in degrees PEACEGIRL, it is ONE THING ONLY and has totally nothing to do with your brain, that is our advantage , while some just do not try or are just too weak

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A negative deterrent such as citronella to keep a dog from barking is a far cry from blaming the dog and punishing him for doing what dogs do.

That really did not make sense, barking is what dogs do, and citronella is a form of punishment for the dog doing what dogs do. A 'negative deterrent' is a punishment. And I do not see where 'blame' was involved, it's more a matter of controlling an undesirable behaviour and teaching the dog to not do it.

[Awareness]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Words do hold weight. That's the problem. People think that it's okay to hurt other people anonymously. You may be insensitive to words. Most people are not.

Words on the internet do not HOLD any weight at all and that is a problem of some, and so you have a problem with it too apparently

You do not get it do you?

I find it for example so weird when two total strangers chit chatting quarrel !

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

How strange. A few posts ago you said:

And yet now you say that conscience is the same for everyone in the "no blame" environment... which means conscience is not dependent on "what it is fed".

You seem to have trouble making up your mind.

Is it that when you say "no blame environment" you really mean is "An environment where everyone agrees with me" ?

Because that is what it seems to boil down to.

I said all along that in order for conscience to develop, a person has to be nurtured.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In any case, unless conscience is innate and homogeneous, in order for every single person to develop the same moral system, they would have to go through the same experiences as well as share the same natural tendencies.

I'm not sure what you mean by natural tendencies. Natural talents? The only experiences that would be the same is that all children would be raised in a nurturing environment.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is clearly not the case now, nor does the "new environment" make it so. People will still have very different experiences, and very different natural tendencies.

There will be as many different experiences as there are people in the new world. This has nothing to do with anything.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But in this case it definitely is a personal God. This God is primarily interested in humans and earth. This plan involves our happiness, which requires this god to have volition.

Not true, but in order to understand these principles that can help humans and animals alike, man has to take the reins. Animals don't have the intellectual capacity to help themselves in the way humans can.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You seem to think that if you include animals as beneficiaries of your plan that that deals with the problem that your "God" has a plan at all. This plan is for our benefit (perhaps also for the benefit of other animals) and is there to make us happy. By definition that requires volition. Only a person can do that. Your God is a personal God with a light dusting of pantheism.

I'm saying that this law of our nature, which we are finally getting to understand, is pushing us toward a better world for all and we have no choice in the matter.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Interest and volition can only be experienced by persons.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You believe in a master-plan that is for the best of everyone, without a compelling reason to believe other than your desire to believe it.

I did not put "volition" or "interest" in the same sentence as God. Man is definitely developing as he moves metaphorically from infancy to childhood to adolescence and finally to adulthood. We have absolutely no control over this development because we are compelled to move in a direction that we believe is in our best interest, which is spurring us forward. We have no choice in this matter.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You attribute plans to this God, plans for us. That requires volition and interest.

If we can get rid of the evil in the world, this would create support to the design theory. That does not mean that God has human characteristics, but it does provide support for the idea that man does not stand alone and that there is an intelligence that is govering this universe.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I also notice that you believe in a linear progression from an objectively worse position to an objectively better one for all of mankind. These are all articles of faith.

Not really. If you look at all the achievements throughout history, we keep progressing with new inventions and better technologies. Some technologies have the potential to do harm or to do good. It's how we use them that count. I can say with confidence that safer airline travel due to better design is objectively better than having an inferior design where people could be at risk, and the majority of mankind would agree.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now two bigots are in cohoots. You have just confirmed how truly nuts you are.

Apparently it's OK to call someone a 'bigot' or to say they are 'nuts', but it's not Ok to call them a 'douchebag'. We should really have a list of approved derogatory names and a list of disaproved ones. But then Peacegirl called LadyShea a 'douchebag', but now objects to her calling people that name. Peacegirl and Lessans are clealy confused, - sorry I should have said confusing, but both are correct. Peacegirl is flip-floping on this issue just like she does on everything else. So it's 'Flip-Flop Peacegirl' the daughter of 'Ole' Pinwheel Lessans', He's probably rolling over in his grave from Peacegirls posts over the last 10 years.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we can get rid of the evil in the world, this would create support to the design theory. That does not mean that God has human characteristics, but it does provide support for the idea that man does not stand alone and that there is an intelligence that is govering this universe.

No it doesn't, this sounds just like the book, taking one idea and useing it to prove or support some other unrelated concept. If man gets rid of evil it has nothing to do with the existance of God or some intelligence guiding the universe.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Ah, animal behavior and animal training -- two more fields about which peacegirl apparently knows exactly nothing, yet for some reason feels qualified to prattle on about.

In animal training, reinforcement (both positive and negative*) is used to encourage "good" behavior (that's why it's called reinforcement, because the idea is to reinforce -- that is, strengthen -- behavior patterns that the trainer approves of), and punishment is used to discourage "bad" behavior.

Study after study after study has shown that if you want to discourage "bad" behavior, then punishment of some sort isn't just the most effective way to do so, it's generally a requirement.


Note that overly harsh punishment can be ineffective or even counterproductive, as can punishment that is inconsistently applied. But pretty-much the central understanding in the field of Animal Behavior is that if you want to eliminate "bad" behaviors, you must arrange conditions such that these behaviors are punished.

Note that punishment may not involve hitting the animal or other such things. It may be something as simple as withholding something the animal likes. Like praise, for example, if you're dealing with dogs.


Long story short: in the fields of animal behavior and animal training, we use two tools: reinforcement and punishment. Reinforcement is used to encourage (reinforce) desirable behaviors, while punishment (which is often just refusal to give the animal something it likes -- i.e., a reward) is used to discourage undesirable behaviors.


Saying that "research has found that punishing animals does not work as well as rewarding them" is just plain ignorant. Punishment and reward are used for entirely different purposes.



*In the fields of animal behavior and animal training, the term "negative reinforcement" does not mean what most people seem to think it means. Negative reinforcement is not related to punishment.

Positive reinforcement is when you give the animal something it likes when it performs the behavior you want it to. For example, you might give a dog a treat.

Negative reinforcement is when you remove a negative stimulus when the animal performs the behavior that you want it to. For example, if you want the animal to push a certain button, you might play a harsh, annoying tone -- when the animal pushes the appropriate button, the tone stops.

So whether it's positive or negative reinforcement, the animal is rewarded for doing what you want it to do. Either way, reinforcement is an effective tool for encouraging (reinforcing) desirable behaviors.

Of course, punishment is not an effective way to encourage desirable behaviors, because that isn't its purpose. But any student of animal behavior, or any animal trainer, will tell you that if you want to reduce or eliminate undesirable behaviors, some sort of punishment (even if it's just withholding of praise) is virtually always an absolutely necessity.



[I happened to catch an episode of The Big Bang Theory once in which the Sheldon character was going on and on and on about "negative reinforcement" when what he was describing was punishment. It really bugged me, because it was so obvious that the writers hadn't bothered to do even a little bit of research on the subject.]

There is nothing wrong with negative reinforcement because animals cannot understand reason. But the punishment cannot be too harsh or it will be inhumane. Children cannot understand reason either. But what separates animals from children is that children will eventually be able to understand the basic principle (about 4 or 5). Then they will not have to be punished in order to get them to do what is morally right.

[The Lone Ranger]

Your reply very strongly suggests that you still don't have any idea at all what the term "negative reinforcement" means, and/or that you don't understand that "negative reinforcement" and "punishment" are entirely different things that address entirely different behaviors.



Do you ever actually bother to read the posts to which you reply?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Words do hold weight. That's the problem. People think that it's okay to hurt other people anonymously. You may be insensitive to words. Most people are not.

He's been publicly eviscerated by some of his fellow prominent people already, and received many angry emails and letters, but I am sure that my name calling will be what really hurts him...because my words hold weight.

Oh and also, expressing my opinion about a public figure is not slander. I merely insulted him.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we can get rid of the evil in the world, this would create support to the design theory. That does not mean that God has human characteristics, but it does provide support for the idea that man does not stand alone and that there is an intelligence that is govering this universe.

If there is an intelligence governing the Universe it doesn't need us to get rid of evil, and since evil exists it may not want us to get rid of it. Maybe it's there for a reason*.

Who are you to question and try to change God's design? That's hubris.

*you probably think evil exists just so Lessans can vanquish it and be a hero.

[Vivisectus]

As far as I can tell Harris is a pretty good neurologist, but I find him rather limited where philosophy is concerned. He seems to make the same fundamental error as the radical religionists he hates so much: both feel they are on the side of absolute right.

The fundies believe there is a single God who has the only right plan for everyone, and they believe they know what that plan is.

Harris believes that there is a single objective measure for moral right and wrong - the maximum well-being of sentient beings - and that he knows what brings the maximum well-being for sentient beings.

I have no problem with the first part of both these ideas. But there is no justification for the second parts, and they lead to dangerous absolutism. The fundamentalist has no problem justifying atrocity if it aids the divine plan, Harris sees no problem justifying atrocities in the name of his own absolute good.

It seems to moment anyone thinks of an absolute good, they always make sure they are on the right side. And they also seem to immediately find an enemy - some reason why this self-evident good is not the norm.