Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

they commit crimes at a below-average rate relative to the citizens of their host country.

But this is, once again, incorrect. Prison population in countries like France and Belgium is overwhelmingly Muslim, despite Muslims still being a relatively small minority. This doesn't even include non-Muslim immigrants. I don't think I have to continue, I already wrote about the wonders of multi-culti life previously, you get my point. I can assure you it's not native populations who do these things. To suggest that native populations commit more crime per capita is laughable. No one who's not a total slave to ideology would take that seriously.

Now obviously there are different kinds of migrants. Some come from trash cultures, some don't. So I won't deny that, say, Chinese migrants might commit less crime per capita than citizens of the host country. Especially if said county has already been thoroughly culturally enriched. So you could make a good case for immigration if you separated people into different categories.

And now leave others alone. It is imperialism otherwise.

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. No outside force is compelling China to economically liberalize. Its own people are flocking to its post-cultural urban centers (like Shanghai) because people know a better life when they see one.

If you don't like this idea, then you're free to isolate yourself from it. But you too need to "leave others alone" to abandon their ethnic culture if they want to.

It's true that immigrants will form enclaves in their host countries. But research on examples like Latinos within the US bear out that the social barriers effectively disappear after a few generations.

U.S. has its own cultures believe it or not.

None of those cultures you listed are exclusive to a specific race. I am fine with them because I consider them the byproducts of capitalism, and they cut across racial and religious boundaries.

Need for Paris Climate Agreement would not have happened in the first if not for wanton environmental destruction globalisation brought.

All industrialization produces pollution, so unless you're a primitivist I don't know what you're trying to get at here.

My first highly triggering opinion incoming:

Islam is everything wrong with the human race contained in a single book and then called a religion.

To suggest that native populations commit more crime per capita is laughable.

The study I linked was a meta-analysis that examined a variety of case studies. I think its conclusion – that immigration in general is not linked to an increase in crime – is fairly reasonable. Obviously a general statement is not necessarily perfectly predictive of any specific example. I agree that France has serious problems integrating its Muslim population and that the general trend is probably not applicable in this instance.

In regards to categorizing immigrants, a lot of countries already do this – but based on educational attainment, skills, language proficiency, etc. On an individual level, I believe that those characteristics are significantly more meaningful than ethnicity or religion.

It's not all that unpopular, it's just the apologists hound anyone that disagrees. Being a apologist towards how they throw lgbt off buildings is like being a apologist towards how the catholic church used to diddled kids: abhorrent behavior straight out of the 1500's.

No religion should get a free pass simply cause someone metaphorically fetishes them.

@Particle Mare

No outside force is compelling China to economically liberalize. Its own people are flocking to its post-cultural urban centers (like Shanghai) because people know a better life when they see one.

Cultural Revolution still stings. It is somewhat unironically jokingly said around these parts that Chinese tourists behaviour are poor because they have lost all their good cultures in the purge. You can still see the remnants in the rural parts.

The cities themselves become factories to compete after CR fucked up the country. Jaded and boring because a lot of buildings looks the same. And the fact that post-cultural China is another dog on the world domination stage. Debts defaulting, sweatshops making, space debris making, geopolitically-militaristically threatening one with a chip on its shoulder.

People come into cities from countryside to find job/making a living/for change of pace since old times. If they are lucky they will not find themselves in a sweatshop with suicide safety net or cramped in a rat hole apartment. Better life, indeed.

It’s true that immigrants will form enclaves in their host countries. But research on examples like Latinos within the US bear out that the social barriers effectively disappear after a few generations.

Oversea Chinese formed enclave but did not exactly live in that hive or isolating themselves either. They interact with natives just fine even by the first generation. Their cultural and ethnic identity do not fade though. Jews are also the example of this. Everywhere, integrated, but still Jewish, and some still practise their religion and carry on traditions.

None of those cultures you listed are exclusive to a specific race. I am fine with them because I consider them the byproducts of capitalism, and they cut across racial and religious boundaries.

True. A result of cultural hotpot spread through globalisation backed by its strong media industry by the vector of lingua franca, English. Many cultures also cut across racial and religious boundaries, does not have to be from hotpot or capitalism though.

You do not need language to understand Italian cuisine or sushi. Animes and mangas came to U.S. despite language, racial, and cultural barrier (and created katanas wielding edgelords and weebs much to our chagrin). Though in anime case, I believe it is also partly attributed to Japans own strong media industry. SEA loves Taiwanese shows and HK action movies which is renowned world-wide. List goes on.

All industrialization produces pollution, so unless you’re a primitivist I don’t know what you’re trying to get at here.

It sped up pollution to terrifying level. Mega-corps abuses the leeway given by it to reduce cost by operating in poorer countries. Deforestation to make space, farms, factories, while safely ignoring the environmental effect (by the way, TPP is looming on the horizon again).

Globalisation is like any of our actions. It sends ripples throughout and its influence and impacts can be felt in society, cultures, and ways of living. Super economy and infinite growth is not the end all of life, living happily is. Resources are finite, we cannot grow rapidly forever.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/air-pollution-globalisation-premature-deaths-750000-people-per-year-breathing-health-smog-fossil-a7656576.html

If you don’t like this idea, then you’re free to isolate yourself from it. But you too need to “leave others alone” to abandon their ethnic culture if they want to.

No need. People are not as autistic as I am. They take technology and whatever from the outside and make it their own style because people intrinsically guard their culture. We all influences others somehow. What I am against is the idea of everywhere has to be the same as U.S. to be great. SEA, Japan, and Taiwan are great examples of this.

@Particle Mare
This has gone long enough and we are getting sidetracked by various topics. Let just stick the main points.

What I am arguing for is:
Globalism and Mass Immigration cause cultures and ways of life to die out and they are bad.

My arguments are:

• Immigrants (who at least migrated from poor living or danger) do not integrate fully. They form enclaves as to protect their cultural identity and because people are more comfortable being around what they can relate to intrinsically. Peacetime migrants are other story and are quite welcome through standard immigration procedure. Peacetime migrants often chose to change their cultural baggage to new ones they like (e.g. Japanophile moving to living in Japan to live their way of life)

• Like you said, you would prefer your hotpot or even Macau more than any where with overbearing culture. You are related to the hotpot more than others. If U.S. were to get wrecked to the point of you want to migrate. You will want a hotpot, or stick with hotpot community elsewhere if that places culture is overbearing and it is somewhere you can make a decent living.

• As per Memosikis quote. If mass immigrants have higher birth rates than natives. They will replace them within generations. Causing death of culture.

• Race-mixed sometime find themselves lost identity wise and have no sense of belonging. And some have other minor health problems also. edit: It will happen nonetheless because love is boundless. It is theirs to carry and find themselves though.

• Cultural identity (which is closely tied to race) is beneficial both for self-esteem, well-being, and the economy of the nation.

• Culture is traded and shared peacefully and wholesomely already. The need to force every culture into one or death of it is absurd and counter-productive.

What you are arguing for is:
Globalism is beneficial to all parties involved, and cultures are detrimental.

Your arguments are: (if I miss anything just add it)

• Globalism is good for economy, and money is universal language, a force that bind people of various race as per your Voltaires quote.

• Goodwill of all nations can be directed towards something beneficial for everyone such as Paris Climate Agreement.

• Globalism cuts through ideological lines and connects people. It was used towards reforming Islamic countries with dogmatic ideals which presents danger to themselves and everyone around. It can be used towards good.

• It is the only way forward for highly developed nations that don’t want to economically stagnate.

I am sure many a great minds greater than us are still bickering over this globalisation and I am sure we will not meet a resolution because our values are vastly different.

Quran text is not worse than Bible, maybe even better. Religious terrorist organisations is a result of poor education and total ignorance on the source books. LRA is a christian organisation and still horrible.

I would like to point out that I don't like Christianity either.

If mass immigrants have higher birth rates than natives. They will replace them within generations.

This is a myth. But it's also irrelevant to my belief in globalization.

I agree that we probably won't reach a resolution, but not for the strength of your arguments. I'll summarize each of your points and why I think you are incorrect:

1. Globalization is bad for the economy

Experts are overwhelmingly in favor of freer movement of capital and labor. (In terms of the "great minds" you speak of, these people have already reached agreement.) Your argument about immigrants taking jobs is fallacious (lump of labor), and the evidence is overwhelming that immigration is good for a country's economy.

If you want this point to stand, I expect you to produce studies or expert opinions on the economics of globalization instead of simply making unfounded claims.

2. Globalization will ruin my culture

If people like their ethnic culture and want to retain it there is absolutely nothing stopping them from finding a community of like-minded people. If someone doesn't want to retain their ethnic culture then they should be allowed to depart from it. If an immigrant wants to form an enclave where they will feel comfortable, they should be allowed to. But if their children want to assimilate into the host country, they should be allowed to.

I would argue that "your values" don't really matter, because globalization doesn't prevent you from retaining them.

Your point fundamentally rests on the belief that people shouldn't be allowed to act as they wish to. You will need to justify that or I don't see any merit to this point.

3. Globalization is bad for the environment

The fact of the matter is that industrialization would happen in each country even without a globally connected economy. Britain went through such a transition and every country will have to eventually unless robotics supplants the secondary sector. In the end, all of the environmental impacts would be comparable, but you wouldn't get the benefit of cheaper goods or the great efficiency of comparative advantage.

If you want this point to remain I expect you to demonstrate that "deforestation to make space, farms, factories" is uniquely tied to globalization as opposed to any form of industrialization. Without globalization, there wouldn't even be international NGOs keeping regional corporations accountable.

Also, the TPP is good. It actually features a slew of mandates designed to protect the environment, particularly in developing countries about to undergo industralization.

It doesn't matter whether they have lower or higher birth rates than the natives. As long as the number of natives declines in number or even just stays the same, any consistent increase in non-native population will eventually lead to native population becoming a minority. Whether it's through immigration, higher birth rates or both doesn't matter at all. This is simple math, I even wrote a whole post about it.

What does this article supposedly disprove? 1/10, very weak shilling.

Also, you never really answered how mass importation of thirdworlders supposedly benefited Sweden (or any other similar country). Yes, it was already globalized before, as in, had free trade. I'm not arguing against free trade. Fair enough, it's awesome. It would be great though if you could justify the fetish for letting in as many unskilled brown people as possible (I'm not talking about the "refugee" crisis).

It does matter? Clownfish's entire point was about birth rates, and I specifically responded to his point, not to yours.

Mind you, I wouldn't particularly mind if immigrant birth rates were actually still significantly higher after several generations. But they're not, and I just felt compelled to correct an egregious (and oft-repeated) falsehood.

Like I said, this is irrelevant to my views about globalization. I don't see, and I haven't been given, any warranting that I should be concerned about demographic makeup other than some vague hand wringing about paint being mixed.

i.e. European countries affected by increase in violent crime, rapes, squalor, riots, terrorism, pedo rings and stuff like that would have experienced all of that anyway? Without migrants? Similarly to how Japan does, right? Or heck, even many much poorer, but homogenous countries?

Do you people ever stop and think about how insane the nonsense you believe in is? You yourself won't even benefit from the destruction you push for unless you're someone super rich and super powerful. Where does this passion for self-destruction come from?

Edit: well actually, if you're not from Europe then you don't have to deal with any of that, so I can't really call it a "passion for self-destruction". However, this makes your disregard for other people's safety and well-being for the sake of advancing your ideology even more disturbing.

Naturally, flashy fashy memes are great at getting people riled up about immigrant crime, but without meta-statistics you're not going to get anywhere.

The violent crime rate in Europe has declined since 2008. Sweden and Germany both report below-average rates of homicide in the EU, and the two most violent EU European countries, Lithuania and Russia, are among the most homogeneous.

Japan has a very low violent crime rate, but the differences are negligible (0.3 vs 0.85 for Germany, contrast that with 2.9 for Asia or 3.0 for Europe as a whole) and again, I don't see any reason for concern. If I cared about violent crime that much I would probably just move to Monaco, but crime isn't the only metric with which I evaluate the desirability of a country especially when the differences are so minute.

I don't want to accuse you of having drunk the kool-aid, but given your extreme conviction in your beliefs combined with the lack of meaningful evidence that bears it out, what other conclusion can I draw?

The topic of immigration is a shield used by the political and corporate elite to deflect the anger of the working class. Us common folk who aren't on a six-figure salary are expected to cast a blind eye to massive corporate tax cuts and butchering or privatisation of public services and instead blame immigrants or benefit scroungers for our misfortune.

Whilst mass immigration can indeed put a strain on public resources, controlled immigration undoubtedly provides a boost to the economy in countries with stagnant or falling birth rates. We need more workers to sustain ageing populations in the west – until robotics and automation becomes more prevalent we should welcome those who are going to add to the workforce.

If only the working class would stop swallowing right wing propaganda sources like the Daily Mail and The S*n, they might actually figure out that it's the upper class and the political elite that are fucking them over – they're allowing creeping privatisation of the NHS (to the point were some people's only possible healthcare provider is fucking Virgin) so that Tory MPs with their buddies in private healthcare firms can line their pockets, crippling budget cuts to the police forces are raising crime rates, many city schools are still massively overcrowded, and don't get me started on the clusterfuck that is Brexit – a country-wide suicide fuelled by xenophobia and opportunistic parasitic politicians trying to find any way to personally benefit from screwing over future generations. But hey lets blame the Romanian family down the road who get child tax credit to supplement their income so that they don't have to choose between heating their home or feeding their kids, because fuck the poor and vulnerable right?

(That last line was a joke, as if the Tories would give a working class family enough support to not make choices like that)

But, hey, look on the bright side at least I don't live in the USA. Seeing you guys completely cock up your country gives me at least some joy.

Yes I ranted unnecessarily, I'm a bitter young adult.

super hot take: both of you are wrong

but in the interest of not spending any more time on this, I'm not going to start a third argument

You know I thought of something: no wonder why European countries are religiously opposing automation. If European governments welcomed automation then well you wouldn't need nearly as much immigrants.

However as a result of that:

The violent crime rate in Europe has declined since 2008.

Europe is a really big place regardless of how exactly you define it. Are you implying that just crime decreasing overall necessarily means that migrants aren't overrepresented among criminals? That's completely wrong.

Sweden and Germany both report below-average rates of homicide in the EU

What that's supposed to mean? We don't have a control Germany or control Sweden that never had immigration for comparison. So what's your point?

and the two most violent European countries, Lithuania and Russia, are among the most homogeneous.

Russia is one of the most diverse countries in Europe. I'd feel safer literally anywhere in Lithuania than in some places in Western Europe. But OK, I'll concede this point to you.

Japan has a very low violent crime rate, but the differences are negligible (0.3 vs 0.85 for Germany, contrast that with 2.9 for Asia or 3.0 for Europe as a whole)

And? See my point about not having a control Germany to make any conclusions.

But we do know that immigrants are massively overrepresented among criminals. Therefore without migrants, crime, however low, would have been even lower.

I live in a poor shithole of a country of around 2 million, yet I'm always safe wherever I go, at literally any time. I'm not worried about my relatives. We had 1 pedo case in my living memory, which was a huge scandal. England has less than 2 millions of people of a certain ethnicity that are responsible for numerous unrelated pedo gangs in different cities all around the country. There are at the very least thousands of victims. We also don't need concrete barricades at our Christmas markets. We don't have riots or car burnings. Literally the worst that can happen to you is some Russian gopniks taking away your mobile phone. Which has still never happened to me or anyone I know, and I grew up in a shitty soviet housing district.

I don’t want to accuse you of having drunk the Kool-Aid

You have a completely indefensible position. You don't seem to have any stake in it, yet you keep making ridiculous claims that are completely opposite to what's going on in reality and provide nonarguments. I don't think it's me who drank the Kool-Aid

Russia

You're right, Russia has a significant (~20%) minority population. But virtually all of this population is European or pseudo-European (Turkic). Even assuming the ethnic background of the minorities is not important, the overall homogeneity is comparable to Sweden. Yet it has around 10x the homicide rate, which, if immigration was the primary factor, doesn't make sense.

What that’s supposed to mean? We don’t have a control Germany or control Sweden that never had immigration for comparison.

Okay, but if immigration was a (or the) primary driver of crime rates then we should be able to compare either country to other European countries based on rates of immigrant population.

What you seem to be implying is that immigration is merely one factor of many. In which case I agree. I just think there are much bigger fish to fry, and that the language surrounding crime and immigration is hyperbolic. Russia is not exactly friendly to Middle Eastern and African immigrants, yet if we removed it from consideration, the overall murder rate of Europe would probably halve.

I live in a poor shithole of a country of around 2 million, yet I’m always safe wherever I go, at literally any time.

Latvian, right?

Now I'm just confused. I don't want to Americasplain your own country to you, but it doesn't make sense to me in light of some of the things you've said.

Firstly, you call Russia diverse – therefore I assume "diversity" includes Europeans, since the overwhelmingly majority of Russian minorities are European. But according to official census data ethnic Latvians make up only around 65% of the population. Even if we expanded the definition of ethnic affinity to, say, include all Baltic and Slavic peoples, that would still be only 80% – which is less homogeneous than Sweden. I can't see any reasonable framework under which Russia can be called diverse but Latvia can't, unless you consider ~5% Asian-European (Turkic) to be enough of a difference where one country can be considered homogeneous and the other can be considered "one of the most diverse in Europe".

Secondly, Latvia's own self-reported government statistics make it out to be above-average in Europe in terms of homicide rate. It is 5x more violent than Germany and around 3x more than Sweden, despite Sweden having a very expansive definition of murder.

I come from New Zealand so I understand what it's like for a single criminal case that would be considered ordinary in the US to be front page news for a week. But its actual murder rate is in fact higher than Germany's, albeit negligibly. You wouldn't get this impression from the news, and I was personality quite surprised by the data myself, but I trust statistics more than my personal impressions of things.

As cynical as I am, I believe people heavily exaggerate how selfish people are, especially objectivists and some libertarians and such. I believe that the ratio between selfish/selfless people is at most 50/50 with most people probably in the middle not really standing out as either.

Edit: If most people were selfish by a significant margin the world would look even more dystopian, I am not one to buy into the idea of objectivist "rational self-interest" working that well in practice.

@Particle Mare

Ok, I agree that some of what I've said doesn't make any sense regarding "diversity", and I agree that you're right about putting more trust into statistics than into personal impressions. I shouldn't have called Russia "diverse" because I really meant diversity in terms of European vs non-European. And yes, without lumping all Europeans together Latvia is actually extremely diverse.

What you seem to be implying is that immigration is merely one factor of many. In which case I agree.

Yes, that's what I'm implying. I'm glad that you agree that it's at least a factor. I guess the main difference is you see immigration as having an inherent value in itself (if I understand correctly) while I consider immigration inherently destructive ceteris paribus, so any additional negative sides seal the deal for me. I guess there's no point in arguing any further.

glad the debate seems to have resolved

Any longer and TripleZed would've been on my ass about moving it to another thread.

@particle mare

true enough lol

here's an opinion to get the thread back on track

While I don't blame religious people, or even really publically criticize religion, as I think it's an inevitable part of society, I think religion has a detrimental effect on free thought and ethics.

Even if you take any given holy book as truly god's message, there's not a 0% chance that someone has put some nonsense in it that doesn't have anything to do with the word of god. And these ancient ideas about ethics and how the world works are preserved and enforced on the public as god's will, resulting in people limited in what theories they can make about the world and what's right and wrong, as they will criticize themselves as being heretical or the church itself will take it as that.

I personally believe the humans have a tendency to form similar codes of ethics around the world, based on how many cultures have things like the golden rule, and thus that humans tend to have some understanding of right and wrong and can iron out the morality to a proper form with time. But they can only do so if they can use logic and reason on it, rather than deferring to ancient source absolutely.

Asexuals are fucking annoying. You're not a persecuted minority.

When I was a teen I got sent to gay camp and oh boy was it rough. I've never been to prison, but I have a feeling that's what prison is like. It was one of those camps where they beat the shit out of people.

Do Asexuals actually complain that much? I’ve never talked to one, but i think being Asexual is kind of a ridiculous trend that I hope dies soon.

Well they do have their pride marches and stuff. Which is bizarre to say the least. Why would you want visibility? It's attention whoring at it's worst. These people are nothing special, yet crave to feel unique. It's not like celibacy is looked down upon by society, it's unusual at most. Just say you're celibate for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

In the USA at least it's getting a lot harder for people to be unique and the people who desire to be unique are having less and less ability to do so.

I am wondering if you've ever studied Christian theology and could suggest to me some source for the idea that the relationship between "Father" and "Son" is, as you imply, denotes that the "Son" is a biological descendant of the "Father." Christian theology from what I've understood, uses "Father" and "Son" to designate a relationship in a manner which we can understand rather than a strict biological one. Special uses of "Father" and "Son" are indicated by the upper case as you wouldn't, in the case of an actual biological relationship between a male and his male offspring, claim "He's his Father's, Son" -- the uppercase would be incorrect grammar.

In addition, I'm also wondering where you find Jesus of Nazareth declaring that "incest is bad?" I've read a bit of what He's said (note the uppercase use of "He" as denoting a reference to a deity), and can't remember where he addressed the issue. That Christians believe incest to be wrong, is a given, but that is not what you claimed, is it?

As for Him also being a "pacifist pussy who died long ago," I again request your reasoning that he was a "pacifist pussy" since the claim strikes me as more a personal attack than a credible statement of fact. You can, of course, pick some passages where his actions and directions ordered his followers to take a more forgiving and tolerant attitude toward being affronted, but then you can also point to places where his own actions and attitudes were just the opposite.

The central claim you seem to be espousing though, is that a person who might like to submit to the "lordship" or Jesus of Nazareth is "worse than a swede." Overlooking your implied slander of Swedes (upper case is required here for grammatical purposes), I definitely take issue with your conception, implied as it is, that he died and stayed dead. It is the central theme and claim of historical Christianity that he died but didn't stay dead. Given that the claim has been made by a significant number of persons over a vast number of cultures and periods I would like you to take your best shot at refuting it. I assume you have read the source materials and have a theory as to why there is a Christian church in the first place and how it may have been founded without a real belief by it's founders in a risen Christ.

Finally, you seem to think that "standing up to authority" is the brave thing to do. One wonders just how hard it might be to actually submit to someone you believe has a claim over your life? Bravery comes in many shapes and sizes but the bravest thing a person can do, I think, is willingly let somebody else tell them how to live. To do that you must really trust the one under whom you are placing yourself -- (which implies you must have a good sense in your ability to judge that they are trustworthy) -- or a good sense that you must trust somebody because you cannot do what you wish on your own. Or both. The greatest act of bravery is facing one's own limitations, and the greatest foolishness in believing one has no limitations.

So let's have some input here about the claims you have made. I could be wrong about the whole thing and would love to have more information -- information, perhaps, of which I have not been privy before.

AJ

It's interesting to see this claim and counter-claim. The rate of births of immigrants is significantly higher in the US, but maybe not in Europe. In the use non-documented immigrant birth rate, according the the Pew Research Center (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/26/number-of-babies-born-to-unauthorized-immigrants-in-u-s-continues-to-decline/) is going down, but is still at 7% of all births when the undocumented immigrants make up 3.5% of the population. Since the American non-minority population is declining, whatever growth there is must therefore be in the minority and immigrant (both documented or undocumented) communities.

Specifically the article says:

In 2014 the undocumented immigrants "made up 3.5% of the nation’s total population, but accounted for a higher share of births because the immigrant population overall (lawful and unauthorized) includes a higher share of women in their childbearing years and has higher birthrates than the overall U.S. population."

I can't say if this is true in Europe or any other place receiving a net increase of population through immigration, but in the US the numbers are pretty clear. Immigrants account for just over 44 million of those living in the US, about 1/4 of whom are undocumented (11.7 million).

Overall the number of immigrants as a percentage of the population has fluctuated between 10 and 15 percent. But the absolute number has increased steeply since the 1920's leaving a much larger pool of "2nd generation" immigrants. This pool, if it does not assimilate, is a concern not because it is somehow morally inferior to current non-immigrants so much as it will force the American economy to more and more accommodate different languages and customs. Thus, anything having to do with communication will need to be done many more times to accommodate different languages and cultural conditions. The cost of this change will necessarily be born by the entire population. In addition, as these groups grow it may be necessary to grant exemptions to laws currently on the books, including allowing multiple marriages, earlier marriages, and even differing legal systems.

I'm not sure if all these things are good or bad for the future as it would seem to me that such things are a value judgment. A "free and open" society is the inheritance we have received from a predominately Judaeo-Christian heritage, but what will become of such a heritage if cultures which believe in "purity and control" come to dominate our social and political landscape? In the end you cannot say with any clear candor that all cultures are equal. And if not then what cultures are better than others and why?

AJ

I agree. Let's use logic and reason. But wait, one must begin any series of logic with some assumptions. After all logic creates nothing but instead reveals what is hidden in the assumptions upon which it is founded. No system of logic is complete enough to justify it's own conclusions from scratch, so what assumptions would you suggest as a place to begin?

Your observation that "humans have a tendency to form similar codes of ethics around the world" is based upon "how many cultures have things like the golden rule" is an interesting starting point, but only if one decides that the golden rule ought to be the ethical standard. Upon what bases should we adopt the golden rule as our standard?

AJ

I agree. No religion should get a free pass. I remember reading Christopher Hutchins, "God is Not Great" and having fun with it. His argument was that no religion should get a free pass for abhorrent behavior and that in all religions there are examples of those of that faith acting abhorrently. He then goes on to note though, that the presence of some people in any religion who have acted abhorrently isn't grounds for throwing out that religion since there are "a few rotten apples in every barrel." If you've read the book I'll leave it to you to ask if he lives up to his own standards.

In any case, the preponderance of evidence is at play in any complex decision. Deciding if any religion or religions (if any) deserve to be honored as a net positive influence is a difficult thing. I suggest we ask a three important questions though.

1) Of the major religions which had engaged in most humanitarian acts. Things like schools, hospitals, relief organizations, etc…would be considered humanitarian.

2) Of the major religions which has spread across the globe with the least violence and which with more. In other words which has conquered territory by the sword and which by more peaceful means?

3) Of the major religions which has done the most to decrease human suffering? Reducing slavery, encouraging free and open societies, creating medicines, establishing peace initiatives?

Anybody can take any religion and tell us where it failed. Let's be more positive and ask what they have done right. Just for the fun of it.

AJ

@Ajqrtz smith

I figure all ethics systems have to start with the way humans feel about things. We regard death as repulsive, so we tend to forbid it, and we have attachment to other members of our species so we don't desire for bad things to happen to them without them having some negative attribute at the very least.

I believe the starting point should just be basic human empathy for one another, but the axioms developed from that very basic starting point can vary quite a bit. Some people disagree on empathy being the starting point, and base it on other basic feelings about life. You do need axioms though, for rational thought.

I personally just feel that mankind should always allow this debate about the axioms and further implications of said axioms. I just don't feel that having the axiom of "I believe that a god wrote this book and thus its ideas of morality are the truth" is one that can stand up to scrutiny.

That said, if your take is more that ancient people have some inherent wiseness to them and thus are more likely to be correct on the nature of ethics, while I don't agree I feel that can stand up to criticism a lot more effectively. It's also a lot less imposing than the idea that god already told us how to act and that people who do not believe its ethics to be proper are inherently incorrect.

Speaking of asexuality:
You know what I genuinely don't fucking understand? Whenever someone that hates sex joins a fandom specifically dedicated to sex and then demands that everyone else change.

If you do this you are a cunt.

If you think I'm joking about this one time at a sex party at a convention I went to a asshole showed up to the sex party fully knowing beforehand what the party was and complained that it was making him uncomfortable.

Thank you, first of all, for a civil and well worded answer to my question. Your emphasis on "feelings" as the basis of deciding the axioms upon which to base a moral system seems a bit scary to me though, especially since it seems to also say that what the majority feels should be the base. Societies differ in their "feelings" about right and wrong, and some societies have even divided people into those who are "us," and thus worth protecting, and "them" a short hand code for using and abusing. If you think empathy important what if "them" aren't even human?

Not all persons find death repulsive. Many people slaughter for a living and some slaughter even humans for a living -- they are called "butchers" or "soldiers" btw.

As for you lack of belief "that god wrote this book and thus its ideas of morality are the truth" is interesting, but upon what basis do you reject that God could have written a book and thus, being all-knowing, have revealed what "ideas of morality" are true? You may categorically reject that God (if God exists) did so, but there are only a few major contenders for "the word of God" and I'd be curious as to why you have rejected them all (as you imply).

If you wish to turn to history as your guide, it's not going to be pretty. Almost no era in human history or culture then or now has actually accepted that "all persons are created equal" -- a basic underlying belief of the West. In fact, outside of the North America and Europe most cultures have very rigid class structures with those at top having little to no empathy for those at the bottom and in some cases enslaving them. Of course you may mean by "ancient wisdom" the wisdom delivered by books which claim to reveal what the gods think to be moral or what experience seems to say about it.

If the former then you do believe that what is written under the authority of inspiration or revelation has some merit, if the latter than we are at an impasse since experience is an interpretation of actions and sometimes what is wise to us may seem unwise to those whose goals differ from our own.

In the end there are only a few sources for morals, I believe. You look to history for signs of the gods and go from there, you look to yourself for inspiration, or you look to some historic set of experiences and allow them to tell you what is wise. In none of these do you find an infallible starting point, and in none of them can you clearly build a moral system.

Personally, I find you can only look to a book if you believe the book is accurate about both what happened and what it describes as happening can only have happened if it was written by the finger of a god. But even that idea falls short if others look at the book and see no fingerprint of a god.

In the end, I think, we are adrift in a sea of unknowns trying to paddle to a destination somewhere on the far, far horizon, whose direction is also unknown. The only thing we can do is paddle together, take our best shot, and hope.

AJ