  |
| Author |
|
Mush
Baron
Registration Date: 07.30.07
Location: South of Canada
Posts: 1810 |
|
| Universality of truth, right, and wrong (formerly random thoughts) |       |
a.k.a. Saviour and Mush's long conversation about math and religion, in which other people are also welcome to contribute
As a compromise between those who would like the discussion to remain publicly viewable, and those who would like to keep the random thoughts thread unpolluted, I've created this one to pick up where the other one left off. (For historical reference, it started here)
Just be polite, open-minded, and respectful please! 
Also, I apologize in advance for straying pretty far from the topic. It started in a random thoughts thread, so I'm not attempting to be concise. ^^|
And without further ado...
(Context: Discussing whether the parallel postulate, one of Euclid's axioms of geometry, can be considered 'correct', or merely useful. The analogy to ethics is that certain claims such as "all men are created equal" need to be accepted without evidence in order to determine right from wrong. But if two people disagree about the validity of the claim, they have no reason to agree about what's right and what's wrong, and therefore right and wrong cannot be a matter of fact but merely opinion).
Euclid, a famous mathematician of ancient Greece, thought that the existence of parallel lines was so clearly true that he tried very hard to prove that it was a necessary result of his other laws of geometry. But he couldn't come up with a proof, so he had to label it as an axiom -- a "self-evident" statement that is accepted as true without proof. We now know why he couldn't prove it; it's because you can create perfectly good and consistent versions of geometry that don't require that assumption.
quote:
only because both of the assumption are fundamentally correct in different situation.It is something like a reference point why do we call something hot or cold, although they are exactly the same phenomena, for our need.
To be precise, the rules of geometry exist entirely in their own world. It just so happens that they describe things in accurately in reality as well; that's because abstract geometry has been crafted to mimic the way that reality works. That way, the things we learn from abstract concepts in geometry, like that the sum of all angles in a triangle add to 180 degrees, also describe properties of triangles in the real world.
On the other hand, a triangle drawn with a marker on the surface of a sphere will have angles that add to more than 180 degrees. Euclid's geometry implicitly assumed a flat space, which results (unexpectedly) from the assumption that there are such things as parallel lines. The resulting rules of Euclid's geometry don't have any sensible relation to how lines drawn on curved sufraces behave, so in that context they stop being useful. On the surface of a sphere, any line will eventually intersect any other line, so nothing is parallel.
If you want, you can call Euclid's rules of geometry "correct" in that they mimic the way that real lines behave on flat surfaces. Non-Euclidean versions of geometry describe the way that lines behave on curved surfaces.
So when you say "both of the assumptions (that there do and do not exist parallel lines) are fundamentally correct in different situations", I almost agree. They are both useful in different situations. It's nice that the system of rules that Euclid created to describe the behaviour of abstract constructions called "lines" will accurately predict how much grass my cows can graze if I build a fence of a certain shape.
But if Euclid's geometry is something that is true or false, then I should be able to determine whether or not the following statement is true:
Parallel lines do exist. (True or false)
If this is a statement that is unconditionally true, then its truth should not depend on whether I find drawing on flat sheets of paper more practical than drawing on round objects like oranges or globes. Its truth should stand for itself.
If there are qualifications, like "it's true unless you are drawing on a grapefruit", or "it's true unless you take into account the force of gravity", or "it's true unless it's 9:00 on a Thursday", then the existence of parallel lines isn't something that is necessarily true; there is some deeper principle at work which you are using to determine when it is true and when it is not. The quest to determine the existence of parallel lines then becomes a hunt for what that deeper principle is.
But if "parallel lines exist" is an axiom, then there is no deeper principle or rule from which it is derived. It is a statement asserted to be self-evident, and unconditionally valid. It's what you use as a foundation to find all the other things you consider to be "true".
quote:
what is the result of 0/0, it is undefined, means we still do not have the knowledge to understand this.
It's not like "what is 0/0?" is an unsolved question in mathematics. It's an invalid operation, a sentence constructed from the grammar and vocabulary of math, but which holds no meaning. It's the mathematical equivalent of the English sentence "does a hummingbird?". It's not that we lack the understanding of math (or English) to comprehend the meaning; we confidently know that it means nothing.
Of course, just like non-Euclidean geometry, if you want 0/0 to mean something, you can create for yourself a new set of rules of math in which 0/0 is defined as 1, or 0, or infinity, or whatever you like. You might then find that these rules allow you to create inconsistent statements such as 2=1. It is up to you to decide whether the problem is that the math is wrong, or that you have to come up with a new interpretation for the symbols '2' and '1' in order to make sense of it.
quote:
The quote man is created equal is similar to ideal. It is a measurable entity.We can actually understand if someone is equal to me or not.The most fundamental belief can be said to be axiom such as there are man on earth in my sense, i can be wrong though.
How can we tell if two people are equal? I'm genuinely surprised to hear you consider it a measurable entity. To me, height is something that can be measured. Weight can be measured. Wealth can be measured (with difficulty). Skill can be measured. Age can be measured. But people?
All men are created equal, as expressed in the US Declaration of Independence, is not a statement like "wouldn't it be nice if all men were created equal". Or "we should strive to make all people close to equal". It is an assertion that all men are created equal. It means that, if you accept that statement, you must agree by the power of logic that the children of royalty are born equal to the children of beggars.
It is a statement about the inherent value of their lives, about their worth as people, that they must be valued equally, and that neither has rights over the other. You might not accept this proposition; it certainly doesn't agree with measurements of life expectancy or wealth.
__________________
Post last edited by Mush on 10.25.2013, 12:10 AM.
|
|
 10.24.2013, 11:15 PM |
  
|
Mush
Baron
Registration Date: 07.30.07
Location: South of Canada
Posts: 1810 |
|
|
(I exceeded the post length limit  )
quote:
Mush: (discussing evolution) Are you aware that the word 'proved' cannot apply to any scientific theory, or indeed any statement about physical reality, even in principle?
Saviour: Are you suggesting every theory that comes from a research you call them scientifically valid?
Mush: Do you believe in evolutionary theory? Or maybe I should ask: what do you believe about evolutionary theory?
Saviour: It is a very big topic, i do not have time right now to explore those and answer
No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that saying "it's a theory that hasn't been proved" is an empty statement, because nothing in science has been or ever can be proved. Proof exists only in mathematics, and never in science. So the statement that "evolution hasn't been proved" means nothing. That's why I ask what you believe about evolution.
For me, it's an easy answer. Not only do I believe in evolution, but I also believe that the evidence is so overwhelmingly strong that it would be indescribably difficult to imagine a reality that matches the one we observe, in which evolution does not take place.
I don't think that every theory in science is scientifically valid. There's a lot of poor science done by incompetent scientists, and a lot of fake science done by lobbyists pretending to be scientists.
quote:
Mush: Do you believe in Islam because it is "100% scientifically correct"? Or do you believe science when it 100% agrees with Islam? Could any experimental evidence cause you to alter your beliefs, or are your beliefs independent of experimental evidence?
Saviour: Both.There are some experimental proof, as they are fundamental they only can alter my belief. To be able to create energy from nothingness. To answer exactly how and why universal constants are set in that way.The ultimate one to describe life with a considerable precision. Consider it this way if i am not even able to answer those and also not able to prove the existence of god. why i should i rule out the possibility? It is a very very very big chance specially in a case where history and science both supports the concept of god.
Yes, nothing in science rules out the possibility of a God. If that is what you mean by Islam being "100% scientifically correct", then I agree with you. The existence of a God is not in conflict with our understanding of the universe. But I can also argue that a God is not required by our current scientific understanding of the universe. And that the existence of a God does not simplify the scientific picture, nor resolve the mysteries.
quote:
Mush: (in summary) Is it hypothetically possible that people could mistake an altered Qur'an for the real one?
Saviour: The authenticity of Qur'an is unquestionable because of Allah[it is written in Qur'an]. However there are some empirical proof. [...](list of historical guarantees for the authenticity of the Qur'an, including the existence of original copies
You listed some very compelling reasons to believe that the Qur'an is authentic. I'm glad and relieved that it's been so well taken care of as a document; I can only imagine that if millions of people held a different version, and were equally certain of its authenticity, there would probably be a lot of disagreements and conflict.
But, the first reason you listed -- that the authenticity of the Qur'an is unquestionable because of what is written in the Qur'an -- I'm surprised that you haven't already realized the logical problem with this.
There is no statement that can guarantee its own authenticity.
That sentence is worth thinking about. (It also applies to mathematics: Godel's theorem).
Now, if you can bear with me for a while, I think this is still an important question. It seems to me like the Qur'an probably has never been altered, so this is just a hypothetical discussion, because I'm not actually in doubt about this. I'm much more confident that the Qur'an is authentic than I am about the Bible or the Torah, in part because the Qur'an is more recent and also it probably has had fewer lapses in care over the centuries. But it's still worth thinking about as a thought experiment. Imagine the world in five thousand years, at which point the original copies will probably be unreadable or lost.
How will people in that day and age know that the Qur'an hasn't been altered? If a different version were to be found in the hands of many people claiming that it was true (and saying that it could be traced back to the original copies), how could a young person determine which to believe?
I think this question is important enough that I might consider it to be the fundamental question of religion.
quote:
Wikipedia:
Islamic law covers all aspects of life, from matters of state, like governance and foreign relations, to issues of daily living.[...] This includes greeting others with "as-salamu `alaykum" ("peace be unto you" ), saying bismillah ("in the name of God" ) before meals, and using only the right hand for eating and drinking.[...] With some exceptions, the woman's share of inheritance is generally half of that of a man with the same rights of succession
Saviour:
And did you stopped that quote at women's right intentionally. If you want to learn about how islam treat women you should talk with any religious[however wearing a hijab is not always a indication of reigiousness] sister out there.[if you want i can arrange virtual meetings] I am not a girl so cant help you there. Its best if you hear it from them.
No; I didn't stop there to make a point. When I asked what you thought Islam could justifiably impose, you sent me that article. I just cherrypicked the items that I considered to be disagreeable or matters that I think under the category of 'personal choice'. I am not claiming that Islam mistreats women; merely attempting to confirm whether or not Wikipedia's list accurately represents your views.
To which you responded: "Anything that affects society can be imposed in my opinion."
Unfortunately, this sentence can be interpreted in two ways, which mean different things! Can you clarify if it's A, B, or neither?
A) I can impose any rule on society that affects society.
B) I can impose a rule on any behaviour that affects society.
The first means that any rule can be imposed. The second means that almost any rule can be imposed. It's very easy to interpret something as "affecting society" if you think broadly enough, because nothing can be completely sealed away.
__________________
|
|
| 10.24.2013, 11:16 PM |
|
Mush
Baron
Registration Date: 07.30.07
Location: South of Canada
Posts: 1810 |
|
|
Yay triple post!
quote:
Originally posted by saviour2012
But as i have directly observed that many things that was written in Qur'an that was nearly laughable by many many scientists has been proved true. One of those prominent incident is perception of time. This is the most important matter of Qur'an that left me spellbound. Even nobel comity could not understand theory of relativity.Really if i was born in say in 1830 onwards then i might have become an atheist myself particularly because of this perception that time is relative.
This intrigues me. Where in the Qur'an can I find English-translated statements explaining the nature of time? I would like to read and assess them.
Earlier I mentioned that a text cannot prove its own authenticity, but it can say things like "if the sun were to vanish, the Earth would go dark seven minutes later", or "if one twin remains in place and another travels in circles at a high speed, the travelling twin will remain young while the stationary twin ages". Or "the g-factor of the muon is approximately 2.0023318416".
Those kinds of things would be very strong evidence.
__________________
|
|
| 10.24.2013, 11:34 PM |
|
saviour2012
Baron
Registration Date: 02.24.12
Location: Dhaka,Bangladesh
Posts: 1749 |
|
|
Really mush soooooooo interesting. If you only posted it one day earlier i wasted my whole day doing nothing.
My preparatory leave[for preparation of exam] for this semester starts from 27 and there is a thing that i need to prepare for so i am really very sorry that you need to wait about one month for my detailed reply. I only came here today to say that then saw your thread.I have not really studied anything so i will fail if i dont try.
Really there is so many things to say.If i give you direct links then it is possible you wont be satisfied with the answer as one link does not necessarily discuss the whole matter.
If you are very eager then it is best if you search your queries in google like this if its about the concept of time then write Qur'an about time or Qur'an about something you will get many many links. What you need to do is read as many as those. You will get the views from both angle.
If i am alive until then[after my exam is finished] i will try to explain all of those things. However from the effort you gave to write these posts i think i can assume you want to know the truth or try to justify if you are right or wrong.
It is sure that although giving clear descriptions of the questions there will be some questions unanswered. Thats the test. So then this discussion will end. Then it will be upto us to believe or disbelieve something.
Thanks for being patient.
__________________
Watch everything but only take the good things from it
Ask, think and learn. Because the more we know the more we grow.
Watching the wrong to happen is the same as commiting the wrong.
If it looks like things are forcing you to be creative, Then be creative.
its a uniquely Miyazaki film, one only he could make and its uniqueness places it beyond being easily critiqued.[About Porco Rosso]
taken from a quote of Saddletank and Orphic Okapi
|
|
| 10.25.2013, 05:42 AM |
 
|
Mush
Baron
Registration Date: 07.30.07
Location: South of Canada
Posts: 1810 |
|
|
No worries! I posted a day late because I had to finish an assignment too. Take your time and good luck on your exam!
|
|
| 10.25.2013, 09:56 AM |
|
Orphic Okapi
Baron
Registration Date: 04.08.07
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 1335 |
|
|
My main issue with Saviour's argument for the validity of the Quran is this: just because a work contains truth does not automatically make the entire work true. (I realize my use of "true" is rather problematic in a thread where the very existence of truth is up for debate, but for the fun of it, let's say "true" means that scientific evidence is so overwhelming as to all but eliminate dissent on the matter. In which case, things like evolution would be "true." )
Imagine there's a book that is generally agreed to be a thousand years old. The book starts like this:
"In the beginning, there was a giant frog. Nothing existed but the giant frog, who had always existed on a plane outside of time. One day, the giant frog created an infinitesimally small point of energy and caused it to explode, birthing the universe."
Now, while it is remarkable that this thousand year old book contains a description of the origin of the universe that closely resembles our modern Big Bang theory, can we really assume, based on this limited evidence, that the book is also correct about the existence of the giant frog?
It seems like this is essentially the argument that many defenders of the Quran make. Because the Quran contains passages that would still be considered scientifically valid today, and because there is no other way people at the time could have known such things, then the Quran must also be true about Allah's existence, and everything else contained therein.
Without having studied the Quran extensively, I cannot really argue one way or another for its scientific veracity. The book may very well contain passages that are inexplicably detailed and accurate for the time in which it was written. For me to verify its accuracy would require me to learn Classical Arabic and read the whole thing, which, unfortunately, I don't see happening any time soon.
But isn't it a bit of a logical fallacy to say, "Welp, the Quran's right about embryology, must be right about Allah too." Isn't that skipping a few steps? Science doesn't travel in a straight line, after all; it leaps forward, it stalls, and sometimes it takes steps back. This was especially the case back when the scientific community was less global, lacked universal standards, and when information was more susceptible to being lost. While it's possible that the Quran is evidence of revelations granted by Allah, it's also possible that Muslim scientists were just really advanced in certain fields, but that for whatever reason this knowledge didn't get transferred to future generations. I don't think it makes sense to say, "This book is right about a few things, so it's right about everything" any more than it does to say "This book is wrong about a few things, so it's wrong about everything." Which is why I do think it's possible to find worthwhile ideas in the Quran, or the Bible, or in any holy book, and why I find the strain of atheism that loves to point out "atrocities" in these texts and label them "evil books" a bit annoying. Books can't be evil. I might not agree with certain ideas in a book, or even find them malicious, but a book is a collection of many thousands of ideas, and often many of them are valuable and worth contemplating.
__________________
 I like tea!
Post last edited by Orphic Okapi on 10.26.2013, 02:50 AM.
|
|
| 10.26.2013, 02:46 AM |
|
Roarkiller
Your Daddy-O
Registration Date: 06.03.03
Location: Home, resting...
Posts: 6077 |
|
|
Well, I have to start somewhere, so let's start with a point I'm at least somewhat familiar with: The non-alterations of the Quran.
The history of the beginnings of the Quran is well documented, so I'll be a little brief on its history and arguments:
1) The Quran was first revealed to Muhammad, who was known to be illiterate. He could neither read nor write, and although his command of Arabic was excellent due to his childhood upbringing, he was noted to have never dabbled in poetry or singing, and thus was not at all proficient in either. (He is also especially noted for being trustworthy, but that point is irrelevant here.)
2) The Arabs are famous, even today, for their impeccable memory, and the Quran have been memorised by hundreds or more to the letter (known as Hafiz) while Muhammad was still alive.
3) The deaths of many Hafiz in the wars to follow was the compelling reason for the Quran to first be put into writing in full; previously, only certain verses were written, but not the book in full. Due to Muhammad's illiteracy, it was written by his scribe, and checked throughly by several Hafizs. All other sources were then destroyed, and copies of the final compilation distributed.
4) It is to be noted that the Quran was only and will only ever be written in Arabic, and read only in Arabic, which was already written in such great literacy that any changes will be immediately noticed by any Hafiz or anyone studying Arabic literature. (Remember that Muhammad was illiterate even in poetry.)
5) Every new publication of the Quran, even to this day, is checked by a Hafiz (which in present times number in the hundreds of thousands) before publication begins to ensure its accuracy. By that logic, if any unchecked versions with changes are to exist (they do, actually), their numbers are negligible compared to the number of authenticated ones, and after including the number of Hafizs around the world, the problem is pretty much negated.
*Fun fact: I have a cousin who is a Hafiz when he was just nine. He was pretty well known a few years ago for being the youngest Imam to lead a Friday congregation and Tarawikh prayers during Ramadhan. Me though... 
6) Also, due to the large number of people reading the Quran everyday in groups or during Quran classes (search: tadaruus), the existence of errors in publication are easily weeded out. This further reduces the chances of any Quran with errors in existence today.
----------
It's veering off very far from the original topic, but I'll just put this here, and tackle one point at a time. Unlike Mush, I have no intention of breaking the wordcount limit (which I'm surprised can actually be broken by words only in the first place )
__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.
Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site
quote:
Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.
|
|
| 10.26.2013, 11:50 PM |
|
Roarkiller
Your Daddy-O
Registration Date: 06.03.03
Location: Home, resting...
Posts: 6077 |
|
|
I think, at this point, we can agree that double posting in this thread is okay due to how lengthy an argument can be 
So anyway, I decided to go back to the root cause:
quote:
I think i have understood a little bit about the perspective view of western people.
It seems most think it makes them to examine a situation from a neutral point of view.
Although i do not disagree with the practice, i think there has to be a standard that is universally accepted to define something if its right or wrong.Cause we cant accept both the view but that is what perspective view says in my opinion.And that cant solve problems.
hope that happens fast.
The assumptions and twisting of words happens thick and fast from here on, but anyway.
Let's address the original argument. Saviour disagrees that examining a view from a neutral standpoint is good practice, and that a standard of "what is right and wrong" is needed. The argument is that it is impossible to accept both views (the meaning of 'both' is in limbo here), and thus so is solving problems.
The funny thing is, this is exactly how the world generally works anyhow, even in the west. So in the first place, his initial "thought" of the perspective of the western world (which you people ought to realize by now encompass only of the USA and Europe) is already wrong.
The initial oil in the fire was presented by fen:
quote:
There are moral values in the "West" you know?
To be honest, I don't think "morals" was what Saviour was talking about at all, or at least not in the sense that we are accustomed to. In fact, I'm guessing it probably stemmed from the thread in Anime Misc about the Otaku culture and market, which as several pointed out, has little to do with morals in the first place.
In fact, his response to Arren cemented my belief on his stand as he begins to speak of business and profit.
The ball has rolled, however, so his next argument is as such:
quote:
I can not agree with this. To my viewpoint it seems there is legal values not moral values in west. Because almost all of the time where my debates stop is where a social phenomena comes into discussion.Cause most of you[if not none] can not consider social crime to be a crime.
Actually, I happen to agree very much with this point. In fact it is because that the law continually changes to fit into society's views of morality that we have this problem in the first place. I'll discuss a few as reference.
Pedophilia
One bugbear of mine is the issue of pedophilia. To be more specific, the age group, and is closely related to the problem of the age of legality (to drink, drive, charged as an adult, etc). Also about the issue of child marriages.
Like so many issues, pedophilia is a modern concept, surprisingly. The argument is should be well known to most, so I'll skip to the counter rebuttal.
1) Anyone below 18 is judged to not have the proper mindset to make decisions. I find this horrifyingly incredulous. If so, what does that make our ancestors? How then did society progress this far? In fact I argue that it is the education system, as well as society's bad habit of treating a kid as a kid (i.e. immature) that cause the late maturity of youths today.
Someone who is "only" 17 is no more mature than one who just turned 18. In the end, it's just a number to make it easier for lawmakers. Anyone with half a brain ought to know that everyone matures differently, and turning 18 doesn't make them any less immature.
2) The definition of underaged in relation to marriage. This is just plain dumb. For one thing, marriage =/= sex.
Secondly, the age gap is a non-issue. Nobody cried foul at Heffner, now in his 90s, marrying a girl in her 20s. Look at Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher. This argument is too hypocritical to be taken seriously.
3) The definition of underaged in relation to sex. This mirrors point one a LOT. Also, biologically, a girl is ready for pregnancy when she has her first period. Obviously there are outliers, like those below the age of 12, but otherwise it is simply ridiculous to suggest that a girl is not biologically ready for pregnancy at the age of, say, 16. Small bodies are equally a non-issue; dwarves give birth just fine.
My stand on this is with biology. As long as the girl has had her period, she's a woman. Psychological factors are another issue, but biology at least has my backing.
Homosexuality
Personally, I feel that this issue has too much in common with pedophilia, but whatever.
Homosexuality, until recently was regarded as a mental issue. Why did it change? Because people are more open to the idea. The history of the change in laws mirrors racism as we all know it, although I beg to differ (opinionated).
The issue of gay marriage, I believe, is an overblown and overhyped issue. In the strictest manner, marriage only appears within a cultural or religious sense. As capitalism and atheism becomes more prominent in the modern world, the very point of marriage is becoming solely legal and emotional.
So if a gay couple is not religious (because every major religion bans gay marriages anyway), then the only stumbling block is in the legal sense. Which is really a non-issue in my opinion; I mean seriously, who gives a damn if the government doesn't recognize your marriage?
Some Mormon and Muslim societies, for example, practice polygamy in states or countries that outlaw them, but that doesn't stop it from actually happening. It's just not recognized legally, and that only goes as far as custody and inheritance issues. Both, in fact, are becoming even less an issue where even non-married (and non-gay) couples are involved in custody and inheritance issues even without being married to each other.
And yet countries and some US states are legalising/battling gay marriages as if it was an actual concern. If you ask me, as long as it's not ILLEGAL, I don't see why something has to be made legal; if it's not illegal, then obviously it's already legal, even if it's not recognized.
I can only think of these two points, sorry, but if there's something I should have mentioned, please do tell.
In any case, this one statement is, well, plain weird:
quote:
Our laws are generally moral laws. They stem originally from the bible (specifically the new testament, not the old) as does almost all of western culture. Its society is built on a set of morally strong rules that abhor harming others, theft of property, and promote protection for the weak and basic rights.
Which as we all know is entirely untrue. Although the original basis of laws may be as so, they haven't really been applied. Obvious cases include (past and present) rascist laws, gay laws, women's rights laws, religious laws, adultery laws (or the lack thereof), the banking system, the insurance system, and of course who can forget the Snowden case.
----------
I'll stop here, because I'm pretty sure I've said some ridiculous things in this post that will even make me wonder why I said them, so I'll let someone else in now.
__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.
Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site
quote:
Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.
|
|
| 10.27.2013, 01:07 AM |
|
Orphic Okapi
Baron
Registration Date: 04.08.07
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 1335 |
|
|
Whoa, Roar, you might want to take a few steps back.
quote:
Originally posted by Roarkiller
1) Anyone below 18 is judged to not have the proper mindset to make decisions. I find this horrifyingly incredulous. If so, what does that make our ancestors? How then did society progress this far? In fact I argue that it is the education system, as well as society's bad habit of treating a kid as a kid (i.e. immature) that cause the late maturity of youths today.
Actually, the brain is not fully developed until a person is well into their twenties. The frontal lobe, which governs a lot of higher decision-making functions, is only partially connected in teenage brains. So there is scientific justification for treating teenagers as not fully mature. In most cases, they simply do not have the same reasoning capability as adults. I would agree that treating teenagers like they are incapable of making any decisions for themselves exacerbates the problem, but that doesn't mean we should treat them exactly as we would people in their twenties and thirties.
And while I agree that age-based laws are pretty arbitrary when everyone matures at a different rate, I'm not sure I can come up with a feasible alternative to them that wouldn't leave kids wide open to various forms of exploitation.
quote:
2) The definition of underaged in relation to marriage. This is just plain dumb. For one thing, marriage =/= sex.
Um, what are you advocating for here exactly? It sounds like you'd be cool with a world where adult males are allowed to marry twelve-year-old girls because "marriage doesn't always mean sex." But what if some of those adult guys decided that marriage did mean sex, regardless of what their twelve-year-old wives thought, and we ended up with tons of girls trapped in abusive marriages, too young to fight back or to know where to look for help. Oh wait, that actually happens.
quote:
Secondly, the age gap is a non-issue. Nobody cried foul at Heffner, now in his 90s, marrying a girl in her 20s. Look at Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher. This argument is too hypocritical to be taken seriously.
They're all adults. You're talking about kids. And, uh, I'm pretty sure plenty of people disapprove of Heffner's marriages. At least, very few people take them seriously.
quote:
3) The definition of underaged in relation to sex. This mirrors point one a LOT. Also, biologically, a girl is ready for pregnancy when she has her first period. Obviously there are outliers, like those below the age of 12, but otherwise it is simply ridiculous to suggest that a girl is not biologically ready for pregnancy at the age of, say, 16. Small bodies are equally a non-issue; dwarves give birth just fine.
My stand on this is with biology. As long as the girl has had her period, she's a woman. Psychological factors are another issue, but biology at least has my backing.
As recently as the 1850s, most girls did not have their first period until they were around 17 or 18 years old. Boys similarly went through puberty at a much later age. The reason for this shift in the onset of puberty is up for debate, but the fact is that until very recently in human history, girls were not having kids at thirteen. Getting married, sure, but not giving birth. Bearing a child as a young teenager comes with a host of complications, because the body is simply not ready for it. Almost all children born to mothers in their early teens are delivered by Caesarean section.
From the above article about child marriages:
"In early marriage and pregnancy, at ages 10 through 14, there are five times more deaths, for mothers and also for infants, compared to women aged 20-24."
quote:
Homosexuality
Personally, I feel that this issue has too much in common with pedophilia, but whatever.
Because, as we all know, both take place between consenting adults, right?
quote:
Homosexuality, until recently was regarded as a mental issue. Why did it change? Because people are more open to the idea. The history of the change in laws mirrors racism as we all know it, although I beg to differ (opinionated).
Homosexuality has been regarded in a lot of different ways throughout history. To say it's always been viewed as a "mental issue" displays a very limited understanding of the subject, especially considering the discipline of psychiatry is only about a hundred years old. For a period of seventy-ish years in the Western world, yes, homosexuality was classified as a mental illness. But even throughout that time there was plenty of dispute; Sigmund Freud, for example, thought all people were naturally bisexual (not that I'm endorsing anything Sigmund Freud said, dude was bonkers).
The point is, there have been thousands of different perspectives on same-sex behavior. Throughout most of European history it was seen as just that: behavior, not an identity. "Sodomy" was a thing you did; there was no "being gay" attached to it. In some societies, you were only considered weird if you were the receiver, because it was seen as unnatural to take "the woman's role" in sex. As long as you were always the giver, you were just being a normal guy!
quote:
The issue of gay marriage, I believe, is an overblown and overhyped issue. In the strictest manner, marriage only appears within a cultural or religious sense. As capitalism and atheism becomes more prominent in the modern world, the very point of marriage is becoming solely legal and emotional.
So if a gay couple is not religious (because every major religion bans gay marriages anyway), then the only stumbling block is in the legal sense. Which is really a non-issue in my opinion; I mean seriously, who gives a damn if the government doesn't recognize your marriage?
Maybe couples who are denied the opportunity to adopt children? Or people who are not allowed to visit their significant others in the hospital, because they are not legally related? Or couples who would like to receive the same tax breaks and benefits that are granted married couples?
__________________
I like tea!
Post last edited by Orphic Okapi on 10.27.2013, 06:06 AM.
|
|
| 10.27.2013, 05:34 AM |
|
Saddletank
Miyazaki's Best Friend
Registration Date: 09.28.06
Location: On your case
Posts: 10069 |
|
|
I believe the Greeks had a phrase "women are for child-bearing, men are for pleasure". Males took their sexual pleasure with other males while their wives ran the household and raised their children.
About the section you quoted of mine Roar, about western laws being dervived from the New Testament. What I said was completely correct and true, our laws are generally based on the teachings of Jesus.
During the centuries after "A.D." of course men did things that were not good and not to be proud of, just like they have done things throughout history such as steal, kill, own slaves and so on. These events don't change the fact that the basic structure of western law does come from the New Testament.
I am not sure why you class the banking system and the insurance system in there along with other unsavoury practices.
Its interesting though that the concept of what is right and wrong can be fluid over time and between cultures. I think there are some areas where everyone who is mature and not a sociopath can agree there is a line, such as murder, rape, theft.
That isn't to say that lots of people do not do these things and enjoy them but I think that with enough self-examination those people would know they were doing wrong.
In terms of "the west" in the context of this discussion I would include all of north America, all Europe, parts of Europeanised south America such as Brazil and Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, much of the former Soviet Union, but particularly Belorussia, Ukraine, Russia and isolated places where former colonial powers have left influences behind them.
__________________
Isakaya High School Roleplaying Info
"An old man like me stands no chance fighting against a high school girl in her underwear" - Oshino Meme, Nekomonogatari (Kuro)
|
|
| 10.27.2013, 11:13 AM |
|
Mush
Baron
Registration Date: 07.30.07
Location: South of Canada
Posts: 1810 |
|
|
Saddles -- you would classify Russia and Belarus as part of "the West"? I think there's a lot of those areas that I wouldn't classify as even remotely Western. It makes me realize that a better term is badly needed than one as broad and vaguely geographic as "the West".
Roar -- on the contrary, I know several religious homosexuals, and have been to religious gay marriages. They work pretty much the same way as religious straight marriages. Not all religions forbid homosexuality, and among those that do, there are sects that are open and welcoming of it. The importance of recognition by the government is twofold; first, on a practical level, in most areas there are many tax and legal benefits that accompany marriage, such as immigration and inheritance. Secondly, as a matter of principle, most homosexual couples just prefer that their government recognize their union identically to one between a heterosexual couple.
When you are referring to the age of 18, do you mean the age of consent? That varies widely from country to country. For example, in Canada it's 16, and before 2008 the age of consent was 14.
__________________
Post last edited by Mush on 10.27.2013, 02:29 PM.
|
|
| 10.27.2013, 02:28 PM |
|
Saddletank
Miyazaki's Best Friend
Registration Date: 09.28.06
Location: On your case
Posts: 10069 |
|
|
I'd certainly say that Great Russia Or "White Russia" was westernized, yes - or has western values. It has industry, technology, (Orthodox) Catholicism, severe capitalism now the wall is down.
I realise there are areas of the Ukraine and Belarus that are still deeply rural and poverty stricken but then large swathes of communities in the USA fall into that category.
I know that less than a century ago Russia was still a feudal society but I think it has changed rapidly and greatly under communism and even more rapidly and profoundly since 1989. While for much of the last century it was closed off from the west, it maintained technology and industrial ability at almost the same pace. There's deep cultural differences and much social inertia among many of the ethnically disparate communities that make up western Russia or European Russia but I would call it "western" now, in 2013, more so than it is anything else.
__________________
Isakaya High School Roleplaying Info
"An old man like me stands no chance fighting against a high school girl in her underwear" - Oshino Meme, Nekomonogatari (Kuro)
|
|
| 10.27.2013, 04:28 PM |
|
Roarkiller
Your Daddy-O
Registration Date: 06.03.03
Location: Home, resting...
Posts: 6077 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Orphic Okapi
Whoa, Roar, you might want to take a few steps back.
No, actually, this is where Mush's argument on axioms come into play. I was brought up with Asian values, plus being almost entirely left-brained, leads to my almost purely logical arguments from the viewpoint of one whose society is more hung up about how early (or late) you get married.
The maturity of a brain's frontal lobe, I am aware of the study. To say it directly links to person's maturity, though, I highly disagree. It is a big jump from decision-making ability to maturity. Also, experience plays a large part,me thinks.
I wasn't aware that a girl's puberty averages at 17-18 until 1850's; in fact, I argue that it's simply impossible for the average age of puberty to suddenly change, and worldwide at that. Particularly since girls HAVE been giving birth as early as fifteen that early (history of Japan, India and the Malay archipelago at least have proven that), even if uncommon.
But if that's true... well, meh. Doesn't change my argument about puberty and pedophilia though, does it?
quote:
Um, what are you advocating for here exactly? It sounds like you'd be cool with a world where adult males are allowed to marry twelve-year-old girls because "marriage doesn't always mean sex." But what if some of those adult guys decided that marriage did mean sex, regardless of what their twelve-year-old wives thought, and we ended up with tons of girls trapped in abusive marriages, too young to fight back or to know where to look for help. Oh wait, that actually happens.
Entirely aware of that. Doesn't change that marriage =/= sex. I'm not talking about a person's intentions for marriage, or what happens after marriage. I'm talking about marriage itself, as a standalone factor.
Also, the age gap IS an issue. Mainly because I'm referring to girls in their teens, even when 18, getting married to guys twice their age.
Also, the level of backlash between Heffner's and Demi Moore's marriages are nothing compared to that of, say, that teacher planning to marry a girl who was 18 (was in the news last year I think). Him being a teacher was less of an issue than the age of the girl; even though she was 18, their age gap was somehow a crime.
Also, the issue of them being kids is, in my opinion, another non-issue. These "kids" grow up, don't they? Divorce is an option, isn't it? Unless it's a forced marriage, for which I entirely support your argument, I don't see a problem.
As I said, we need to stop treating kids like kids. They can be just as responsible as adults.
quote:
Because, as we all know, both take place between consenting adults, right?
At least you got the consenting part right. Last I checked, there are youths just as clueless as babies. Once again, all about education.
quote:
Homosexuality has been regarded in a lot of different ways throughout history.
So were marrying young and having sex young. Your point?
quote:
Maybe couples who are denied the opportunity to adopt children? Or people who are not allowed to visit their significant others in the hospital, because they are not legally related? Or couples who would like to receive the same tax breaks and benefits that are granted married couples?
1) Noted. Strangely, you can still be a legal guardian without getting married.
2) Uhh... I'm not aware of any hospital that has this rule as a hard rule. It's usually just so that hordes of people don't disturb a recovering patient, and has nothing to do with actual family ties in the first place.
3) And this goes back to my argument of marriage being only for legal purposes. You know, this kind of argument creates a lot of legal loopholes for anyone looking for such benefits?
quote:
on the contrary, I know several religious homosexuals, and have been to religious gay marriages.
Hence my specifically saying MAJOR religion. I'm not interested in arguing about the hypocrisy of claiming to be religious yet clearly going against the ban of gay relationships in your own religion, because I can easily push to you the cases of the pedophile priests.
I do mean the age of consent, amongst other age of drinking/driving/etc, and yes, that ever-changing age is precisely my point. Imagine this: in country A, you're deemed immature and juvenile, but in country B, you're suddenly an adult who is "responsible for their actions"? Tell me you don't find this line of argument on maturity to be a joke.
----------
From saddle's post:
quote:
I am not sure why you class the banking system and the insurance system in there along with other unsavoury practices.
This one's VERY off-topic, but I discovered this video series about the history of currency, and it if it's all true, then it really answers all my past questions on finance: namely, where do the value of a country's currency come from anyway, since it's just printed paper/metal?
My main interest is the existence of interest (yeah I know that phrase sounds wacky), stemming from Islam's ban on taking interest. Islamic banks, if you do some research, don't have the concept of interest.
__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.
Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site
quote:
Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.
|
|
| 10.28.2013, 10:17 AM |
|
Saddletank
Miyazaki's Best Friend
Registration Date: 09.28.06
Location: On your case
Posts: 10069 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roarkiller Islamic banks, if you do some research, don't have the concept of interest.
This is a result of religious law having precedence over secular law in Islamic countries. In the west religious law and secular law were disconnected a long time ago, in Britain by Henry VIII.
__________________
Isakaya High School Roleplaying Info
"An old man like me stands no chance fighting against a high school girl in her underwear" - Oshino Meme, Nekomonogatari (Kuro)
|
|
| 10.28.2013, 01:20 PM |
|
Mush
Baron
Registration Date: 07.30.07
Location: South of Canada
Posts: 1810 |
|
|
Roar, thanks for clarifying the history of how the Qur'an has been preserved. Between your and Saviours' accounts, I'm fully willing to accept that its current incarnation is without a doubt unaltered. I still have much more to say about this question though, but I don't want to race ahead without Saviour.
In the meantime (this might not really seem relevant), but Roar, how old do you believe the universe is?
I'm not intending to start a discussion about the age of the universe, so I'll accept any answer without protest. I just am looking to find out whether or not it's a point of contention; if it isn't, then I will be able to reference it in a later train of thought without it becoming a distraction. If we don't agree on the age of the universe, then I will avoid referencing it later.
(For fairness, my personal belief is that it's between 13 and 15 billion years old).
With regards to puberty, I admit I hadn't heard of that sudden shift, and I have no idea whether it's real or not or what the research says. But it's not inconceivable that it's true. If it's not universal, then it could be easily attributed to dietary changes; across much of the world, diets have changed dramatically even on a decade-by-decade basis. Many foods that were consumed only regionally are now consumed globally (such as soy and corn). Foods like soy can have a strong influence on hormones, especially with estrogen-like compounds. Beyond hormones, nutritional improvements have certainly lead to significant increases in average height worldwide, and that could also be behind such a shift. Aside from diet, environmental pollution via compounds like BPA, among others, can mimic hormones. The 1850s seems a little early for industrial chemistry to have taken effect globally, though, so I would be skeptical about that hypothesis, depending on which areas recorded changes in the onset of puberty.
Not saying it's necessarily true one way or the other, just speculating as to why it might not be impossible...
__________________
Post last edited by Mush on 10.29.2013, 12:11 AM.
|
|
| 10.29.2013, 12:03 AM |
|
Roarkiller
Your Daddy-O
Registration Date: 06.03.03
Location: Home, resting...
Posts: 6077 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mush
In the meantime (this might not really seem relevant), but Roar, how old do you believe the universe is?
Honestly? No idea.
The problem with literally every theory out there is the lack of ability to explain one very fundamental problem: conservation of matter and energy. The theory that is closest to answering this is the theory that the Big Bang is one of many (i.e. the universe blows up, contracts, blows up, contracts...)
The theory of anti-matter is plausible, but not without its problems. Similarly, one of the more recent experiments of the creation of protons (I think) in a particle accelerator. The problem is this: all of the above were created with the introduction of an initial catalyst, without which neither could be created.
Which brings us back full circle to where such a catalyst came from, so... yeah.
Within the context of Islam, by the way, the world was created in six "yaum", which can be translated as days, but is more accurately translated as periods. That is to say, the world was created in six periods. What these "periods" are is anyone's guess. It could be in terms of billions of years, or the stages of the universe's creation, or even, in the case of my earlier stated theory, the cycles of Big Bangs.
As you can guess, astrophysics isn't my forte Just bits and pieces from science magazines, internet news, and random sources like that.
__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.
Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site
quote:
Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.
|
|
| 10.29.2013, 09:29 AM |
|
Orphic Okapi
Baron
Registration Date: 04.08.07
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 1335 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roarkiller
I wasn't aware that a girl's puberty averages at 17-18 until 1850's; in fact, I argue that it's simply impossible for the average age of puberty to suddenly change, and worldwide at that. Particularly since girls HAVE been giving birth as early as fifteen that early (history of Japan, India and the Malay archipelago at least have proven that), even if uncommon.
But if that's true... well, meh. Doesn't change my argument about puberty and pedophilia though, does it?
First of all, not impossible for the average age of puberty to change; most scientists think it's the result of modern diets having more protein. So it's not like early puberty just suddenly and magically spread throughout the globe; more likely the change spread with industrialization and such things.
Buuuut, that doesn't really matter, because I'm not exactly sure what your argument is in regards to puberty and pedophilia. Could you clarify that a bit? First maybe we should define our terms: "pedophilia," as I understand it, refers to a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Really, it has nothing to do with adolescents getting married. It seems like what you are arguing is that adolescents should be able to get married, even to people much older than themselves. Personally I see that as being an issue totally separate from pedophilia, although maybe you agree, and are arguing that it should not be referred to as such?
In which case, sure. I would not label a thirty-year-old man marrying a fourteen-year-old girl a pedophile. I still wouldn't approve of his marriage, though.
quote:
Entirely aware of that. Doesn't change that marriage =/= sex. I'm not talking about a person's intentions for marriage, or what happens after marriage. I'm talking about marriage itself, as a standalone factor.
I don't think you can really do that. Or, well, you can, but then your argument becomes so abstract as to be almost meaningless. What's the point of this discussion if we aren't going to talk about the real world consequences of letting kids get married? Let me lay it out for you: if you let kids get married to adults, you are sanctioning the rape and abuse of a bunch of kids. I'm not saying every kid who got married would experience abuse, but it would absolutely happen, and you don't really seem to be thinking about how it would be prevented. I'm not interested in arguing about what marriage "means" because it means whatever a particular society wants it to mean. And usually a society's formal definition of marriage has little bearing on what actually goes on in a marriage anyway.
I mean, is it really so hard to imagine creepy adults pressuring and/or tempting little kids into getting married? You're cool with that, are you?
quote:
Also, the level of backlash between Heffner's and Demi Moore's marriages are nothing compared to that of, say, that teacher planning to marry a girl who was 18 (was in the news last year I think). Him being a teacher was less of an issue than the age of the girl; even though she was 18, their age gap was somehow a crime.
I would need to read the story, but I don't think the age gap was the issue. It was probably that (1) he was a teacher, and (2) the girl was formerly or currently his student. In many cases there are laws against teachers being sexually involved with students. If there was any controversy, I assume it was over whether or not they had begun the relationship when he was her teacher.
Otherwise, 18-year-olds get married to older men all the time and no one bats an eyelash.
quote:
Also, the issue of them being kids is, in my opinion, another non-issue. These "kids" grow up, don't they? Divorce is an option, isn't it? Unless it's a forced marriage, for which I entirely support your argument, I don't see a problem.
Really, Roar? You really see no problem with letting an impressionable child be manipulated into marriage and probably sexually abused for years, because eventually they'll grow up and figure out they can get a divorce? Well, that's one way to grow up fast, kids!
Do you have any idea how difficult it is for adults to go through a divorce? It's widely agreed to be one of the most emotionally fraught life experiences there is, right behind having a spouse die. Tons of adults remain in loveless marriages because they cannot face the prospect of divorce. And you're expecting kids to (1) have the awareness to understand that the marriage is not working, (2) have the self-confidence to initiate the divorce, and (3) have the ability to navigate the ensuing legal battle.
quote:
As I said, we need to stop treating kids like kids. They can be just as responsible as adults.
If the kids you know are fully capable of handling all the above, I would like to meet them!
quote:
quote:
Homosexuality has been regarded in a lot of different ways throughout history.
So were marrying young and having sex young. Your point?
You worded your argument as though homosexuality had been regarded throughout history in one way, and that had only recently changed, which is blatantly false. But I think we can agree now: historically, there have been thousands of varying perspectives on marriage and sexuality in general, just as there have been thousands of varying perspectives on homosexuality. I don't think looking to history will help us in this debate.
All of this leads me to wonder: if you are supporting the rights of children to marry, why aren't you supporting the legalization of gay marriage? Couldn't your entire argument against legalization be rephrased to argue against legalizing child marriages? Let's give it a shot:
"Some Mormon and Muslim societies, for example, practice child marriages in states or countries that outlaw them, but that doesn't stop it from actually happening. It's just not recognized legally, and that only goes as far as custody and inheritance issues.
And yet countries are battling child marriages as if it was an actual concern. If you ask me, as long as it's not ILLEGAL, I don't see why something has to be made legal; if it's not illegal, then obviously it's already legal, even if it's not recognized."
So what's the big deal with not letting twelve-year-olds get married to adults? They can still get away with it, it's just not recognized legally.
quote:
1) Noted. Strangely, you can still be a legal guardian without getting married.
Recommended reading.
quote:
2) Uhh... I'm not aware of any hospital that has this rule as a hard rule. It's usually just so that hordes of people don't disturb a recovering patient, and has nothing to do with actual family ties in the first place.
Further recommended reading.
quote:
3) And this goes back to my argument of marriage being only for legal purposes. You know, this kind of argument creates a lot of legal loopholes for anyone looking for such benefits?
Oh, come now. This isn't even an argument. What loopholes, and who's going to get married to exploit them? And if they want to get married to exploit them, why should they be stopped? It's not like we would prevent a male and female friend from marrying each other because they just want a tax break and aren't really in love. Why should we try so hard to stop two men, or two women, from doing the same thing?
__________________
I like tea!
Post last edited by Orphic Okapi on 10.29.2013, 10:56 AM.
|
|
| 10.29.2013, 10:30 AM |
|
Roarkiller
Your Daddy-O
Registration Date: 06.03.03
Location: Home, resting...
Posts: 6077 |
|
|
My post disappeared and I didn't even notice. And it was kinda long and I don't have the energy to rethink everything again.
Bah. Humbug.
__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.
Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site
quote:
Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.
|
|
| 11.02.2013, 08:17 AM |
|
Mush
Baron
Registration Date: 07.30.07
Location: South of Canada
Posts: 1810 |
|
|
That's really unfortunate. 
__________________
|
|
| 11.02.2013, 11:01 AM |
|
Roarkiller
Your Daddy-O
Registration Date: 06.03.03
Location: Home, resting...
Posts: 6077 |
|
|
Well, they say you can't miss what never was, so... Anyway, I guess it's a new record for a debate like this to end within a page (excluding the original).
But just for the record, a summation of my points are as follows:
1) Axiom on child marriages. Orphic is of the assumption that abused wives is a global widespread problem, while I argue that this is merely an assumption with no real facts or statistics behind it, especially considering historical records of such marriages.
2) Axiom on being underage vs maturity. Orphic's argument is that most kids are too immature and/or lack the ability to make sound decisions, while my argument is that the problem is due to society's treatment of the underaged (and can be fixed by proper education), and that many of these "underaged" are far more mature than we give them credit for.
3) Topic on gay marriage. My argument is that unrecognized =/= illegal, and that the purpose of having it legalized is purely either for legal or selfish gratification. Oddly, Orphic's "counter arguments" are exactly what I was arguing for: that even child marriages are equally not illegal, and that legal roadblocks are the reason why there's a battle for gay marriage legalization.
__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.
Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site
quote:
Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.
|
|
| 11.02.2013, 12:17 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Online Ghibli
Ghibli Tavern is powered by WoltLab, hosted by Teragon Networks
|
|
