General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events Topic
Topic: OU - No moment of silence...embarrassment for University
Page: 5 of 5
mail
OhioCatFan
12/20/2012 12:27 PM
Well, I don't think The Situation is a pure Randist.  As best I can tell he's really kind of a "situational ethicist" (maybe that's what his screen name signifies).  He appears also to have a little bit of Nietzsche thrown in for good measure.  As you can see my analysis of him is evolving . . . and your insights have been helpful in that process.
mail
The Situation
12/20/2012 2:20 PM

C Money summarized what I was trying to accomplish in my last two posts concisely. I am gratefull for that, so thank you C Money. He even rebuttaled the whole KKK thing from OCF much more efficiently than I would have. Although, I not only believe in God in general, I am a Catholic. I do go to church under my own volition, even in a college town, though not with regularity.

If you want some insight into how I think problems between people can be resolved, I'll tell you the first critical step. Once this is understood, the next step can be taken. Equality does not exist.

I once collected my thoughts on the matter and posted it or Reddit. As one can imagine, it was not well recieved. But in case you're curious, here is what I posted.

-----

"Although a relatively uncontested topic in America, I've come to the conclusion that equality does not exist. Inequality is present in society, that's not a revelation. But I contend that it cannot exist because of the nature of the universe and prevailing logic.

The easy examples can be found everywhere. No two objects, regardless of method of fabrication (natural, or synthetic), are equal. Certainly they can be very similar, with differences indiscernible to the human eye. But that doesn't change the reality that they are not equal. Atomic level differences ensure that no size, shape, or mass is equal to another.

It can be argued that the atomic level differences are inconsequential. However that is not a logical conclusion when discussing equality, as it requires subjects in question to literally be equal.

For example, in math, 1 is not equal to 1.03, nor is 1.0001. It is a choice to "round" to reach a commonality of 1, but at that point they are only similar, not equal (regardless of the size of the disparity). It's a matter of tolerance. Depending on what one is trying to accomplish, 0 can be "equal" to 100. How great one’s tolerance is (much like in society) has no bearing on whether two things are equal.

Someone can argue that equality is not "sameness", to which I stake bold opposition. If equality is an ideal, how can it function with prevailing logic?

This ideal requires an imposed tolerance on the human element. Example: In a Utopian society of sorts, where the ideal of equality is maintained ("exists" among all parties), a child is born. This child has the desire to discriminate on whomever he/she chooses. For example's sake, this child has grown in to a man and chooses in inflict pain and suffering upon a very specific group people based solely on their skin color. In order to maintain equilibrium in Utopia, a force must quell this man's actions. A group must arise to demand this man not discriminate any longer or else risk compromising the Utopian society; compromising the ideal of equality. However, telling someone they cannot discriminate is in fact discrimination.

An inherent inequality in the ideal of equality is a paradox. There is no way for equality to exist without inflicting inequalities upon another.

Even in arguments where a person subscribes to a “higher power”, equality cannot exist. Some contest that their god proclaims them all equal. However, it is not supported by logic. The passage of life from Earth to Heaven or Hell implies judgment, a decision based on inequalities or indiscretions. How can God (whom I personally believe in) send one man to Hell and another to Heaven but still view them as equal? Consider them equal? He can’t. Certainly "separate but equal" doesn't jibe.

In America, my country, there is an extremely irrational connection to “equality”. It has come to the point where inequality has a negative connotation. It’s likely a result of a struggle to maintain fair practices among its truly diverse population. And those famous words, “All MEN are created equal” (I won’t delve into the inconsistencies of that statement). But I don’t see inequality in a bad light. I’m not equal to the President, the homeless man on the corner, my dad, brother, or my next door neighbor.

I see no evidence of equality and therefore conclude that it does not exist."

PS - to cc cat

Take your phone out of your pocket. Hold it in your hand. Extend your arm outward perpendicular to your chest, and release your grasp on the phone. Your phone will fall. That is a fact. That is the truth. That is reality. Even if this world is just a dream within a dream, there is a method to the madness. You can have an arguement about how to escape from the reality (in this example gravity). You can saw we all need to move to space to avoid gravity. But in reality, living in space has done nothing to change how the force gravity functions. And the second you move back to Earth (or another object with enough mass) then you'll realize that there are facts and truths in this world whether or not you're willing to accept them.

mail
person
cc-cat
12/20/2012 2:56 PM
Okay. That means that our whole solar system could be, like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being. This is too much! That means one tiny atom in my fingernail could be--

...Could be one little tiny universe.

...Could I buy some pot from you?

Or better yet, you can hold out your hand - palm down in front of you.  Now drop a droplet of water on the back of your hand.  How did it drop, where did it roll?  Now I a going to have you place a second drop of water on the same hand.  But before I do, tell me how it will drop?  How it will roll down the back of your hand.  Tell me specifically.  Will it respond just as the first drop?  Probably not.  Whoa...that is sooo cool how even laws of physics and nature do not result in absolute predictability.
Last Edited: 12/20/2012 3:16:16 PM by cc-cat
mail
The Situation
12/20/2012 3:18 PM
cc cat wrote:expand_more
Okay. That means that our whole solar system could be, like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being. This is too much! That means one tiny atom in my fingernail could be--

...Could be one little tiny universe.

...Could I buy some pot from you?


I'm not saying that at all. Seriously not at all. I'm not some doped up hippie. Not even close. My comment to you was intended to express that it doesn't matter what we think life is or what we think reality is. It doesn't mater if anything exists outside of our imagination. No matter where we are, how we exist, or what situation we find ourselves in, the scientific method is the most appropriate way to determine how that situation functions, how it operates. So if it's this world, or a dream world, my hypothesis is that world obeys a set of rules that it cannot violate (intristically).
Last Edited: 12/20/2012 3:19:29 PM by The Situation
mail
OhioCatFan
12/20/2012 3:30 PM

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...."
 

I see nothing wrong with this statement from the Declaration of Independence and don't find it somehow self-contradictory.  The type of equality being talked about here is the equality of opportunity and equality before the law.  It's not saying that one person's body has the same atomic composition as someone else's body.  It's not saying that all people have the same opportunity or the same equality before the law, but that they should have and that this is what God intended.  It further says that it is the role of government to try to insure this type of equality.   Historically, of course, we haven't done a very good job at that, for a variety of reasons.  And, some now believe that the government should insure equality of outcomes, which is not what this founding document espouses.  In essence what this document is saying is that God created all people spiritual equals.  Now, some folks clearly do things during their lives to negate this equal standing, mass murder being only the most extreme example.  Heaven and Hell are reached on the basis of Free Will, not on the basis of some error of the Creator.  Actions have consequences.  We are responsible for those actions.  

Situation, I apologize that I misunderstood your position with regards to actions of such groups as the KKK.  I'm still very puzzled by your philosophical stance and can't find any common thread that ties the various aspects of it together.  I'm searching for that.
mail
person
cc-cat
12/20/2012 3:46 PM
And my more serious point was that even scientific method can leave incredible unpredictability.  And my point earlier was that very little fact is absolute - easy to pull law of gravity into the conversation - well done - but when human behavior or an accepted human perspective becomes a stimulus in the equation (perspectives that are often bias either by experience, knowledge base, etc.) the ability to project an accurate conclusion dwindles in a hurry.  The world we live in is simply not absolute - and therefore, right and wrong, good and evil, my side of an argument vs. your side - all of which in themselves requires an application of  an individual and/or cultural value system - is not absolute. 

To tie it back to the broader discussion (and then, I'm done) there are any number of stimulus that created the situation last week.  We can look at other responses (Australia or anywhere else) and other situations (gun free zones, versus open zones) and non of these provide absolute data - because human nature and cultural elements are involved.  All we can do is take action that makes sense for us as individuals and as a people. And that sensibility will have to include accepting that nothing we can do will stop all future efforts (but that is not a reason to do nothing) because that rule of thumb (must prevent all) can not drive any law or action.  Because...nothing is absolute.
mail
The Situation
12/20/2012 4:13 PM
I'm not talking about right and wrong. I didn't say you people shouldn't care about these Conneticut kids. I said that you don't care about these kids. There's a big difference. And I can prove that you don't  care, even to your own arbitrary standards. Write down what you think caring means to you and I will find the contradictions. These contradictions force you to re-draft your hypothesis. But because your emotions cloud your decisions you will refuse to re-draft your thesis. My intent behind all this ranting is the hope that some who read this will be inspired to only look at the evidence around them and make a new hypothesis.

And take note of this: I do not have to be right, to prove you are wrong.

As for the Declaration,

He said "all MEN are created equal". If you take it literally you will see that he meant men as in males (even the blacks). I've never seen humans reffered to as humens. If you take the writer's "intent" as some are so apt to do these days, you'll be hardpressed to support the notion that Founding Fathers thought men and women were equal.

As for God, how would it be possible that one soul could make a decision another couldn't if they were equal? You cite free will OCF, but isn't free will a victim of circumstance? Do I ever steal bread if there's always food on my plate? But isn't it God that gave me my imperfect form? The form born to poverty.

Some see this this as a condtraction of God's Will. I don't, because I've never read anything that God said we were equals. Even in the Ten Commandments the Lord tells us to give our servants rest on the Sabbath. Are we to overlook the notion that God himself acknowledged a social class system?

EDIT: Forgot  to speak to your equal under the law OCF. Let me throw that out the window for you. Let's say you and I both get speeding tickets (100 in a 60). I have the best lawyer money can buy, and you have just your good intent. Who do you think gets the points on their lincense? What law in this country punishes me the same as every other citizen?
Last Edited: 12/20/2012 4:26:32 PM by The Situation
mail
OhioCatFan
12/20/2012 4:58 PM
I only have time for two quick points:

1.  In this context the Framers actually did mean to include women as "created equal" because they were here talking about, in a broad sense, spiritual equality.  In many other senses they did not consider women equals.  Some of those are actually true and others are not.

2.  Equality under the law is an ideal expressed in the Declaration and Constitution as well, with more meaning after the 13th Amendment.  However, your example relates to the actual carrying out of that ideal, which sometimes falls short.  I will point out I once fought a traffic ticket (going through a red light) and won without a high-priced lawyer.  The cop was wrong and I was right -- and justice prevailed.  
mail
person
cc-cat
12/20/2012 5:19 PM
Drafting for your acceptance/approval would require me to care about what you think or feel and then to redraft would require me to want your approval -  something that is simply not relevant to me - though you would insist that it is because of emotion.  It's been interesting, even fun, but in the end, of limited valuable.  Moving on slick - more important things to do than continue this banter.  Later dude.
Last Edited: 12/20/2012 5:21:58 PM by cc-cat
mail
person
LoganElm_grad09
12/20/2012 10:44 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
I can see the point of both sides.  Kids being shot is an absolute tragedy, there is no debate.  They never had a chance to defend themselves, they never did something to attract the malevolence that piece of crap displayed, they never got to see their lives fulfilled.  Things like that are absolutely depressing.

That said, I don't see where it's required though.  What good does a moment of silence do?  If a PA announcer needs to tell you to have "a moment" for something like that, then you either didn't hear about it or didn't care in the first place.  For those bashing those with cold calculation-type thinking about it, and for those who say it's a national tragedy because it happened to your fellow man, let me ask you this.  How many moments of silence are held for the civilians killed by OUR drone strikes?  The insane guy at the park in Norway who picked off anyone who he saw?  How many for innocents killed by dictatorships?  How about the continent of Africa, where genocide happened a lot in part due to our need to get shiny diamonds?  What about the innocents killed in the war between the Israelis and Palestinians?  The kid who is caught in gang crossfire?  The father of 3 who is killed in a work accident?  The children across the world who die from the elements and malnutrition?  I apologize for the length of this, but I can go on and on with it.

If you want to say that we are desensitized, then guess what?  You're absolutely right!  Mankind is an extremely violent species and has been committing heinous atrocities like this since we knew how.  I was born in 1990.  I remember seeing Columbine on TV.  I remember 9-11.  All of that (including what happened in Connecticut) is absolute child's play to what happened in Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union.  Those paled in comparison to what happened at the hands of the Mongols and civilizations from before that.*  How are we supposed to be completely sensitized when the hatred that was shown in Connecticut is a part of our DNA?  Please do not take this as me condoning murder, but if you study history, the fact that this is horrific by our standards is astonishing.

*While the Nazis and Soviets killed far more people, they didn't hang the skins of their victims from city walls or build pyramids of heads outside of besieged cities.


So you're discounting the violence in Connecticut because you can point to examples of worse violence elsewhere? No one, no educated person, lives in a vacuum. No one believes that the Connecticut incident is the worst of all time. However, that doesn't alleviate the desire to reflect upon the incident. You seem to want to stand back and label people as dense because they aren't actively bemoaning the world's failures. And if we single out Connecticut, then we are not paying due diligence to Rwanda, Congo, etc.

So you agree we're densensitized, and at the same time you seem to have no issue with behaving that way. What is wrong with a "moment of silence"? How is showing human emotion a problem? You seem to believe that unless we can properly recognize ALL senseless deaths, then we should recognize none.


I apologize for sounding harsh and arrogant.  It's not that I don't have an issue with us being desensitized, but more asking how can we expect not to be when it's a rare thing to turn on the news and see us having passion for our fellow man?  It seems to me that the reason charitable acts (I don't mean donations to the Salvation Army) are so heartwarming is that we don't see it much anymore. 

As for the moment of silence, I think that it's a nice gesture, but I don't think it's something that is required.   Bowing our heads during an announcers say-so is unimportant compared to us taking a second in our daily life to have emotion and reflect on a bad situation.
mail
person
Robert Fox
12/20/2012 10:53 PM
LoganElm_grad09 wrote:expand_more
I can see the point of both sides.  Kids being shot is an absolute tragedy, there is no debate.  They never had a chance to defend themselves, they never did something to attract the malevolence that piece of crap displayed, they never got to see their lives fulfilled.  Things like that are absolutely depressing.

That said, I don't see where it's required though.  What good does a moment of silence do?  If a PA announcer needs to tell you to have "a moment" for something like that, then you either didn't hear about it or didn't care in the first place.  For those bashing those with cold calculation-type thinking about it, and for those who say it's a national tragedy because it happened to your fellow man, let me ask you this.  How many moments of silence are held for the civilians killed by OUR drone strikes?  The insane guy at the park in Norway who picked off anyone who he saw?  How many for innocents killed by dictatorships?  How about the continent of Africa, where genocide happened a lot in part due to our need to get shiny diamonds?  What about the innocents killed in the war between the Israelis and Palestinians?  The kid who is caught in gang crossfire?  The father of 3 who is killed in a work accident?  The children across the world who die from the elements and malnutrition?  I apologize for the length of this, but I can go on and on with it.

If you want to say that we are desensitized, then guess what?  You're absolutely right!  Mankind is an extremely violent species and has been committing heinous atrocities like this since we knew how.  I was born in 1990.  I remember seeing Columbine on TV.  I remember 9-11.  All of that (including what happened in Connecticut) is absolute child's play to what happened in Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union.  Those paled in comparison to what happened at the hands of the Mongols and civilizations from before that.*  How are we supposed to be completely sensitized when the hatred that was shown in Connecticut is a part of our DNA?  Please do not take this as me condoning murder, but if you study history, the fact that this is horrific by our standards is astonishing.

*While the Nazis and Soviets killed far more people, they didn't hang the skins of their victims from city walls or build pyramids of heads outside of besieged cities.


So you're discounting the violence in Connecticut because you can point to examples of worse violence elsewhere? No one, no educated person, lives in a vacuum. No one believes that the Connecticut incident is the worst of all time. However, that doesn't alleviate the desire to reflect upon the incident. You seem to want to stand back and label people as dense because they aren't actively bemoaning the world's failures. And if we single out Connecticut, then we are not paying due diligence to Rwanda, Congo, etc.

So you agree we're densensitized, and at the same time you seem to have no issue with behaving that way. What is wrong with a "moment of silence"? How is showing human emotion a problem? You seem to believe that unless we can properly recognize ALL senseless deaths, then we should recognize none.


I apologize for sounding harsh and arrogant.  It's not that I don't have an issue with us being desensitized, but more asking how can we expect not to be when it's a rare thing to turn on the news and see us having passion for our fellow man?  It seems to me that the reason charitable acts (I don't mean donations to the Salvation Army) are so heartwarming is that we don't see it much anymore. 

As for the moment of silence, I think that it's a nice gesture, but I don't think it's something that is required.   Bowing our heads during an announcers say-so is unimportant compared to us taking a second in our daily life to have emotion and reflect on a bad situation.


At last we have found common ground. I agree with your last points completely. Peace.
Last Edited: 12/20/2012 11:01:36 PM by Robert Fox
mail
person
BillyTheCat
12/20/2012 11:19 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...."

I see nothing wrong with this statement from the Declaration of Independence and don't find it somehow self-contradictory. The type of equality being talked about here is the equality of opportunity and equality before the law. It's not saying that one person's body has the same atomic composition as someone else's body. It's not saying that all people have the same opportunity or the same equality before the law, but that they should have and that this is what God intended. It further says that it is the role of government to try to insure this type of equality. Historically, of course, we haven't done a very good job at that, for a variety of reasons. And, some now believe that the government should insure equality of outcomes, which is not what this founding document espouses. In essence what this document is saying is that God created all people spiritual equals. Now, some folks clearly do things during their lives to negate this equal standing, mass murder being only the most extreme example. Heaven and Hell are reached on the basis of Free Will, not on the basis of some error of the Creator. Actions have consequences. We are responsible for those actions.

Situation, I apologize that I misunderstood your position with regards to actions of such groups as the KKK. I'm still very puzzled by your philosophical stance and can't find any common thread that ties the various aspects of it together. I'm searching for that.
Actually, it never mentions God, but rather "their creator", recognizing the different religious and non-religious persons.
mail
OhioCatFan
12/21/2012 12:51 AM
Afraid not, BTC, "Creator" is capitalized for a reason.  Everyone at the time knew it referred to God, though you could argue that the authors were trying to include a more universal God than a sectarian one since some of the Founders were Deists, some Christians of different denominations,  and a few were atheists.  Those atheists wouldn't have been happy with the Creator reference.  The strongest atheist of the Revolutionary generation was Thomas Paine, and he would have vehemently objected to using the term "Creator."  You probably also don't know that when you read 18th and 19th Century literature and it refers to something happening "Providentially" that it's referring to the intervention of God on some level.  While you are very knowledgeable on all things athletic, you need to go back to school and study a little history.
Last Edited: 12/21/2012 1:01:17 AM by OhioCatFan
mail
person
BillyTheCat
12/21/2012 5:55 AM
Most all believed in a higher spiritual being, many just not the Christian God, and that is why the word Creator was used. And I stand by my original words, the word God is absent from that document.

In fact, our Government officially denounces Christianity, more times than it has ever officially endorsed Christianity.
Last Edited: 12/21/2012 6:01:31 AM by BillyTheCat
mail
The Situation
12/21/2012 10:03 PM
OCF,

If spiritual equality exists, how can some souls spend more time on Earth than others?
mail
OhioCatFan
12/21/2012 10:10 PM
The Situation wrote:expand_more
OCF,

If spiritual equality exists, how can some souls spend more time on Earth than others?


I don't get the question, what does spiritual equality have to do with time spent on earth?  We are talking about eternal things not temporal.
mail
The Situation
12/22/2012 11:21 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
OCF,

If spiritual equality exists, how can some souls spend more time on Earth than others?


I don't get the question, what does spiritual equality have to do with time spent on earth?  We are talking about eternal things not temporal.


Allegedly, it is the life we lead here on Earth that dictates where we spend eternity. Considering the magnitude of such a proposition, and the possibility that free will is a victim of circumstance, is it reasonable to postulate that a soul who has spent more or less time on Earth than any other would, at the very least, have a different probability of being granted passage to Heaven?

PS

Most people appear to derive their conclusions about eternity from what they have read (or heard) from the word of God.

I've read that the Lord commanded we shall have no god before him. I've read that we must not commit adultery. I've read many insights the Lord allegedly has about human life. I've never read anything where the Lord refers to us as equal. What is the basis for your hypothesis about spiritual equality?
Last Edited: 12/22/2012 11:32:21 AM by The Situation
mail
OhioCatFan
12/24/2012 11:27 AM
OK, this gets complex, and I'll try to address it more after Christmas when I have more time, but I'm actually talking here about a secular spiritual equality, sort of like that of the abortive French Revolution.  In a Christian context the major idea of spiritual equality is not as salient, except in the sense that is implied in the Parable of the Vineyard workers.  That is there is an equality of opportunity for Heaven regardless of how late one comes to discipleship.  This parable, of course, has two meanings: one just elucidated and the other that gentiles (late arrivers) and Jews (first workers in the vineyard) have equal inheritance in the the Kingdom of Heaven.

Merry Christmas! 
Last Edited: 12/24/2012 11:28:35 AM by OhioCatFan
mail
The Situation
12/25/2012 10:39 PM
I didn't see this response earlier as it was added in an edit. 

cc cat wrote:expand_more


Or better yet, you can hold out your hand - palm down in front of you.  Now drop a droplet of water on the back of your hand.  How did it drop, where did it roll?  Now I a going to have you place a second drop of water on the same hand.  But before I do, tell me how it will drop?  How it will roll down the back of your hand.  Tell me specifically.  Will it respond just as the first drop?  Probably not.  Whoa...that is sooo cool how even laws of physics and nature do not result in absolute predictability.


By scientific standards this is an outrageous comment. Certainly it is possible to predict path of the water droplet. The droplet plays by all of the rules of the universe. We can determine the volume of water used in the experiment. The height and position at which it has been dropped above the hand. The density of both liquids (air and water), the viscosity of both liquids. We can measure the contours of the hand. We can measure the rate at which the skin absorbs the water, the rate at which the water evaporates. We can account for the friction affecting the droplet (is the hand sporting a glove?).

There is no economic or moral incentive to investigate such an issue. But our ability to model the flow of water is limited only by the accuracy of our measurements and our methods. Without measuring anything I can tell you the droplet will not flow uphill. Depending on how much money you want to devote to the question, we can go from there. But rest assured, the predictability you mock is actually an indictment of our capabilities to measure, not insight into whether or not water follows the laws of physics. 

Comments like this fit right in line with a common theme in this thread: an unwillingness to honestly evaluate what is happening around us.

Showing Messages: 101 - 119 of 119
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)