Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Not true. At severe risk to my reputation, I told people that I thought you were funny. And you got your wife to make custom made avatars for me to give to paigow's socks. We are a microcosm of evolutionary cooperative behavior here.

I must have misread those PM's. I was pretty sure they said:

"Goddamnit! Hank is NOT funny! Don't encourage him!"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I must have misread those PM's. I was pretty sure they said:

"Goddamnit! Hank is NOT funny! Don't encourage him!"

Exactly. He's like those guys who claim they liked the Ramones from the start, but meanwhile you know he was wearing an Eagles t-shirt well into 1988.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Because he wants to be President, he thinks the religious right can make him President, the religious right thinks they can make him president, and they want an up or down vote on Bush's seven nominees. It's not whether or not he can win this - it's that he has to give it the old college try.

mainly We just want a guy who hates Fags. charging up hills is really just icing on the cake.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic

As for the rest, I don't really care one way or the other - fight on!

And, whatever you all do, don't let the "Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal" heading go. I've become very fond of it these past days.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Exactly. He's like those guys who claim they liked the Ramones from the start, but meanwhile you know he was wearing an Eagles t-shirt well into 1988.

You can't hide your lyin' eyes.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I disagree with your idea that we share universal ideas of right and wrong, except in the most abstract way. Take affirmative action. Some people think that the government should not take race into account in any way. Others think that this "neutrality" is a false one. So there is a fundamental disagreement on some level. Presumably they all agree that government action should be fair, but that's not much of an agreement.

I keep meaning to point you to the idea of "incompletely theorized agreements", associated with Cass Sunstein. The basic gist is that we may disagree about fundamental principles but nonetheless be able to agree on specific outcomes. But Lawrence Solum describes it better in that piece I've linked to.

I just thought of a situation that explains what I think is the crux of the issue for me. Or is the crux of the problem. Do you think that the US government should put pressure on North African countrys to end the practice of female circumscission. In the past the US Government and the British government put pressure on the Indian government to stop the practice of throwing widows (alive) on the funeral pyres of their husband. Now if you think exerting that pressure was wrong we have no debate. But if you think the US and Great Britain should have exerted such pressure, what is the rational you use for such pressure. Or what do you tell the leaders of those countrys why you want them to stop. I see the options as:

1) It is in our national interest that you stop such activity, because if you don't, it is possible that the practice might spread to our country. Or such activity will create a culture of permissible death, and that permissiveness might influence the thinking and actions in our country. So we need to stop it. (if someone else has a national interest reason I am open to that).

2) We have a mutation, that give us a conscience, and that mutation (conscience) tells us that what you are doing is wrong. That mutation has helped us survive this far so we are going to continue to follow it because if ain't broke, don't fix it.

3) We believe that all human beings have certain rights. The rights can not be superceded by laws of a particular country or by rules of a certain religion. The creator has endowed these rights on all human beings. One of these rights, is a Childs right not to be mutilated by their parents (or that a woman should not be thrown on a funeral pyre against her will). We feel it is our duty to make our best efforts to see that these rights are respected throughout the world.

4)?

Clearly every one of these reasons has problems. Does someone have a better one?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Hmm, not doubting you or panda. But isn't the first rule of politics to know when you've lost, and spin it into a win of some sort, rather than continuing to dig a hole?

Didn't he already commit to keep digging? Having made such a fuss about the judicial filibuster being unconstitutional, how can he sit idly by when Saad and the other guy are filibustered?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
I just thought of a situation that explains what I think is the crux of the issue for me. Or is the crux of the problem. Do you think that the US government should put pressure on North African countrys to end the practice of female circumscission. In the past the US Government and the British government put pressure on the Indian government to stop the practice of throwing widows (alive) on the funeral pyres of their husband. Now if you think exerting that pressure was wrong we have no debate. But if you think the US and Great Britain should have exerted such pressure, what is the rational you use for such pressure. Or what do you tell the leaders of those countrys why you want them to stop. I see the options as:

1) It is in our national interest that you stop such activity, because if you don't, it is possible that the practice might spread to our country. Or such activity will create a culture of permissible death, and that permissiveness might influence the thinking and actions in our country. So we need to stop it. (if someone else has a national interest reason I am open to that).

2) We have a mutation, that give us a conscience, and that mutation (conscience) tells us that what you are doing is wrong. That mutation has helped us survive this far so we are going to continue to follow it because if ain't broke, don't fix it.

3) We believe that all human beings have certain rights. The rights can not be superceded by laws of a particular country or by rules of a certain religion. The creator has endowed these rights on all human beings. One of these rights, is a Childs right not to be mutilated by their parents (or that a woman should not be thrown on a funeral pyre against her will). We feel it is our duty to make our best efforts to see that these rights are respected throughout the world.

4)?

We all have rights that just are, and were not "endowed." Plus, killing is generally wrong, and we don't think there is any applicable exception to suttee. The "reasonless killing is bad" is a really strong impulse that I do think is something that has evolved.

Although I nearly vomited long ago reading a description of a clitordectomy (clitorectomy? it's really I think quite deceptive to call it circumcism), I think our national energy is better spent on stuff like genocide and good medical practices than obliterating the practice in other countries. Part of what made me want to vomit is the tradition of, e.g., using thorns as sutures after the surgery.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Clearly every one of these reasons has problems. Does someone have a better one?

4) A proper respect for the dignity and human rights of the young women in your country should lead you to stop these practices. Female circumcision is a cruel tradition that needs to stop. It is brutal for the women involved, and the importance placed on the tradition by many men in the country is not a worthy reason to continue to permit this to happen.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
... people's instinct or whatever you want to call it to help others less fortunate [who would otherwise have been selected against makes you feel good and therefore is self interest].

The "evolutionary" question is, though, why would we have developed in such a way as to reward the behavior - "it gives us an endorphin rush and makes us feel good" is the question, not the answer.

FWIW, I think an answer might be found in studying the AKC. Even though they have bred many breeds to the point of disease and genetic inferiority, you want to keep the dogs with hereditary illnesses in the breeding pool, because, those illnesses notwithstanding, they still add to the general genetic diversity of the breed and therefore contribute to the breed's continued evolutionary development. Less of the sick dogs' genetic inheritance may survive in the gene pool overall, but some will and that is to the benefit of the breed as a whole.

Basically, though, most of the evolutionary thinking in the last - well, ever - is agreed that evolution as it functions in animal populations has ceased to operate in human societies for tens of thousands of years (other than extreme cases, such as infertility and/or diseases causing early death (the sickle cell/malaria thing is particularly interesting there)) - basically, ever since humans gained the ability to manipulate their environment to their advantage. To the extent it operates generally, it is probably some form of "social" Darwinism, and the "environment" determining selection is the social one. Or: for humans for a very, very long time, being hot and/or charming (socially fit) is more important in selection than being physically fit.

On that note, see y'all back on the fashion board - where we try to analyze the tools necessary for social success, and therefore morality.

- Actually, come to think of it, Spanky has a point that evolutionary principles can't give you a universal set of "moral" or behavioral codes for application to all human societies (though its not one he made) - selection is determined by the environment in which the individual (or group, if we're doing social Darwinism) functions. Human environments may be sufficiently alike that they result in similar attributes (e.g.: killing people, or at least people close to you, is not good), but Martians will probably have a very different "evolutionary" moral code. Hence: not universal. Of course, this bothers me not at all, since I don't actually think there are "universal" moral principles (including the killing one, actually), but there you go. Either I'm really rational, or really sociopathic, take your pick.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK - but how does one reason out morality? It seems to me rather that we share universal ideas of right and wrong and then explain how different policies conform to those universal ideas. Like I said before, we all seem to agree that the well being of the Iraqi people is important. Some people argue that the war, on balance, has made the Iraqi people worse off. Some people argue that on balance the Iraqi people are better off because of the war. But why should we care about the Iraqi people in the first place? Or the debate on affirmative action. One side argues that affirmative action helps African americans improve their situation, where other people argue that affirmative action actually makes African Americans worse off (by increasing prejudice and making people assume they are less qualified in their jobs etc.) but everyone seems to agree that African Americans need to be better off. Why?

Because morality is not confined by abitrary lines drawn in the earth to denote different countries. Weare all human.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
4) A proper respect for the dignity and human rights of the young women in your country should lead you to stop these practices. Female circumcision is a cruel tradition that needs to stop. It is brutal for the women involved, and the importance placed on the tradition by many men in the country is not a worthy reason to continue to permit this to happen.

I think the obvious response you would get from the leaders of these countrys would be - What rights? Our country does not give such rights. Having such rights would be bad for the society. We don't believe such rights exist and that such "rights" are against God's law. We believe that, according to our religion, it is the moral thing to do to keep trhese woman from becoming sluts and a prostitutes. If the woman does get the procedure she will have no dignity and no respect. It is in the girls best interest and societies best interest (because it will prevent immoral behavior that is dangerous to the cohesion of the society). Who are you to tell me that your view of rights, dignity and morality are better than ours?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Because morality is not confined by abitrary lines drawn in the earth to denote different countries. Weare all human.

I agree, but how do we know our version of morality is right and theirs is wrong.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
I agree, but how do we know our version of morality is right and theirs is wrong.

We can never know with certainty, but I think if you look for a common thread amoung the countries that agree with us when it comes to morality, you will find that they are far better educated and place far more importance on reason rather than emotions or tradition, and I am far more comfortable putting my "faith" in the former than the latter.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
I agree, but how do we know our version of morality is right and theirs is wrong.

Those are questions often decided at the point of a JDAM.

Were Confucious and Buddha divinely inspired?