Obama on Marc Maron’s Podcast: Racism Is More Than ‘N****r’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48029720]this explains so much[/QUOTE] Just think about it for a second, in its essence a religion is a philosophical outlook on the world and a moral code, secular neo-liberalism is precisely that. So we essentially have a sort of civic religion already, we just don't call it that. [editline]blah[/editline] If you prefer having the state employ your philosophical and moral outlook, then you are in favour of mixing religion with government practically speaking.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029772]Just think about it for a second, in its essence a religion is a philosophical outlook on the world and a moral code, secular neo-liberalism is precisely that. So we essentially have a sort of civic religion already, we just don't call it that. [editline]blah[/editline] If you prefer having the state employ your philosophical and moral outlook, then you are in favour of mixing religion with government practically speaking.[/QUOTE] Should Canada or the USA be s theocracy?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029772]Just think about it for a second, in its essence a religion is a philosophical outlook on the world and a moral code, secular neo-liberalism is precisely that. So we essentially have a sort of civic religion already, we just don't call it that. [editline]blah[/editline] If you prefer having the state employ your philosophical and moral outlook, then you are in favour of mixing religion with government practically speaking.[/QUOTE] [quote]religion [ri-lij-uh n] noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.[/quote] I'm not even sure what you mean by "secular neoliberalism" but I don't think it's that

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48029791]Should Canada or the USA be s theocracy?[/QUOTE] Practically speaking they already are, so why not?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48029791]Should Canada or the USA be s theocracy?[/QUOTE] well since not being a theocracy is the same as being a theocracy, yes damn, ninja'd

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029803]Practically speaking they already are, so why not?[/QUOTE] No, not so much, no. In fact, not at all.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48029801]I'm not even sure what you mean by "secular neoliberalism" but I don't think it's that[/QUOTE] I don't think you're getting at what I'm saying, you reduce any religion to its fundamentals and it's a philosophical and ethical view of the world, I challenge you to come up with any political position that does not involve both of those.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029803]Practically speaking they already are, so why not?[/QUOTE] seeing how most major religions say "abortions are evil" and abortions are generally legal, i'd say they're not even close [editline]22nd June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029814]I don't think you're getting at what I'm saying, you reduce any religion to its fundamentals and it's a philosophical and ethical view of the world, I challenge you to come up with any political position that does not involve both of those.[/QUOTE] "you reduce any octogon to its fundamentals and it's a shape. i challenge you to come up with any square that is not also a shape"

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029814]I don't think you're getting at what I'm saying, you reduce any religion to its fundamentals and it's a philosophical and ethical view of the world, I challenge you to come up with any political position that does not involve both of those.[/QUOTE] yes, if you reduce two different things down enough and strip away all of their identifying components they will look the same this is why we don't reduce everything down, because that's retarded

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48029829]yes, if you reduce two different things down enough and strip away all of their identifying components they will look the same this is why we don't reduce everything down, because that's retarded[/QUOTE] Well sure, but then it's kind of arbitrary to restrict religious thought from mixing with the state just because it believes in some form of deity.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029847]Well sure, but then it's kind of arbitrary to restrict religious thought from mixing with the state just because it believes in some form of deity.[/QUOTE] No one has the right to impose their religious beliefs on other people through legislation. You can think religious thoughts as much as you want, but you aren't allowed to impose them on other people. I don't see how that's arbitrary or unfair.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029847]Well sure, but then it's kind of arbitrary to restrict religious thought from mixing with the state just because it believes in some form of deity.[/QUOTE] No it's not arbitrary. In western democratic nations the governments authority is derived by the people. In theocracies the governments authority is supposedly derived from a deity. They're incompatible on a fundamental level.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48029866]No one has the right to impose their religious beliefs on other people through legislation. You can think religious thoughts as much as you want, but you aren't allowed to impose them on other people. I don't see how that's arbitrary or unfair.[/QUOTE] It's arbitrary because the only differentiation between a secular political stance and a religious one is the belief in some form of deity, apart from that they are both just philosophical and moral outlooks.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029847]Well sure, but then it's kind of arbitrary to restrict religious thought from mixing with the state just because it believes in some form of deity.[/QUOTE] The state is first and foremost a body created to serve the interests of the public, not God. Why? Because not everyone shares the same god, but we're all entitled to equality under the law. If you approach the law with a mindset of "what would [I]my[/I] god think of this law" then you're approaching law with a discriminatory mindset. It's not arbitrary at all, it's foundational logic. Edit: ffs man at this point you're basically saying "it's pretty arbitrary that you can't make orange juice out of apples. The only difference between an orange and an apple among fruit is that one has a citrus flavor and the other doesn't.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029876]It's arbitrary because the only differentiation between a secular political stance and a religious one is the belief in some form of deity, apart from that they are both just philosophical and moral outlooks.[/QUOTE] except from the fact that a government should not care where specifically it was created, where as the very underpinning of 99% of religions is "this big man in the sky created you and he is all powerful"

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029876]It's arbitrary because the only differentiation between a secular political stance and a religious one is the belief in some form of deity, apart from that they are both just philosophical and moral outlooks.[/QUOTE] Stop trying to defend an indefensible point. Your distinction is idiotic.

[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;48029889]The state is first and foremost a body created to serve the interests of the public, not God. Why? Because not everyone shares the same god, but we're all entitled to equality under the law. If you approach the law with a mindset of "what would [I]my[/I] god think of this law" then you're approaching law with a discriminatory mindset. It's not arbitrary at all, it's foundational logic.[/QUOTE] Practically speaking, don't see the difference between saying, "what choice will bring the most equality?" and, "what would God intend us to do?". Both statements refer to abstract concepts in order to make decisions. Tell me how you can non-arbitrarily differentiate the two. [QUOTE=LordCrypto;48029894]except from the fact that a government should not care where specifically it was created, where as the very underpinning of 99% of religions is "this big man in the sky created you and he is all powerful"[/QUOTE] And thus we should not mix religion and state because...?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029904]Practically speaking, don't see the difference between saying, "what choice will bring the most equality?" and, "what would God intend us to do?". Both statements refer to abstract concepts in order to make decisions. Tell me how you can non-arbitrarily differentiate the two.[/QUOTE] Because my god says people with blond hair should be thrown in a volcano. Build a government around that which respects the equality of the people.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029876]It's arbitrary because the only differentiation between a secular political stance and a religious one is the belief in some form of deity, apart from that they are both just philosophical and moral outlooks.[/QUOTE] yes one is derived from logic, and the other from faith you have no right to impose your faith on me, so instead we do what will logically lead to the best outcome for all parties I don't really understand what it is you're missing here

[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;48029915]Because my god says people with blond hair should be thrown in a volcano. Build a government around that which respects the equality of the people.[/QUOTE] God wants people to be treated nicely Kill all theists You see? I can do that too, it doesn't make your position any less arbitrary. [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48029917]yes one is derived from logic, and the other from faith you have no right to impose your faith on me, so instead we do what will logically lead to the best outcome for all parties[/QUOTE] What logic is there behind the concept of universal equality? Also how do you determine whether a philosophical and moral outlook is "derived from logic"? [editline]blah[/editline] What is the logic behind the position that all state ideology should be derived from logic? You see? Your differentiation between socio-political stances and religions is entirely arbitrary.

I like how bigFaTw0rM12 completely ignored my post that explained exactly why it wasn't an arbitrary distinction.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029923]What logic is there behind the concept of universal equality? Also how do you determine whether a philosophical and moral outlook is "derived from logic"?[/QUOTE] If I propose that we as a country decapitate all left handed people because my holy book says they are of the devil, that is a faith based proposition. If I propose that we as a country invest in nuclear power because all available information tells us that doing so will reduce overall spending and leave more funds for other programs, that is a logical proposition. While we don't all share the same religious beliefs, we do, generally speaking, want to do well. So while we don't want others to impose religious mandates on each us, we can agree on secular mandates that result in us doing well. Do you understand? [editline]23rd June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029923]What is the logic behind the position that all state ideology should be derived from logic? You see? Your differentiation between socio-political stances and religions is entirely arbitrary.[/QUOTE] logic isn't predicated on personal superstition, and as such is a universal language we can all communicate with.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029923]God wants people to be treated nicely Kill all theists You see? I can do that too, it doesn't make your position any less arbitrary.[/QUOTE] A government from a political science perspective is an institution which exists to create and enforce laws over a population using a legitimate monopoly of force. Legitimacy is defined from the concept of popular sovereignty- the notion that a government represents the will of the people, and only the people which it represents. Deriving authority from any other source is illegitimate, including deriving authority from God. The reason you can't get logical sovereignty from God is because gods are normative concepts instead of empirical concepts. Not only can you not define the absolute will of god due to multiple concurrent interpretations of His will, but it would be arrogant to do so. People, however, can have their opinions measured empirically, and so popular sovereignty is a concrete measurement rather than a subjective measurement. If you try to get a concrete measurement from a subjective concept, it's like trying to make apple juice from oranges. No matter how similar you describe them as being, the two are not and cannot be the same idea.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48029967]If I propose that we as a country decapitate all left handed people because my holy book says they are of the devil, that is a faith based proposition. If I propose that we as a country invest in nuclear power because all available information tells us that doing so will reduce overall spending and leave more funds for other programs, that is a logical proposition. While we don't all share the same religious beliefs, we do, generally speaking, want to do well. So while we don't want others to impose religious mandates on each us, we can agree on secular mandates that result in us doing well. Do you understand?[/QUOTE] You do realize that a country is fully capable of making both statements without any dissonance? A statement against decapitating left handed people employs just as much ideology as a statement in the affirmative, there's fundamentally no difference in how you reach either conclusion.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029994]You do realize that a country is fully capable of making both statements without any dissonance? A statement against decapitating left handed people employs just as much ideology as a statement in the affirmative, there's fundamentally no difference in how you reach either conclusion.[/QUOTE] Ideology is measured by quality, not quantity. This is going to be a long night.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029994]You do realize that a country is fully capable of making both statements without any dissonance? A statement against decapitating left handed people employs just as much ideology as a statement in the affirmative, there's fundamentally no difference in how you reach either conclusion.[/QUOTE] are you seriously arguing that forcing people to do things that can be logically demonstrated to result in positive outcomes for them is exactly the same as forcing them to decapitate left handed people because an ancient holy book you have faith in says they're evil?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48030006]are you seriously arguing that forcing people to do things that can be logically demonstrated to result in positive outcomes for them is exactly the same as forcing them to decapitate left handed people because an ancient holy book you have faith in says they're evil?[/QUOTE] No. [QUOTE=Sega Saturn;48030001]Ideology is measured by quality, not quantity.[/QUOTE] I agree with the quality thing(not sure what you mean by quantity). However, you employ entirely arbitrary means of doing so.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030012]No.[/QUOTE] then what's the difference between them?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48030006]are you seriously arguing that forcing people to do things that can be logically demonstrated to result in positive outcomes for them is exactly the same as forcing them to decapitate left handed people because an ancient holy book you have faith in says they're evil?[/QUOTE] If you break down what he wrote you'll realize that he's still ignoring literally every point made on this page in favor of his "oranges are apples because they're both fruit" position. He's not looking at the quality of the ideas, but rather the quantity. Cut off hands = yes fruit. Don't cut off hands = also yes fruit.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48030025]then what's the difference between them?[/QUOTE] Uh, that's what I'm asking you. Come up with a single argument that is not philosophical/ethical to choose one over the other and I'll consider your position non-arbitrary.