Moral objection to evolution!

[vaguelyhumanoid]

What about weirder languages, like mathematics, musical notation or binary?

Those aren't languages.

 

[Jro]

Those aren't languages.

Maybe I'm revealing my own ignorance of linguistics here, but why not? I've colloquially heard them referred to as languages quite a lot, but is there some quality of language that they're missing?

Edit: What about programming languages? Would those qualify?

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Look up "linguistic universals".

 

[Tiberius]

Unless it can say, "I'll meet you at lunchtime at the cafe, you bring the bananas", it's not a language.

 

[dewaddict84]

Edit: What about programming languages? Would those qualify?

No. They can instruct a computer, but they can't schedule lunch. At least not without using another language, like English.

Here, I'll do you one more. What you want is impossible due to the fundamental nature of communication. Everyone will forever have a slightly different meaning attached to words.

 

[Woden84]

15 pages and it seems to me that the most interesting point was just completely ignored.

Here's the ironic thing; atheists who understand evolution and evolution in the context of animals that function in groups as humans do, are well equipped to make evaluate ethics, and at the very least can choose between selfish and socially responsible behaviour.


Christian fundamentalists generally back the elephant and actually believe economic behaviour should be on the basis of free competition. That is, they favour bringing the law of the jungle into human society.


The Christian Fundamentalists are far more 'Darwinian' than true evolutionists are.

Put simply, someone with an American Republican allegiance believes in cut-throat competition in economics, taking the very worst in evolution and then forcing people to do it. An American Republican is being hypocritical to claim evolution is morally objectionable.

If you are a Reaganist as most Republicans are (correct me if I am wrong) you are bound to trust in trickle down economic theory.

The theory is basically that the rich will eventually pass their money to the poor in the form of jobs. Factually and historically speaking, this form of capitalism in favor of the poor never came to pass in the Reagan OR the Bush era.

I can say without a doubt many poor and homeless died because of this theory of Reaganomics. These people died and starved literally to death while people of capitalistic nature feasted upon those who could afford their products.

If you are to say Evolution is the killing force of morality based on those less fortunate, perhaps you are on the wrong side of the playing field.

Point out any one person who understands Natural Evolution who is also on the side of Social Darwinism. Hint: you won't.

We (scientists) understand nature and how it picks only the strongest of it's offspring. That does not mean we want to "off" autistic kids. Maybe it is you (the people) who need to prioritize a little bit more on the humanistic side. Just sayin.

-Gankutsuou

How can anyone decry evolution as "immoral", and then turn right around and say we should base our economic system off survival of the richest? Cognitive dissonance much?

I would be really interested to see the pretzel logic behind this kind of thinking.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

1. Republicans do not advocate the free market, they advocate privilege for the rich.
2. The free market is not oligarchical or plutocratic. The voluntary exchange of goods and services, aka the free market, is a profoundly egalitarian form of social organization. When all legal privileges for corporations are eliminated, along with all centralized control of the economy, the capitalist system as we know it will be no more.

 

[mzungu]

1. Republicans do not advocate the free market, they advocate privilege for the rich.
2. The free market is not oligarchical or plutocratic. The voluntary exchange of goods and services, aka the free market, is a profoundly egalitarian form of social organization. When all legal privileges for corporations are eliminated, along with all centralized control of the economy, the capitalist system as we know it will be no more.

Free market is basically an uncontrolled market. The state has no say with the exception of the courts of law on matters concerning contracts.

This is a recipe for GREED unleashed upon the public. Without State intervention the markets are free to create CARTELS that will hike prices and there is nothing the state can do about it. Globalisation is basically the dream of Free Marketeers. This is Capitalism gone haywire!

Capitalism on the other hand (at least in theory) does not allow for monopolies to exist and allows the State to intervene on behalf of the public good.

In a free market system; Airlines will be free to conduct their business as they wish without regard to safety since the total lack of state regulation will undoubtedly result in such companies cutting corners when it comes to safety. A good example of this is Air Alaska when deregulation was the sole blame for fatal accidents. The company took advantage of deregulation and started cutting corners in order to maximise profits.

If you want 100% capitalism with 100% Cartel philosophy then Free market is your bet. Free Market is basically the most cruel and greed infested system ever devised by man.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Free market is basically an uncontrolled market. The state has no say with the exception of the courts of law on matters concerning contracts.

This is a recipe for GREED unleashed upon the public. Without State intervention the markets are free to create CARTELS that will hike prices and there is nothing the state can do about it. Globalisation is basically the dream of Free Marketeers. This is Capitalism gone haywire!

Capitalism on the other hand (at least in theory) does not allow for monopolies to exist and allows the State to intervene on behalf of the public good.

In a free market system; Airlines will be free to conduct their business as they wish without regard to safety since the total lack of state regulation will undoubtedly result in such companies cutting corners when it comes to safety. A good example of this is Air Alaska when deregulation was the sole blame for fatal accidents. The company took advantage of deregulation and started cutting corners in order to maximise profits.

If you want 100% capitalism with 100% Cartel philosophy then Free market is your bet. Free Market is basically the most cruel and greed infested system ever devised by man.

1. I'm an anarchist. I don't want a state.
2. Cartels are very hard to maintain within a free market system, since there are no barriers to entry preventing new companies from starting up.
3. Cutting corners when it comes to safety isn't good for business.
4. I'm not a capitalist, I'm a mutualist. I believe in an occupancy-and-use or posession-based conception of property leading to worker's self-management in a stateless society with a market economy.

 

[Paulos23]

1. I'm an anarchist. I don't want a state.

I will address this at the end.

2. Cartels are very hard to maintain within a free market system, since there are no barriers to entry preventing new companies from starting up.

Cartels have more power then a new company and can quickly squash it. Look at American history.

3. Cutting corners when it comes to safety isn't good for business.

It is if the company can cover up the problems. And they can claim they are safe by just having a few while leaving out the more expense ones. Companies wont do expensive safety measures unless they are run by good people or are regulated to.

4. I'm not a capitalist, I'm a mutualist. I believe in an occupancy-and-use or posession-based conception of property leading to worker's self-management in a stateless society with a market economy.

Which is a good idea in theory, but in practice it leads to people grabbing all they can, people grouping up to protect their property, and then you get government all over again to protect people.

I am not saying having government is perfect, it does overreach eventually, but without government the best in people will become overwhelmed by the worst in people. With government (or some other agency) regulating what business can and can't do you can get a fairer and more balanced market where the little guy can start up and not get bullied out of business by the big companies.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Unless it can say, "I'll meet you at lunchtime at the cafe, you bring the bananas", it's not a language.

I daresay only modern English is capable of that.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

I will address this at the end.



Cartels have more power then a new company and can quickly squash it. Look at American history.



It is if the company can cover up the problems. And they can claim they are safe by just having a few while leaving out the more expense ones. Companies wont do expensive safety measures unless they are run by good people or are regulated to.



Which is a good idea in theory, but in practice it leads to people grabbing all they can, people grouping up to protect their property, and then you get government all over again to protect people.

I am not saying having government is perfect, it does overreach eventually, but without government the best in people will become overwhelmed by the worst in people. With government (or some other agency) regulating what business can and can't do you can get a fairer and more balanced market where the little guy can start up and not get bullied out of business by the big companies.

1. At no point in American history was there a free market. If you mean the 1800s, there were significant privileges such as legal tender laws, corporate subsidies, tariffs, patents, taxes, and war contracting that wouldn't exist in a free market.
2. Fraud is even worse for business, and would be strongly discouraged through a sort of common law.
3. There would be no permanent property.
4. How would protection agencies lead to the establishment of a monopoly on force?
5. Big companies exist because of state intervention. Without any sort of legal privileges for big businesses or state-created barriers to entry, where would all this income inequality come from?

 

[mzungu]

1. I'm an anarchist. I don't want a state.
2. Cartels are very hard to maintain within a free market system, since there are no barriers to entry preventing new companies from starting up.
3. Cutting corners when it comes to safety isn't good for business.
4. I'm not a capitalist, I'm a mutualist. I believe in an occupancy-and-use or posession-based conception of property leading to worker's self-management in a stateless society with a market economy.

Really? Well I wonder where you as a start up company will turn to for help when the established cartel mega corporation aims at putting you out of business if not for a government regulatory body?

Try to start a small competing company and you will be squashed like a bug!

Free Market is nothing more than Greed at its greatest!

 

[Tiberius]

I daresay only modern English is capable of that.

You know perfectly well what I mean. Italian, Mandarin, French, most modern languages can communicate that information.

I'm sure even the aztecs were capable of saying, "I'll meet you in the middle of the day near the big rock by the stream. You can bring the fruits."

But DNA can't say it.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Really? Well I wonder where you as a start up company will turn to for help when the established cartel mega corporation aims at putting you out of business if not for a government regulatory body?

Try to start a small competing company and you will be squashed like a bug!

Free Market is nothing more than Greed at its greatest!

That's based on the faulty assumption that we live in a free market. We don't. Through government intervention on behalf of the rich, such as intellectual property, limited liability, subsidies, corporate personhood, legal tender laws, the Fed, zoning laws, artificial land scarcity, and border controls, our economy is skewed towards corporate power. Voluntary human interaction is the solution, not the problem.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

I daresay only modern English is capable of that.

You clearly know nothing of linguistics...

 

[SithDoughnut]

You know perfectly well what I mean. Italian, Mandarin, French, most modern languages can communicate that information.

I'm sure even the aztecs were capable of saying, "I'll meet you in the middle of the day near the big rock by the stream. You can bring the fruits."

But DNA can't say it.

Languages are merely ways of conveying information. Are you saying that you have to be able to make plans in a language for it to actually be considered one?

I am in Japan, speaking a language which involves concepts that I cannot describe in English (generally involving certain situational feelings for which no English equivalent exists). So if Japanese can describe these, but English can't, does that mean that English is not a language?

 

[mzungu]

Languages are merely ways of conveying information. Are you saying that you have to be able to make plans in a language for it to actually be considered one?

I am in Japan, speaking a language which involves concepts that I cannot describe in English (generally involving certain situational feelings for which no English equivalent exists). So if Japanese can describe these, but English can't, does that mean that English is not a language?

The differences between Japanese and English are like a Metric bolt compared to an Imperial bolt; Both are fasteners, have the same intended use but are in a few areas incompatible. Both bolts will work fine if used to fasten two plates through non threaded through holes but if the holes are threaded then each bolt must coincide with its equivalent thread size and type.

It matters not that in one language an aeroplane is called a bird while in another it may be called sky flyer. The meaning is the same when the person understands the particular language or words.

You are reading this post which is written in English while the PC portraying the text understands only the on or off binary code required for its function.

Language is communication and communication comes in many different forms. I may not be able to directly use mathematics to convey the bring the fruit conversation but it is mathematics that is making it possible for us to have this debate in the first place without having to meet face to face!

 

[SithDoughnut]

The differences between Japanese and English are like a Metric bolt compared to an Imperial bolt; Both are fasteners, have the same intended use but are in a few areas incompatible. Both bolts will work fine if used to fasten two plates through non threaded through holes but if the holes are threaded then each bolt must coincide with its equivalent thread size and type.

Sort of. I'd go with a buttons vs zipper analogy myself. Entire sections of the Japanese language have no English equivalent.

It matters not that in one language an aeroplane is called a bird while in another it may be called sky flyer. The meaning is the same when the person understands the particular language or words.

You are reading this post which is written in English while the PC portraying the text understands only the on or off binary code required for its function.

Language is communication and communication comes in many different forms. I may not be able to directly use mathematics to convey the bring the fruit conversation but it is mathematics that is making it possible for us to have this debate in the first place without having to meet face to face!

I agree. But would you say that there is a specific amount of information (in terms of variety) that something must be able to cover before it can be considered a language, or can a language be specific?

I know I'm massively derailing the thread, but discussion on evolution gets repetitive fast, at least around here.

 

[mzungu]

Sort of. I'd go with a buttons vs zipper analogy myself. Entire sections of the Japanese language have no English equivalent.



I agree. But would you say that there is a specific amount of information (in terms of variety) that something must be able to cover before it can be considered a language, or can a language be specific?

I know I'm massively derailing the thread, but discussion on evolution gets repetitive fast, at least around here.

A language is any form of communication that is structured and is intended to convey messages. Even though computer languages are in their own sense a language; They are not intended for use between humans but rather between humans and machines. I can use a programming language like assembly to make a computer understand what I want it to understand. Now the same assembly language is useless for inter-human communication simply because assembly is not designed to instruct a living biological brain that lacks registry addresses etc.

Just because one language is "poorer" compared to another does not mean it is inferior because for the society it evolved for; It is more than adequate as a communications medium.