When two worldviews collide.

[stevevw]

Answer this please:

'Is it possible that you could pull something from what was said in that article and criticise it? I'll wait here while you contemplate it.'
See a few posts upstream regarding your links and why that question was asked.

I've posted several articles so I am not sure which one you are talking about.

You have a habit of posting multiple positions on any variety of topics that are virtually impossible to answer in any reasonable manner.

such as

You can't seem to focus on any one aspect of any argument. It's like trying to put out a bush fire. Deal with one problem and responsd and there's alreadh another dozen or so already posted to tackle.

Perhaps thats because I am dealing issues from a number of posters. I have been specific perhaps too specific as I didn't want to go into the details of specific moral issues but the overall change in society from Christian to secular, how this was in the past and how it is today. How Christianity is being pushed underground. But if you want to go through specific I will. I just need to know which issues your talking about.

So, no. Hold up. Answer one question at a time. Quit the forum equivalent of a food fight. One thing at a time. You posted a link that actually denigrates your position. I don't think that you read it or you did and you didn't understand it. So please respond to the question I asked.

What is my position.

 

[stevevw]

I couldn't get past that first sentence, coming as it does from somebody who professes Christianity. I was brought up (in the Church) to believe that the whole of Christian morality stems from these words:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. Love God above all else. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

— Matthew 22:35–40

The point was I was asked to show how this commandment can be evidenced in children. We can see the 2nd greatest commandment in the makings of justice, kindness and fairness in how babies and infants reacted in the experiments showing agreement with good guy characters and disapproval of cruel and nasty characters in denying these morals.

But showing how kids love God with all their heart, soul and mind is another thing. That is why I said perhaps a baby and infants natural inclination to believe in God may support the Greatest commandment as it suggests that we believe only in one God and give our all. Otherwise there is no sense in believing at all.

 

[stevevw]

The earliest signs are the glimmerings of empathy and compassion—pain at the pain of others, which you can see pretty soon after birth. Once they’re capable of coordinated movement, babies will often try to soothe others who are suffering, by patting and stroking.
The sort of research that I’ve been involved with personally, looking at the origins of moral judgment, is difficult to do with very young babies. But we have found that even 3-month-olds respond differently to a character who helps another than to a character who hinders another person. This finding hints that moral judgment might have very early developmental origins

The author literally ties morals to emotions like empathy and compassion first thing. His whole thesis is these simple emotions form early moral judgment and behavior.

Yes emotions are an important part of morality I think. Getting upset at injustice or cruelty towards others and rejoicing in justice being done or in others getting their fair share. But I think its a qualified emotion like say with rightious anger or compassion rather than feeling sorry for someone.

 

[stevevw]

I'd say, like most developed western nations Australia is ahead of USA.
USA is a very slow backward country probably due to its high amount of religious conservatives who are very traditional and seem to hate change and progress.

I think its the other way around in some ways. Australia has always been behind the US with economics, tech and trends. But in some areas we have improved like tech and economics in recent years. We are also more multicultural which has come out more in recent times. But I see signs of Australian politics going a similar way to the US with Woke ideology. Probably not as intense as the US yet but still its a divisive issue here as well.

 

[Whyayeman]

Australian politics going a similar way to the US with Woke ideology

Beware! This is a common feature of conservative tactics in the English-speaking world. The Right in Australia and UK believe there is political advantage in pushing these divisive ideas. They always need an enemy they can attack.

 

[stevevw]

Good grief. The second link has two random people commenting on 'wokeism', one saying that 'we spend too much time on minorities'. Gee, thanks for that incisive and thought provoking comment.

And the other I can't imagine you have read because it is a broadside against those, just like yourself, who use terms like 'wokeism' as some self righteous critique of anyone who has something approaching a social conscience. It's a diatribe agains those, again like you, who use the term as a dog whistle to round up any and all conservatively minded people who can then bluster and froth about how the world is going to hell in handbasket.

I just linked the article to show that Woke is an issue in Australia regardless of what side you are on. The article criticises those who promote Woke and those who use it as a political football. I pointed out earlier that both sides are as bad as each other in twisting the truth and that politics and belief is polarizing where things are becoming extreme.

But if you look at the first paragrapth it mentions "there is a cultural commodity we import which is far more divisive – "wokeism" – a contagion which has permeated our borders threatening our unique and precious way of life". He calls Wokism a contagion that threatens our unique and precious way of life" Thats a criticism of Wokism itself and not its misuse.

It doesn't matter anyway, there are no innocents when it comes to Woke. One side gets all Woke and tries to control others and then people fight back against Woke some going overboard because they feel threatened beinmg controlled. Its still a fight over some iedeology that divides society.

The fact is Wokism is real even though some exploit it. Most who criticise Woke have done so because Woke was forced onto them, onto society and they are reacting back about having Rights denied such as Freedom of speech or having this ideology thrust upon their kids at school. Its a real threat as seen by how identity politics, cancel culture and political correctness is so dominant today.

Is it possible that you could pull something from what was said in that article and criticise it? I'll wait here while you contemplate it.

Criticize what though, the authors take on things. The author claiming that Woke equals having a social conscience is misleaeding as to what Woke represents today. Woke is not about a social conscience today but an ideology about a persons moral position, a religion about how Wokist tell us how we should behave and those who are not Woke are transgressors that need to be exposed and re-educated in Wokeness which is usually about DEI diversity, equity and inclusion. Both unscientific ideologies.

 

[Whyayeman]

The fact is Wokism is real even though some exploit it.

No. 'Woke' is a buzzword among certain very conservative people for whom it means whatever suits them at the time.
It is always used pejoratively.

 

[Kale100]

I feel bad for the racial and ethnic minorities, and the gay people in all of this.
Relations were gradually getting better on their own, but then the left forced the issue way too hard, the right became defensive, and now things are much worse than they were say 20 years ago.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I feel bad for the racial and ethnic minorities, and the gay people in all of this.
Relations were gradually getting better on their own, but then the left forced the issue way too hard, the right became defensive, and now things are much worse than they were say 20 years ago.

You you blame the left?

 

[Kale100]

You you blame the left?

I blame everybody. I'm disgusted by the pop-left and the pop-right. They each have their own evils.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I blame everybody. I'm disgusted by the pop-left and the pop-right. They each have their own evils.

On that I can agree.

 

[Whyayeman]

I feel bad for the racial and ethnic minorities, and the gay people in all of this.
Relations were gradually getting better on their own, but then the left forced the issue way too hard, the right became defensive, and now things are much worse than they were say 20 years ago.

I really have to disagree about that. Nothing gets better on its own. There has been prejudice against minorities all my life. It is still there. What has changed is the determination of people not to put up with the prejudice any more. If the issue has been forced I think it has been by the victims. The delineation of left and right has little meaning in this context.

If you 'feel bad' about poor treatment of minorities - stick up for them.

 

[stevil]

I think its the other way around in some ways. Australia has always been behind the US with economics, tech and trends. But in some areas we have improved like tech and economics in recent years. We are also more multicultural which has come out more in recent times. But I see signs of Australian politics going a similar way to the US with Woke ideology. Probably not as intense as the US yet but still its a divisive issue here as well.

The problem as I see it is that Murdoch spreads his brand of right wing misinformation across the world. SkyNews is possibly even worse than FoxNews. This fabricated Woke concern is just faux outrage.

 

[Kale100]

I really have to disagree about that. Nothing gets better on its own. There has been prejudice against minorities all my life. It is still there. What has changed is the determination of people not to put up with the prejudice any more. If the issue has been forced I think it has been by the victims. The delineation of left and right has little meaning in this context.

If you 'feel bad' about poor treatment of minorities - stick up for them.

There has always been and always will be prejudice, by everyone, against everyone, such is the nature of humanity.
You admitted there has been a change, and in your interpretation it is 'the determination of people not to put up with the prejudice any more'.
If that interpretation is right or wrong, or whether the idea behind that strategy is right or wrong, is largely irrelevant, because things have gotten substantially worse since that change took place. The current strategy is a failure.

 

[rjs330]

I'm not competent to critique standards of care. But activism goes well beyond standards of care.

That's a cop out. You certainly can review them, see what they say, do research into it and see if they are based upon valid and relatable research or information. You can review what the other experts have to say to determine whether or not the standards are actually good, bad or unreliable. You can do your own homework on who exactly is giving out these standards and discover or not whether they are simply biased activists.

In this case it would be the same as allowing alcoholics to treat other alcoholics and the standard of care is to provide the patient with more alcohol and keep it going for the rest of their lives.

No, it's not. It's part of what I've been arguing all thread. I do not have the expertise, in medicine, psychology, social work, or any other relevant discipline, to bring a robust critique to something like this. I am too ignorant, and would be trying to compensate for that ignorance (which amounts to the equivalent of years of study, work in the field, and life experience) with what I could find on google. I'm not arrogant enough to think I can do that justice. I know what competence in my own field takes; I don't pretend to that competence in fields where I don't have it.

More cop out. I wonder where you could possibly gain some information on this? I wonder where you could find experts who have critiqued the information? I wonder where you could find people who HAVE had study, experience and work in the field who could give you the information necessary?

Do you always blindly trust someone who claims expertise without checking it out and seeing if they are right?

You know people were telling me, hey the experts at Wpath know what they are doing. They've got all the research and everything. You need to trust them.

So I looked. I searched I read and I researched. I discovered they were basing their soc on false research. They were basing their care in faulty and inconclusive research. They were making false claims. They were activists and extremely biased and political. I found out their soc hat not been proven to be effective. I discovered there were experts who completely disagreed with them and pointed out all the scientific and psychological reasons the aoc was bad.

So while I am not and expert I do have e a brain. I have the ability to research and find information. And guess what, it appears that what I was researching and discovering was absolutely correct. I guess I wasn't just some right wing Christian conservative know nothing hick after all.

It's nothing more than cop out and an abdication of thought to simply claim you can't speak to the validity of anything because you are not qualified. I suppose you wouldn't have spoken out against the Nazis medical experiments on people either cause after all they were doctors and they are the experts.

 

[Bradskii]

I've posted several articles so I am not sure which one you are talking about.

H

Post 741.

 

[Bradskii]

The author claiming that Woke equals having a social conscience is misleaeding as to what Woke represents today. Woke is not about a social conscience today but an ideology about a persons moral position, a religion about how Wokist tell us how we should behave and those who are not Woke are transgressors that need to be exposed and re-educated in Wokeness which is usually about DEI diversity, equity and inclusion. Both unscientific ideologies.

Good grief...you ask me what you should reply to and in the next post reply to it.

The guy is complaining about people like you. People who use the term at a drop of a hat to denigrate others. He's complaining about exactly what you wrote above. For what it's worth, it's a dumb term to describe someone who is aware of various problems in society. And he's pointing out that PEOPLE LIKE YOU use it as a bumper sticker, politically charged, catch all whinge about anything and everything you don't like. He's saying that the way you you use the term is meaningless. That it's lazy. That it's used instead of an argument. That it has become the argument.

And he's telling you that you're the problem.

 

[rjs330]

Gee, I wonder where we could get one? Where could we find a family that helped their child and saved her from a short life of misery? And if we find one wouldn't it be lucky for her that people like them ignore people like you.

I wonder if we could find anything where people seemed perfectly happy with their transition. Things seemed great and all was well and then later realized it didn't really fix anything. Then they decided to detransition.
Especially when they transitioned as a child and realized they didn't know what they were doing. I wonder if we have any stories like that. Oh wait. We do. Gee maybe we should wait until they are adults before doing that.

 

[rjs330]

Who went from being suicidal to being a happily married partner.

Wait they transitioned after they were married?

 

[Kylie]

Kylie.

This thread is about "world views colliding"
One of the aspects of that is the "lens" through which people search for information.

My post was not aimed at you personally but how world view plays out in practice.


If you had searched for "rwandan genocide causes" or similar (a neutral world view) -
you would have found a myriad of articles stating the same thing in essence.
Increasing race hatred and dehumanization of the tutsi by the hutu over the previous decade(s).

Then there was a flashpoint, which was the downing of an aircraft, nobody knows who did it. Then a great many hutu, took machetes and chopped the tutsi incuding their neighbours and friends to pieces, sparing neither babies nor old people. It was not an army or a dictator. It was the ordinary people whose hate destroyed their humanity. There were so many bodies there were almost no tutsi left to bury them. They rotted in the streets for months. No moral code in evidence.

So how did you find a piece blaming the catholic church?

Easy. A world view intervened in your search.

I cannot say for certain what you searched, but i will wager it was along the lines of "catholic church to blame for rwanda holocaust" or similar. And sure enough, on any subject, there are many who have such contempt for catholics someone somewhere will have written against it with no regard for truth. Just as Jews wrongly got blamed for every ill of society for so many years, and that hatred lead to the holocaust in the Nazi regime devoid of morals.

The search I did was "Rwanda genocide religion".

But by all means, assume that I am intentionally biasing myself because you don't like what I find.

It mimics the attitude to the shroud so common on this forum. I gave as an example.

If you had searched "shroud science" or shroud dimensions or whatever (neutral world view)
you would have been led first to sturp, in which systematic studies were done on body geometry and shroud geometry, comparing with middle east dimension statistics. John Jackson physicist produced mannikins and shroud dimensional replicas to illustrate how it was folded. At that point you would have accepted the voice of science on that at least.

But you didnt. I am guessing because of world view you searched "shroud fake" in which all sorts of pseudoscience lives, including the question over body size by people who REFUSE to read the science. That was the inspiration for your "doll experiment" which was pseudoscience. No attempt was made to calibrate the doll. Sadly nobody cares how false anti shroud pseudoscience is, so long as someone says it is fake. It even inhabits journals everywhere. They refused to care when Garlaschelli claimed a fake shroud replica, in a journal, when he had used pigment, yet there is no pigment on the shroud, and the mark is not pigment, which was known since 1970s!! The mark is thin layer dehydration oxidation of cellulose. So no liquid process can ever have formed it. That paper should not have been accepted. You cannot even trust scientific media any where near religious phenomena.
I did indeed link the sturp reports. All including you I believe found excuses not to read them.
World view no doubt.

Yet even the one arguably in charge of the disgraceful failed carbon date Michael Tite ultimately admitted it is indeed the shroud of a crucificed man with all that pathology. Despite being present when the verdict was given that someone had "faked it up and flogged it"
If you read the communications between the daters you see they were not interested in dating the shroud, they were interested in proving it medieaval and validating their (already failed) new AMS technology. For them it was a marketing stunt aimed at the old guard of dating (such as Harwell) , and attacking religion was a great by product to confirm what they thought in advance. Imagine how perpexed they were when the tests failed homogeneity so no date coud be announced!. They were forced to fiddle it. They took none of the precautions that the archeologists recommended and ignored all the red flags.. The daters imposed their world view.
Notice None of them including Tite or the other detractors.
have taken the offer up of £1m to produce a shroud replica which matches the chemistry. They know they cannot.

Do you believe Tite now he opposes your world view?
Now he states it the pathoogy of a crucified man. Which is what STURP had said all along.
The daters so hated STURPs conclusion, all those who knew anythin about the shroud were excluded from the dating!!
Tite said "crucified man" quietly of course. Many years on. Hoping nobody heard him.
Yet he and those with thim shouted "fake!!!" from the rooftops.... They clearly prefer the myth. It is why the dating data was fiddled using an "unknown transform"!. Sadly the myth had run round the world of a fake for decades, before the truth got its boots on.

You are missing the point that the shroud shows an image that can only be formed if the shroud was draped over the top of the head, and yet the image of the top of the head not only doesn't exist, but there is not enough space for it to exist between the images of the front of the head and the back.

If you want me to accept the shroud as genuine, then go ahead and explain to me how my position here is wrong.

But as for your request, I will indeed suggest a good read amongst the number of books I own , and more I have read about Rwanda.
I study first and then judge. In this case a new York times best seller called "left to tell" by catholic immaculee ilibagiza whose family were chopped to bits, but she was saved at great risk to a hutu protestant pastor who hid her in a small bathroom with seven other ladies. The pastor and his family would have been chopped to bits as well as a collaborator if they had been caught during door to door searches. Which they nearly were several times.

She describes the period before the massacre, the massacre and the aftermath. It is a harrowing tale of how hate can kill in an immoral world devoid of moral code.

Will you read it? It does not reinforce your world view. And like all research it takes time to read. It is not a soundbite.

Will you purchase this book for me? I will be happy to provide a postal address for you to deliver it to. But don't expect me to fork out money for YOUR homework. Of course, you could find a source online that shows religion played no part in it. Surely such sources exist, right?

And would you care to support your implication that a lack of religion equates to a lack of moral code? Because I disagree with that completely.