Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Taking Manhattan out of the Apple?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Manhattan Declaration, a manifesto asserting the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and liberty of conscience, has been discussed previously on Uncommon Descent (see here and here ). Well, it’s in the news again.

I expect many readers will have heard by now that Apple has removed the Manhattan Declaration iPhone/iPad application from the iTunes Store. The Declaration – a Christian statement drafted in 2009 that supports religious liberty, traditional marriage and right to life issues – now has 479,532 supporters. The Manhattan Declaration app was accepted by Apple and rated as a 4+, meaning that it contained no objectionable material.

Last month, around Thanksgiving, the Manhattan Declaration application for iPhones and iPads was suddenly dropped, after the activist group Change.org gathered more than 7,700 signatures for a petition, after claiming that the application promoted “anti-gay” bigotry and “homophobia,” and that it attacked both “equal rights and the right of women to control their own bodies.” Under a headline entitled, “Tell the Apple iTunes Store to remove anti-gay, anti-choice iPhone application,” the petition drive concluded with the words: “Let’s send a strong message to Apple that supporting homophobia and efforts to restrict choice is bad business.

The petition seems to have had the desired effect. Catholic News Agency contacted Apple on December 2 for the reason behind its decision to pull the Manhattan Declaration application. Spokesperson Trudy Muller said via phone that the company “removed the Manhattan Declaration app from the App Store because it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people.” Strange. Why the 4+ rating, then?

I believe in calling spade a spade, so I’ll just come right out and say it: Change.org lied to its readers and to Apple about the purpose of the Manhattan Declaration.

In their online petition to Steve Jobs, Change.org made the following deceitful claim:

The Manhattan Declaration application exists to collect signatures on a website which espouses hateful and divisive language, the very kind of language I hope the iTunes Store will not want to help disseminate…

Apple’s reputation is too important to be associated with this hate filled organization.

Oh, really? Let’s see what the Manhattan Declaration actually says about the unborn and about gay marriage.

In defense of unborn human life

The section on “Life” contains the following words:

A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination. The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent.

Our concern is not confined to our own nation. Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and “ethnic cleansing,” the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS. We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry and the movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research. And so ours is, as it must be, a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances. (Emphases mine – VJT.)

“The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak.” “Ours is … a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances.” Is this hateful language? You tell me.

I notice that Change.org speaks of “choice” in its online petition drive, oblivious to the fact that the innocent human being whose life is terminated during an abortion is denied a choice.

In defense of traditional marriage

“What about gays and lesbians?” you ask. Again, not a trace of hate. In the section on “Marriage,” the Manhattan Declaration affirms “the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life.” Obviously that includes gays and lesbians. The Declaratio­n goes on:

We acknowledg­e that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorou­s conduct and relationsh­ips, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct… We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives…

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good (not “prejudice”), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. (Emphases mine – VJT.)

Some readers may disagree with these sentiments­; but there’s no condescens­ion here. Notice the wording: “We, no less than they, are sinners.”

As I write this, more than 35,523 people have signed an online petition to have the Manhattan Declaration iPhone app reinstated. I would strongly urge readers to lend their support to the petition by signing it here or here.

Let’s send a strong message to Apple that giving a group of concerned citizens a platform to express their opinions, and then withdrawing that platform without warning, is bad business.

Comments
San Antonio Rose
Heterosexuals had pretty much redefined marriage in that manner long before it was common, or even advisable, for homosexuals to come out of the closet. LOL. Sounds like the same thing my great-grandparents generation said about rock and roll.
Yeah, I thought you were pretty young. You believe in soundbite history and are deep in the mire of our current zeitgeist which age and wisdom usually cures.Clive Hayden
December 25, 2010
December
12
Dec
25
25
2010
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
F/N: re 567 in response to the peer-reviewed law and public policy article linked in 566.
The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy is a student run journal. More specifically, a journal run by a society of self-described conservative students. Which brings the danger of 'selective hyperskepticism.'
marriage, through the impact of ideas that manipulation and might make ‘right,’ — and through the impact of many a Hollywood movie — has been transmuted into a for the moment mutually enjoyable, and disposable romantic relationship that only responds to the attraction between persons
Heterosexuals had pretty much redefined marriage in that manner long before it was common, or even advisable, for homosexuals to come out of the closet. Furthermore, one of the criticisms of homosexuals that comes up is their promiscuity. But, when a larger and larger part of that community seeks to put that aside and enter into an exclusive, supportive, long term relationship you would deny them that as well. Frankly, the younger generation has come to the conclusion that homosexuals can't ruin marriage any worse than our parents and grandparents generations have already ruined it.
Even at this late stage, I doubt that SAR and ilk fully realise the matches they are playing with, and the implications of the tinder already piled up. Let us hope they wake up before the conflagration explodes into a devastating flame that consumes our civilisation.
LOL. Sounds like the same thing my great-grandparents generation said about rock and roll.San Antonio Rose
December 24, 2010
December
12
Dec
24
24
2010
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
F/N: re 567 in response to the peer-reviewed law and public policy article linked in 566. SAR simply reiterates the position she has maintained for hundreds of posts, and again fails to actually address the issues cogently on the merits. Her stance -- one multiplied by accusing those who challenge her views, falsely of things like support for mass murder of homosexuals, or of intent to rob people of genuine liberty [as opposed to blocking amorality-driven, destructive license] plainly, and unfortunately, reflects the fallacy of the closed, ideologised, hostile mind. In turn, such a mindset is driven by the ruthless resort by homosexualist advocates and fellow travellers, to the vicious, divisive, destructive and utterly amoral tactics espoused by Saul Alinsky in his Rules for Radicals. In such sadly misled minds, marriage, through the impact of ideas that manipulation and might make 'right,' -- and through the impact of many a Hollywood movie -- has been transmuted into a for the moment mutually enjoyable, and disposable romantic relationship that only responds to the attraction between persons -- so, why not anything goes, up to and including Father-Daughter incest? [notice how this point, which is based on an actual case, was never answered] -- instead of being the universally recognised key bulwark of committed lifetime relationship that provides the context of a bond between the complementary sexes, for stable procreation and child nurture, that stabilises civilisation. Romance may be enjoyable, but maturity transmutes romance into solid commitment and life-long love. [Notice the definition, and how it includes correcting one's neighbour in wrong, just as much as being patient with those who inevitably must err. for we are finite, fallible, morally fallen and too often must struggle to avoid ill-will.] That is the bedrock of civilisation. Let us understand from this case, what we are up against. Even at this late stage, I doubt that SAR and ilk fully realise the matches they are playing with, and the implications of the tinder already piled up. Let us hope they wake up before the conflagration explodes into a devastating flame that consumes our civilisation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 24, 2010
December
12
Dec
24
24
2010
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT
@596 Phantasy = Fantasy.StephenB
December 23, 2010
December
12
Dec
23
23
2010
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
---molch: "If you, again, re-read my 532 & 535, you will see that I don’t deny what you seem to think I deny. Yes, objective reality is the ultimate standard. But since objective reality is not directly accessible to us, the usefulness of our subjective indices of reality is measured by their success in navigating said reality." Let's call it your good news, bad news report. The good news is that objective reality exists and serves as the rational standard. The bad news is that we cannot apprehend objective reality, which means that derivative rational standard is also out of reach. Thus, we are left with only our subjective experiences to help us differentiate between truth and error, which, as it turns out, doesn't really exist either. I read you loud and clear.StephenB
December 23, 2010
December
12
Dec
23
23
2010
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
---Molch: “That which is subjectively experienced by us is obviously a reliable enough index of the external reality that we can survive in it. In other words, the more reliable the subjective index of the external reality produced by a being’s senses, the more likely it will be successful in surviving and producing offspring in said reality.” ---However, that does not make that particular subjective reality any more objective. A gutworm’s subjective reality is extremely different from a dolphin’s, from a human’s, from a daffodills. That does not make either of these realities less reliable for the survival and reproduction potential of the respective being. But it obviously also does not make either of them “the objective reality Whenever people start writing this kind of nonsense, and it is nonsense, I take them out of their abstract phantasy world and situate them in the world of concrete examples. As I pointed out earlier, it is an objective reality that men are different from women, just as it is an objective fact that they propagate the species. That the people involved do, indeed, have different subjective experiences of these events does not, in any way, take away from the objective reality of reproduction or from the fact that we can know it is an objective reality. To argue that we cannot apprehend the objective differences in gender or the facts of reproduction is to embrace irrationality. I think I know where you are getting much of this stuff. One thing I can tell you for sure. The people you are reading are compromising your ability to reason in the abstract. Rather than argue against rationality, you should be asking us for a reading list.StephenB
December 23, 2010
December
12
Dec
23
23
2010
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
Onlookers: Pardon. First, Ms Molch wishes to sharply correct me for failing to note how she "at least four times" tried to correct my assumption that he was he (a reasonable presumption for this context unless something specific points otherwise). SB points out the import that this implies an understanding of objective truth, and suddenly we see a retreat into relativism. Similarly, in response to an "excerpt from Herr Schicklegruber [that] should suffice to show that reciprocity critically depends on recognition of equality and mutuality of obligation . . . " -- and after a couple of red herrings led out to strawmen duly pummelled -- we find:
I do to you what I want you to do to me. Individuals that recognize that not doing to their conspecifics what they want their conspecifics to do to them is likely to result in not getting what they want, are those individuals that have fitness advantages in a social species.
First, this is a recognition that there is an objective reality. So, we can dismiss the relativism above as so much rhetoric, trotted out to throw up roadblocks. Second, the very point -- as Molch should have easily seen if she was not merely looking for objections -- is that on the perception of diverse races or even species of humans, Herr Schicklegruber and co did not perceive an equality of person, or of value. So, on survival of the fittest rhetoric, he and his followers set out on wiping out Poles, Jews, Gypsies and other perceived inferior prey species -- untermensch [as opposed to Aryan race ubermensch] -- that were in the way. And, foxes take no pity on geese, and cats -- Tom and Jerry notwithstanding -- have no reciprocity: me is lion, you is lunch, so stop the bleating and slide down de throat nicely. That is, we see the inherent, might makes 'right' amorality of darwinist, survival of the fittest thought in action in a particularly egregious case. (The current treatment of the undesired unborn, and especially where these are from targetted minorities -- we can read Ms Sanger's writings, too -- provides a similar case in point, Only, this time around the cost of the conscience- benumbed behavour of the perceived superior and powerful, is 50 million innocents and counting, just in the United States. I gather, the global abortion carnage is 60 millions a year.) Sadly revealing. Evolutionary materialism is inherently amoral, and once imposed on a society's power systems, becomes an acid eating away at the foundations of justice. As Plato pointed out, over 2,300 years ago. But, paraphrasing Santayana, those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its worst chapters. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 23, 2010
December
12
Dec
23
23
2010
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
molch,
I am not defining the word good in this statement at all, I am identifying what the things that we call good have in common.
You certainly are defining the word good to be that which is fit. This is classic eugenics mentality. And commonality does not mean good by virtue of being common. If this were the case, then killing would also be good, by your definition, because it is something very common in nature. Clive Hayden
December 23, 2010
December
12
Dec
23
23
2010
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
molch,
I never claimed that objective reality does not exist outside of us. I claimed, and justified, why I believe that this reality is not accessible to us as subjective beings.
If this were true, you wouldn't even know there were an external reality, nor whether it was objective or subjective. You couldn't say anything about it.Clive Hayden
December 23, 2010
December
12
Dec
23
23
2010
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
Clive: molch: the category of things/concepts/behaviours that we perceive as “good” are those that confer fitness advantages. Clive: Your redefinition of the word good is not what the word good means. I am not defining the word good in this statement at all, I am identifying what the things that we call good have in common.molch
December 23, 2010
December
12
Dec
23
23
2010
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
Stephen: "You must learn to read for context. As a believer in objective reality, I do, of course, believe that subjective perceptions can be wrong. As one who doesn’t believe in objective reality, you have no grounds for claiming that anyone else’s subjective perceptions are wrong." I don't think I am the one with problems in reading comprehension. Please re-read my 532 & 535. I never claimed that objective reality does not exist outside of us. I claimed, and justified, why I believe that this reality is not accessible to us as subjective beings. The best that is accessible to us is a subjective, more or less reliable index of this objective reality. Please point out where this line of reasoning, laid out clearly in said 532 & 535 is wrong, if you so strongly disagree. "How could humans propagate the species if there was no objective reality to gender? Or, is it your position that a pregnant woman is just another word for an overweight female who is not really bearing a child at all." See above as to the relationship of "objective reality" and more or less reliable indices thereof accessible to subjects. "I sincerely hope that you will someday choose to enter into the world of rational thought." Interesting comment in response to my pointing out obvious discrepancies of subjective categorizations with realities where those categorizations break down... "First, you challenge kairosfocus for FAILING to acknowledge your self-reported facts as facts" No, I challenged KF for not paying attention. "In spite of your protests to the contrary, you know that objective reality exists and, when you are not indulging in your Darwinistic fantasies, you also recognize that objective reality can be the only possible standard for distinguishing between a true statement and a false statement." If you, again, re-read my 532 & 535, you will see that I don't deny what you seem to think I deny. Yes, objective reality is the ultimate standard. But since objective reality is not directly accessible to us, the usefulness of our subjective indices of reality is measured by their success in navigating said reality.molch
December 23, 2010
December
12
Dec
23
23
2010
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
[Based on your interactions with kairosfocus, I already knew that you were a female.] ---molch: "Really? How did you know? The only thing you actually could have known is that I claim to be female." You are getting more entertaining by the minute. Did you not report, as a fact, that you are a female? First, you challenge kairosfocus for FAILING to acknowledge your self-reported facts as facts, and then you challenge me for ACCEPTING your self-reported facts as facts. [You felt the tension between my “perceptions” of your gender and the objective reality of the situation.] ---"I obviously felt the tension between your perceptions and my perceptions of my gender." The question is, why did you feel the tension? The answer is obvious. In spite of your protests to the contrary, you know that objective reality exists and, when you are not indulging in your Darwinistic fantasies, you also recognize that objective reality can be the only possible standard for distinguishing between a true statement and a false statement.StephenB
December 23, 2010
December
12
Dec
23
23
2010
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
---molch: "I don’t know why you think that a subjective perception cannot be wrong." You must learn to read for context. As a believer in objective reality, I do, of course, believe that subjective perceptions can be wrong. As one who doesn't believe in objective reality, you have no grounds for claiming that anyone else's subjective perceptions are wrong. ---"On the contrary, as I have laid out earlier, it almost certainly is wrong in relation to the actual, complete, “objective” reality of the world." Remarkable. You have been arguing that there is no such thing as objective reality. Now you make an appeal on its behalf even as you put the word "objective" in quotes to indicate that you don’t believe it exists. --"I call myself female, because according to evidence I observe I fall into a broad category of physical appearance that humans have agreed to call female.” How could humans propagate the species if there was no objective reality to gender? Or, is it your position that a pregnant woman is just another word for an overweight female who is not really bearing a child at all. ---"But even just on the level of human perception, this appearance is really a wide gradient, produced by gradients of genetic variation and hormonal secretion, with grey zones most dramatically personified in hermaphrodites, where our subjective categorization already breaks down." I sincerely hope that you will someday choose to enter into the world of rational thought.StephenB
December 23, 2010
December
12
Dec
23
23
2010
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
"I call myself female, because according to evidence I observe I fall into a broad category of physical appearance that humans have agreed to call female." Yes, this is how thought and science are possible.Phaedros
December 22, 2010
December
12
Dec
22
22
2010
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
molch,
the category of things/concepts/behaviours that we perceive as “good” are those that confer fitness advantages.
Your redefinition of the word good is not what the word good means.Clive Hayden
December 22, 2010
December
12
Dec
22
22
2010
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
molch,
Well sorry, I don’t really have time to read an entire treatise to find out your answer.
Sure you do.Clive Hayden
December 22, 2010
December
12
Dec
22
22
2010
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
@584: From the ecological perspective, there is obviously a whole lot wrong with the view presented in the excerpt. So I am not sure what exactly KF is trying to show here. If he wanted to show that Herr Schickelgruber's understanding of ecology was rotten, he succeeded. For starters, one important component that apparently neither Herr Schickelgruber nor KF understand about the concept of fitness is its multidimensionality, that mirrors the multidimensionality and variable nature of environments that a single organism has to navigate. Being "strong", "fit" or "superior" in one particular context usually has trade-off costs that translate into being "weak", "unfit", "inferior" in other contexts. "reciprocity critically depends on recognition of equality and mutuality of obligation" Yes, that's what reciprocity MEANS. We've been over that a number of times. I do to you what I want you to do to me. Individuals that recognize that not doing to their conspecifics what they want their conspecifics to do to them is likely to result in not getting what they want, are those individuals that have fitness advantages in a social species. "Sorry, the evolutionary Materialistic view still reduces — via radical relativism — to what Plato warned: “the highest right is might.”" And asserting it the third time without actual justification is still not making it true.molch
December 22, 2010
December
12
Dec
22
22
2010
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
Folks Looks like I need to share the views of a certain Darwinist, from Bk I Ch X of his My Struggle (as in for existence): _____________________ >> Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable. The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice . . . . In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. [That is, Darwinian sexual selection.] And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development. If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best [NB: this is a theme in Darwin's discussion of the Irish, the Scots and the English in Descent], if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health . . . >> _____________________ That excerpt from Herr Schicklegruber should suffice to show that reciprocity critically depends on recognition of equality and mutuality of obligation. Sorry, the evolutionary Materialistic view still reduces -- via radical relativism -- to what Plato warned: "the highest right is might." As sixty million ghosts remind us, it can justify the wolf-pack coming together to hunt the sheep, and the sorting out of a biting order in same to share the spoils, but it cannot rise above [perceived] advantage to oughtness, thence justice for precisely the weak. As we saw above. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 22, 2010
December
12
Dec
22
22
2010
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
StephenB: "Based on your interactions with kairosfocus, I already knew that you were a female." Really? How did you know? The only thing you actually could have known is that I claim to be female. "You felt the tension between my “perceptions” of your gender and the objective reality of the situation" I obviously felt the tension between your perceptions and my perceptions of my gender. "If you really believed that there is no such thing as objectivity, you would have responded by saying that my perceptions are just as valid as your perceptions, and I believe that this comment of mine... I’d be interested to learn what has led you to perceive me of being of the male gender. Maybe you have some good arguments and evidence, that can inform my indeed subjective perception ...was exactly such a response. "if I perceive you to be a man, then my perception cannot be wrong" I don't know why you think that a subjective perception cannot be wrong. On the contrary, as I have laid out earlier, it almost certainly is wrong in relation to the actual, complete, "objective" reality of the world. I call myself female, because according to evidence I observe I fall into a broad category of physical appearance that humans have agreed to call female. But even just on the level of human perception, this appearance is really a wide gradient, produced by gradients of genetic variation and hormonal secretion, with grey zones most dramatically personified in hermaphrodites, where our subjective categorization already breaks down.molch
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT
Clive, "You should read C.S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man for this answer." Well sorry, I don't really have time to read an entire treatise to find out your answer. "It’s the head and the heart." So, what's in your head and your heart is an objective measure of morality?molch
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT
Clive: "Whatever we project as good or right on to these animals and call it altruism that should be reciprocated is because we already recognize a truth of what is right and wrong and what should be done and not done and whether that should be reciprocated." We are obviously talking right past each other. I'll repeat: the category of things/concepts/behaviours that we perceive as “good” are those that confer fitness advantages. what about this statement do you not understand or disagree with?molch
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT
molch,
Still waiting for your answer on whether the feeling in one’s heart fulfills your requirements for an objective measure.
You should read C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man for this answer. It's the head and the heart.Clive Hayden
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
molch,
I think it would help you to re-read my 535 to understand why reciprocity is a completely fitness-based trait. I do to you what I want you to do to me. Not playing by that rule has severe fitness consequences in most human societies. It has been shown to exist in a wide variety of social animal species. No transcendental moral law required whatsoever.
This is anthropomorphism at its finest. Whatever we project as good or right on to these animals and call it altruism that should be reciprocated is because we already recognize a truth of what is right and wrong and what should be done and not done and whether that should be reciprocated. Take away all notions of morality and you have physical events of motion and duration.Clive Hayden
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
molch,
The actuality of what, if not the symbol?
Of the concept, the symbol doesn't matter.Clive Hayden
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
---"molch: "because I wasn’t complaining, simply pointing something out, as clarified in 565." Oh, come now. To kairosfocus, you wrote: “I think this is at least the fourth time I am pointing out to you that I am female… but, you know, whatever…” In any case, your irrelevant reaction is typical. Rather than confront the subject matter in a forthcoming way, you labor over some trivial matter [my use of the verb, "complain,"] as if you would have addressed the issue head on if only I had used some other verb to characterize your response, such as "remind" or "correct." What nonsense. By the way, I have learned not to hold back the punch line for Darwinists, because even when I reveal it, they still don't get it. So here goes: You [reminded] kairosfocus about your gender, and the fact that he was getting it wrong, because you recognized that his subjective perception of your gender didn't match the objective reality of your gender. If there was no objective reality, he couldn't have been wrong and there would have been nothing to correct. --"I am curious if I’ll ever get an answer from Stephen." Your wish is my command. I was being playful. Based on your interactions with kairosfocus, I already knew that you were a female. Nothing that you have said suggests that you are either male or female. So, you can relax about that. So, why did I pretend [I thought it was obvious I was pretending] to perceive that you are a man? Simple. I was providing you with another lesson about the reality of the objective realm. You felt the tension between my "perceptions" of your gender and the objective reality of the situation. If you really believed that there is no such thing as objectivity, you would have responded by saying that my perceptions are just as valid as your perceptions, and, that if I perceive you to be a man, then my perception cannot be wrong. Sharing Clive's concern, I hope we can pull you out of the Darwinistic pit.StephenB
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
Clive: Still waiting for your answer on whether the feeling in one’s heart fulfills your requirements for an objective measure.molch
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
Clive: "Not the symbol, but the actuality." The actuality of what, if not the symbol?molch
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
Clive: I think it would help you to re-read my 535 to understand why reciprocity is a completely fitness-based trait. I do to you what I want you to do to me. Not playing by that rule has severe fitness consequences in most human societies. It has been shown to exist in a wide variety of social animal species. No transcendental moral law required whatsoever.molch
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
molch,
Sure it is. 2 is just a symbol. I can change it to mean anything.
Not the symbol, but the actuality.
Yes, obviously. If you have followed my discussion with KF at all, you know that these behaviours are quite maladaptive in the fitness landscape of a social species that relies on reciprocity.
You're deep in the mire of evolutionary thought. We need to pull you out. Reciprocity is itself a concept of morality. It won't due as an answer for the origins of morality. Is doesn't begin to explain ought. Clive Hayden
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
Clive: "You didn’t answer StephenB’s question" because I wasn't complaining, simply pointing something out, as clarified in 565. I am curious if I'll ever get an answer from Stephen. "I wouldn’t have thought your reply would be an objective statement about mathematics being a tool while also objectively maintaining that mathematics, of all things, was subjective" What makes you think that anything I said was "objective"? You obviously disagree with a lot of what I said, so I don't understand your use of the concept in this context at all? "Being a tool is not being subjective by virtue of being a tool" I never claimed that. "2=2 is not subjective, we cannot change that to mean anything we want" Sure it is. 2 is just a symbol. I can change it to mean anything. If I get enough people to agree with me on the new use of the symbol 2, I can even make practical use of that new meaning. That's what symbols are all about. Our subjective use of them is the only thing that makes them useful. "I noticed you moved from the argument that not all morality is universal, and therefore subjective, to the argument that all things are subjective if they are used as a tool." No, I didn't. If you read my comment carefully you will notice that I was talking specifically about the case of mathematics, because you asked about it. "You cannot move towards enrichment unless moving towards a goal perceived as good against the proposition of non-enrichment as bad." I'll rephrase an answer I gave you in another thread to clarify: the category of things/concepts/behaviours that we perceive as "good" are those that confer fitness advantages. "Is raping, torturing, killing and eating other people’s children against their will a morally bad act?" Yes, obviously. If you have followed my discussion with KF at all, you know that these behaviours are quite maladaptive in the fitness landscape of a social species that relies on reciprocity. "According to subjective morality it is no different than preferring to wear a blue shirt instead of a green shirt. Preferring pancakes instead of spam." Only if wearing a green shirt and eating spam confers the same fitness disadvantage over wearing blue shirts and eating pancakes, as the fitness disadvantage of raping, torturing, killing and eating other people's children confers over not doing these things.molch
December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
1 2 3 21

Leave a Reply