Gyroscopic Investing

melveyr wrote: If one acts strictly based on fear of an almighty God than I struggle to understand how we could see that person as moral. That puts adults on par with a child, only doing what is "good" so that they don't get spanked. A moral person acts based on love for their fellow human, not fear of punishment. Also just because the implications of God not existing are messy for morality doesn't mean it can't be true. At the very least that we could use our own discourse to determine what we see as right and wrong.  Usurping this important process to millennia old superstitions seems rather lazy.

Melveyr,

I don't care about moral thoughts or immoral thoughts.  I'm talking about behaviour i.e. reality.  If you shit in public you have no moral compass.

What is the area i.e. physical grounds like after there has been an occupy wall street protest there?  Why is that?  What is the area like after a tea party protest?  Why is that?

REALITY is the rate of murder, sex crimes, the fact of colombine and copycats, etc. etc. 

NB: I believe in abortion, have been known to hug trees (lliterally), and had close lesbian friends.  It is nice that society is more "gay friendly" (for my lesbian friends), but the fact that society is more deranged/sickier does not bode well.

Benko wrote:

MediumTex wrote: The quote above suggests that morality and religion go hand in hand, but I think that this is false. 

Agreed but someone once said that:

"if there is no god that all is permitted"

With or without God, all is permitted.  Look at all of the awful things that are done in the name of God.  Religion often brings out the absolute worst in people.

and I do think that if you look at what is happening in society (look at the news any day) we are suffering from people with no moral compass.

I disagree.  I think that because we are outraged by many things that we see on the news, it actually means that we DO have a pretty strong moral compass.

It will always be tempting to think that the good old days were better than today.  It's easy to forget that in the "good old days" of the 1950s, for example, women had no career opportunities, doctors suggested smoking for stress and black people weren't permitted to enter many establishments and were required to use separate toilets.

Benko wrote:
Melveyr,

I don't care about moral thoughts or immoral thoughts.  I'm talking about behaviour i.e. reality.  If you shit in public you have no moral compass.

What is the area i.e. physical grounds like after there has been an occupy wall street protest there?  Why is that?  What is the area like after a tea party protest?  Why is that?

REALITY is the rate of murder, sex crimes, the fact of colombine and copycats, etc. etc. 

So do you think that an increase in secularism (which naturally means a decline in fear of God) means that society needs a new entity to fear? Does government have to step in and scare us to fill the void?

melveyr wrote: So do you think that an increase in secularism (which naturally means a decline in fear of God) means that society needs a new entity to fear? Does government have to step in and scare us to fill the void?

Being fearful of god is besides the point (despite the dogma). 

I get a daily e-mail with medical news items (sciencedaily.com)  There was one recently that people who did certain kinds of meditations daily started spontaneously acting kinder and treating people better.  This is spirtual growth.  This is true spirituality (which has little to do with religion). 'There are also people (more common in women) who just naturally treat people better.

However this is unlikely to affect more than a minority of people.  As far as our country, I suspect that all things from trees, to the popularity of new musical groups, to civilizations go through natural life cycles.  I doubt there is anything that can be done to change the overall trajectory of our decline, though whether it take 5 50 or 500 years I have no idea.

MediumTex wrote:   Look at all of the awful things that are done in the name of God.  Religion often brings out the absolute worst in people.

When?  We are speaking of the state of this country, now.

MediumTex wrote: doctors suggested smoking for stress and black people weren't permitted to enter many establishments and were required to use separate toilets.

Medical ignorance will be here forever.  But there is a difference between prejudice/group ignorance however immoral, and the decay that is going on at the individual level now.

MediumTex wrote:

Benko wrote:

and I do think that if you look at what is happening in society (look at the news any day) we are suffering from people with no moral compass.

I disagree.  I think that because we are outraged by many things that we see on the news, it actually means that we DO have a pretty strong moral compass.

It will always be tempting to think that the good old days were better than today.  It's easy to forget that in the "good old days" of the 1950s, for example, women had no career opportunities, doctors suggested smoking for stress and black people weren't permitted to enter many establishments and were required to use separate toilets.

MT...I find your reply to be very curious. Are you saying that the items you mention from the 1950s are at least as bad as the
the rate of sex crimes, murder, Colombine, abortion on demand, of today??

I ask, because the items you mention, although unjust, did not result in the literal destruction of human life we see prevalent today.

murph,

Aren't most forms of crime down quite a bit since the '80s and '90s?  Maybe not as low as the 1950's, but if it's going in the right direction, is it something to be very worried about?

As a libertarian, I'm not about to argue that the Republicans should avoid embracing my ideology.  I do think that the most effective way for the Replublican party to gain swing voters and fiscally conservative democrats is to drop the focus on social issues.  However, this will probably further shrink the party because the religious right is not going to go along with it and you'll have situations like the Indiana senate race where an absolute lock for the seat lost his primary to a more socially conservative candidate (who then went on to run his mouth about rape and make a jackass of himself, costing the GOP the race).  The only hope for fiscally conservative and otherwise libertarian policies to gain traction is for the U.S. to ditch the two party system.  A coalition government composed of aligned parties would give the moderates and religious right a voice and allow some of the more contentious and less supported social issues to slip to the back burner.  However, I don't see this happening soon.  Americans don't like to admit anyone else has figured out a better way or system than us.

In the end the religious right and the left are simply two sides of the same coin.  Both are interested in imposing their beliefs on society.  Both are heavily invested in social issues and neither is going to let them slide or concede them without a fight. 

On an unrelated note, fellatio was illegal in the early 1800's?  Scratch that from my "interesting times to visit if granted time travel" list.

murphy_p_t wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

Benko wrote:
I disagree.  I think that because we are outraged by many things that we see on the news, it actually means that we DO have a pretty strong moral compass.

It will always be tempting to think that the good old days were better than today.  It's easy to forget that in the "good old days" of the 1950s, for example, women had no career opportunities, doctors suggested smoking for stress and black people weren't permitted to enter many establishments and were required to use separate toilets.

MT...I find your reply to be very curious. Are you saying that the items you mention from the 1950s are at least as bad as the
the rate of sex crimes, murder, Colombine, abortion on demand, of today??

I ask, because the items you mention, although unjust, did not result in the literal destruction of human life we see prevalent today.

I think that these things seem more prevalent today because of the 24 hour news cycle.

Bad guys, abortions and psychopaths have always been with us.

Have you read The Devil in the White City?

How about the Charles Lindbergh baby kidnapping and murder?

How about In Cold Blood?

Remember Charles Whitman in the UT tower?

When news is only on for 30 minutes or an hour a day, you simply don't have time to cover every terrible crime in a country as large as ours.  With 50 news channels on 24 hours a day, however, you hear about everything.

moda0306 wrote: murph,

Aren't most forms of crime down quite a bit since the '80s and '90s?  Maybe not as low as the 1950's, but if it's going in the right direction, is it something to be very worried about?

Hi Moda...I acknowledge your point if we only consider crimes which are considered such by the judicial system. My reply to MT didn't contain the concerns I have about the direction of the country. For example, 55.6 million surgical abortions committed since 9 folks in black costumes discovered something in the "penumbra" of the constitution. This decision denies the most basic right, the right to life, of those most in need of protection. Kind of like in the days of slavery, the unborn are denied their humanity by the legal and political systems, as well as the culture. Keep in mind that the vast majority of these abortions are committed as matters of convenience and do not involve the so-called "hard cases" of of rape, incest, or life of the mother. When Clinton was in office, the alleged goal was to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare". Now, the democratic party has dropped the pretense of claiming to make it rare. To those who deny the humanity of the unborn, this is not a concern worthy of action.

Another area which concerns me is the attack on religious liberty thru the so-called HHS mandate which requires many to violate their conscience to fund voluntary surgeries (vasectomies, etc) and drugs (abortion inducing drugs and contraception). This is a direct assault on the 1st amendment as it violates freedom of religion (a conscience in conformity with the Natural Law). This assault is being done openly and without apology. This is a fundamental aspect of the constitution being rubbished, the right to not have the government attack religion. I have little reason to expect relief from the courts.

These are two examples of the devaluation of human life in our society today.

murphy_p_t wrote:

moda0306 wrote: murph,

Aren't most forms of crime down quite a bit since the '80s and '90s?  Maybe not as low as the 1950's, but if it's going in the right direction, is it something to be very worried about?

Hi Moda...I acknowledge your point if we only consider crimes which are considered such by the judicial system. My reply to MT didn't contain the concerns I have about the direction of the country. For example, 55.6 million surgical abortions committed since 9 folks in black costumes discovered something in the "penumbra" of the constitution. This decision denies the most basic right, the right to life, of those most in need of protection. Kind of like in the days of slavery, the unborn are denied their humanity by the legal and political systems, as well as the culture. Keep in mind that the vast majority of these abortions are committed as matters of convenience and do not involve the so-called "hard cases" of of rape, incest, or life of the mother. When Clinton was in office, the alleged goal was to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare". Now, the democratic party has dropped the pretense of claiming to make it rare. To those who deny the humanity of the unborn, this is not a concern worthy of action.

Another area which concerns me is the attack on religious liberty thru the so-called HHS mandate which requires many to violate their conscience to fund voluntary surgeries (vasectomies, etc) and drugs (abortion inducing drugs and contraception). This is a direct assault on the 1st amendment as it violates freedom of religion (a conscience in conformity with the Natural Law). This assault is being done openly and without apology. This is a fundamental aspect of the constitution being rubbished, the right to not have the government attack religion. I have little reason to expect relief from the courts.

These are two examples of the devaluation of human life in our society today.

Several studies have shown that allowing access to legal abortions helps reduce crime caused by unwanted babies growing into improperly raised adults, who are more likely to commit crime, even violent crime:

"We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly eighteen years after abortion legalization. The five states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime."[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact ... n_on_Crime

Is it more moral to kill an unwanted fetus, or let that fetus grow up into a hardened criminal who might go on to murder others?  I don't really know, but I'd like to let the mother make that decision and not some bureaucrats in Washington.

And by the way, many people have abortions not for convenience, but out of medical necessity.  For example, my wife and I found out that one of our first pregnancies had down syndrome.  We chose to terminate the pregnancy because it is far easier to try again, and eventually our healthy son was born.  My wife and I are still sad to this day that we had to terminate that pregnancy, but also thankful that modern medicine has given us the tools to know in advance whether a baby will be healthy or not.

If you had the ability to know if your child will be born with horrible defects, or healthy, would you knowingly bring a horribly deformed baby into the world, knowing it would suffer it's whole life?  There is a certain element of morality in being able to choose a healthy baby over a baby that will suffer.

Before this thread gets too heavy, let me just say that I think it's important that in the coming discussion, we all acknowledge and respect the intensely personal nature of our answers to these moral matters. Questions like "when does life begin?" and "is it appropriate to terminate a pregnancy that would result in an a mentally deformed child?" are inherently challenging to answer on an individual basis, let along a societal one.

Pointedstick wrote: Before this thread gets too heavy, let me just say that I think it's important that in the coming discussion, we all acknowledge and respect the intensely personal nature of our answers to these moral matters. Questions like "when does life begin?" and "is it appropriate to terminate a pregnancy that would result in an a mentally deformed child?" are inherently challenging to answer on an individual basis, let along a societal one.

That's a good point, PS.  As hard as that decision is to make at an individual level, I very much do not want those decisions to be made at a government level and apply to everyone with the full threat and force of the law.  Look at what is happening in Ireland right now with the protests because of the mother that died from a bad pregnancy, who begged for an abortion.  Do we really want to let the government make those personal decisions for us?

I really do wish the Republican party would focus on libertarian ideals of freedom from government, rather than being the social police and trying to force conservative christianity on the rest of the world.

Storm wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Before this thread gets too heavy, let me just say that I think it's important that in the coming discussion, we all acknowledge and respect the intensely personal nature of our answers to these moral matters. Questions like "when does life begin?" and "is it appropriate to terminate a pregnancy that would result in an a mentally deformed child?" are inherently challenging to answer on an individual basis, let along a societal one.

That's a good point, PS.  As hard as that decision is to make at an individual level, I very much do not want those decisions to be made at a government level and apply to everyone with the full threat and force of the law.  Look at what is happening in Ireland right now with the protests because of the mother that died from a bad pregnancy, who begged for an abortion.  Do we really want to let the government make those personal decisions for us?

I really do wish the Republican party would focus on libertarian ideals of freedom from government, rather than being the social police and trying to force conservative christianity on the rest of the world.

I would prefer that we steer clear of the abortion topic.  I don't think that we are going to cover any new ground and I'm afraid it's just going to get everyone upset.

Storm wrote: Look at what is happening in Ireland right now with the protests because of the mother that died from a bad pregnancy, who begged for an abortion. 

Hi Storm...I understand why it would be easy to reach this conclusion without closely following this case. However, it has been documented that this is not a true statement.

"An autopsy carried out by Dr Grace Callagy two days later found she died of septicaemia “documented ante-mortem”? and E.coli ESBL." from http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/fro ... 75203.html

I've seen no claims that terminating Savita's pregnancy would have saved her life.

Furthermore, it seems probable that the unfortunate death is being used to manipulate public opinion in this matter.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news ... 96844.html

MediumTex wrote:

Storm wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Before this thread gets too heavy, let me just say that I think it's important that in the coming discussion, we all acknowledge and respect the intensely personal nature of our answers to these moral matters. Questions like "when does life begin?" and "is it appropriate to terminate a pregnancy that would result in an a mentally deformed child?" are inherently challenging to answer on an individual basis, let along a societal one.

That's a good point, PS.  As hard as that decision is to make at an individual level, I very much do not want those decisions to be made at a government level and apply to everyone with the full threat and force of the law.  Look at what is happening in Ireland right now with the protests because of the mother that died from a bad pregnancy, who begged for an abortion.  Do we really want to let the government make those personal decisions for us?

I really do wish the Republican party would focus on libertarian ideals of freedom from government, rather than being the social police and trying to force conservative christianity on the rest of the world.

I would prefer that we steer clear of the abortion topic.  I don't think that we are going to cover any new ground and I'm afraid it's just going to get everyone upset.

I didn't bring it up, but fine, if you don't want to offend our sensitive "internet sensibilities" I will oblige your request.

Storm wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

Storm wrote: That's a good point, PS.  As hard as that decision is to make at an individual level, I very much do not want those decisions to be made at a government level and apply to everyone with the full threat and force of the law.  Look at what is happening in Ireland right now with the protests because of the mother that died from a bad pregnancy, who begged for an abortion.  Do we really want to let the government make those personal decisions for us?

I really do wish the Republican party would focus on libertarian ideals of freedom from government, rather than being the social police and trying to force conservative christianity on the rest of the world.

I would prefer that we steer clear of the abortion topic.  I don't think that we are going to cover any new ground and I'm afraid it's just going to get everyone upset.

I didn't bring it up, but fine, if you don't want to offend our sensitive "internet sensibilities" I will oblige your request.

It's just a suggestion.  If you think that there is important ground to cover on this topic and it can be done with cool heads, please proceed.

murphy_p_t wrote: I fully acknowledge that the morals of the people *have* changed since the time the Republic was founded, notwithstanding the GOP platform. Also, I think it perfectly reasonable to state that, from the view of the founders, the nation has become largely irreligious and immoral.

Working from that point, Adams is saying that our Constitution is no longer suitable and relevant and implies that a new form of government would be implemented.

Religion has no role in government, so it is irrelevant if the nation has become largely irreligious.  Our enshrined principles are not dependent on any religion.  So Adams' argument is redundant.

But I certainly agree both the government and the nation have become more and more immoral.  To the extent this is a result of becoming largely irreligious seems to indicate that people have not used their increased freedom from religious suppression and tyranny to learn how to be better human beings.  The answer, therefore, is not to go back to increased religion, but to teach civility and manners.

MediumTex wrote: To the point about the founding fathers and their morality and belief in the Bible, I would

The Founding Fathers weren't all Judeo-Christian and I am sick of Republicans engaging in historical revision to support their extremist doctrines.

Benko wrote: and I do think that if you look at what is happening in society (look at the news any day) we are suffering from people with no moral compass.

Opportunity to profit.  Sell morality without a religion.

MachineGhost wrote:

murphy_p_t wrote: I fully acknowledge that the morals of the people *have* changed since the time the Republic was founded, notwithstanding the GOP platform. Also, I think it perfectly reasonable to state that, from the view of the founders, the nation has become largely irreligious and immoral.

Working from that point, Adams is saying that our Constitution is no longer suitable and relevant and implies that a new form of government would be implemented.

Religion has no role in government, so it is irrelevant if the nation has become largely irreligious.  Our enshrined principles are not dependent on any religion.  So Adams' argument is redundant.

I just did a search and found this page, http://www.christiancollegesanduniversi ... residents/

Some quotes from there which seem to challenge your claim:

“We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself ordained.”? – George Washington

“Let me live according to those holy rules which Thou hast this day prescribed in Thy Holy Word…direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ, the way, the truth, and the life. Bless, O Lord, all the people of this land.”? – George Washington

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”? – Thomas Jefferson

“The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.”? – Thomas Jefferson


I have not confirmed the authenticity of these quotes, only copy/paste same. Frankly, I didn't suspect that Jefferson would have quotes this favorable about Christianity.

murphy_p_t wrote: These are two examples of the devaluation of human life in our society today.

I think its probably more accurate to say this is a devaluation of your religious or spiritual beliefs.

Abortions have been occuring for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years of human existence.  They will still occur whether or not you succeed in designating a zygote as "human life" and abortion becomes a Minority Report-style pre-crime along with an invasion of the most sacrosanct of private property rights.

Need I remind anyone of what happened with all of the unwanted, born children when widespread abortion was illegal pre-1973?  We had a huge crime spike and nearly mass-panic in the media when they all came of age which peaked in the early '90's and crime has been decreasing ever since.  I won't touch upon the truly barbaric side-effects of unregulated and home-style abortion procedures.

So I suggest if we're going to ban abortion again, those responsible better step up to the huge task of dealing with what would now be visibly tangible and intended consequences.  A good start would be in making pregnancy opt-in by putting birth control in the water supply.

murphy_p_t wrote: I have not confirmed the authenticity of these quotes, only copy/paste same. Frankly, I didn't suspect that Jefferson would have quotes this favorable about Christianity.

I see nothing that challenges my claim.  You are confusing nation/society with government.  Our government was intended to be religiously neutral.  THAT is not in dispute (from authoritative sources, not the black hole of the web) except to Republican historical revisionists.

MachineGhost wrote:
Need I remind anyone of what happened with all of the unwanted, born children when widespread abortion was illegal pre-1973?  We had a huge crime spike and nearly mass-panic in the media when they all came of age which peaked in the early '90's and crime has been decreasing ever since.

Hi MachineGhost. I agree with your observation, based on what I've read.

However, I'm reminded of a comment I read on a police blog. In the comments, someone wrote that the only effective way to control crime on the south and west sides of a major city was to carpet-bomb. (yes, i know, its a mildly inflammatory suggestion, but I didn't make this up)

Based on the news reports, I don't think I'd disagree. Yet, I don't think this would be considered a "moral" solution to the problem. Rather, it is simply a utilitarian solution.

Do you think that any utilitarian solution is necessarily a just or moral solution? If not, how do you distinguish between the two?

I'm still not understanding why we think that the Founding Fathers and the people of their time were so much more moral than people today.

What exactly was more moral about that time period?  I see plenty of stuff that we would think of as immoral today in the form of slavery and rampant sexual, racial and economic discrimination, but I don't see the additional morality of that time over ours.

I look at the community I live in and I see a group of basically good, honest, hardworking people who seem to have a general sense of goodwill toward one another even though they are from different ethnic groups, hold different religious beliefs and have different political affiliations.