The Refugee Crisis

[pr126]

People generally understand moral relativism to mean that there are no absolute or universal moral standards.

Then those people would not mind living in the culture of say, Saudi Arabia (see below), or Iran, where the state executes gays, or the killing fields of Iraq, or Syria.

If all cultures are relative, all morals are relative, there is no way we can discern right from wrong, they are not wrong, just different.
This looks like an idea from the Frankfurt School.



Saudi court sentences a man to 2,000 lashes and 10 years in jail for denying the existence of God and ridiculing the Qu'ran on Twitter[/quote]

A man has been sentenced to 2,000 lashes and 10 years in prison for expressing his atheist views on Twitter in Saudia Arabia.

Religious police, who monitor social networking sites, found more than 600 tweets from the 28-year-old's Twitter account which denied the existence of God and ridiculed verses in the Qu'ran.

Some of the messages also accused all prophets of lying and said their teaching fueled hostilities and wars.

I know which culture I chose, and damn cultural relativity.
The problem starts when the cultures are forced to "tolerate" each other. In glorious multiculturalism.
It does not work.The results of this failed social experiment can be seen in Europe.

[Shiranu]

If all cultures are relative, all morals are relative, there is no way we can discern right from wrong, they are not wrong, just different.

My god... he actually said something true! Screenshotting that and posting it on my wall that is outstanding!

[Sirvas]

I'm not sure I can agree with that. Truth is in terms of the value of a statement. For instance, the statement, "it's raining outside", where "outside" would be a specific time and a specific location, is either true or false. In that sense, truth is not provisional. That statement is something that can be investigated, which then determines its true/false value. OTOH, if you are expressing an opinion, "Life sucks", it is almost impossible to determine if this statement is true or false as it raises questions of modality, criteria, methods of evaluation, etc. I think what you are referring here is "personal truth", the truth according to your worldview. In that sense, your "personal truth' is the set of all your opinions, and that cannot be determined as true or false. In which case your statement that "truth is provisional" would make sense.

As to Godel axiom, what it says is that any system will contain unprovable truths. In math, they are called axioms; in science, they are the hypotheses. But that system does not refer to the set of all your opinions ( your worldview) but to the type of statements I've made allusion - "it's raining outside", verifiable statements or in the case of math, tautologies. It's a common mistake to use Godel's theorem in realm it simply doesn't apply.

I am not refering to personal truth. I am saying truth value can only be determined using the set of data we have available and is not possible to say it wont change given another set of data (maybe even one that includes the previous one or parts of it). Here Tarski´s undefinability theorem is also relevant, since if we consider existence as a sufficiently strong formal system or that at least it behaves like one (or can be modeled using one), we cannot define truth within this system. We can define truth if we are able to step out of this system, like we do in your example: we are talking about the raining day situation. This process implies a metalanguage.

Regarding what you said about what I said about Godel, I would not say these unprovable truths are axioms exclusively (see some self referential statements or stuff like the hydra game). Agree with your characterization of the hypotheses as unprovables. I do not see how or why are you inserting the concept of worldview or opinions in what I said tho. Also opinions, including morality related ones, can be formulated as statements and can be true or false when we talk about a moral system and how it operates ("stabbing your dick is bad given that we assume that pain is bad and that you can feel pain") but outside of it they are rather meaningless. This is when reason helps us deal with differing moral systems (with "axioms", but better described as "starting points" in this context, that are simply assumed) that exist in a society. The reason we choose reason (heh) as the common starting point is because without it we would have to rely on chance so we could communicate in any meaningful way, hoping the other part has a similar mindset to our own...making the very act we are engaging on right now futile.

[mauricio]

My god... he actually said something true! Screenshotting that and posting it on my wall that is outstanding!

Hey stop there. You seem to be imposing your personal western metanarrative that ignores the voices of people of color. What he said is not true it is just a truth value produced by the systems and institutions of your particular culture like science and western philosophy. Ultimately it is not true, just different.

[Sirvas]

Hey stop there. You seem to be imposing your personal western metanarrative that ignores the voices of people of color. What he said is not true it is just a truth value produced by the systems and institutions of your particular culture like science and western philosophy. Ultimately it is not true, just different.

Hey stop there. You seem to be imposing your personal western metanarrative that ignores the voices of people of non binary gender within a non-singlet mind. What he said is not different it is just value judgement produced by the systems and institutions of your particular culture like cultural relativism and western social justice. Ultimately it is not different, just like you.

[Baruch]

Baruch
I hear you, I have always been on the cutting edge of science and technology and I live it but that is not my dream. My dream is a nice little log cabin on a clear calm lake with me sitting on the dock with a fishing rod in one hand and a warm cup of coffee in the other. It would seem a contradiction but I do not see it that way. Science is fundamentally the study of natural phenomena thus no matter how far removed I may think I am from nature, always, I am within it's realm.

I like your post and history always has a certain neutrality with respect to time. What seemed right at the time is seen later as an abomination. The key word here is insight and reflecting on how an action now might be perceived in the future. If we know the answer then why not act accordingly, do what we imagine may be right in the future now. Being ahead of the curve is most often a good thing.

Incredible ... like wandering around and suddenly finding you have a twin!!  Your response is so close to my own experience.  If we don't bother to learn from past experience (not the same as history/propaganda) let alone present experience, then we are rather autistic.  Human beings have advanced sensory abilities, and we apply a much greater perception filter than other animals do ... our agenda/internals are much more complicated ... most other animals simply want food and sex and sleep.  But our thickly laid on over a lifetime perception filters (ideology) can get in the way.

Back to my simple analogy ... one could choose to be totally into Custer's POV or Crazy Horse's POV ... and that is advocacy ... but with an ideology, we are lacking in clarity  To achieve clarity, and modesty, one has to admit that both parties have a POV worth examining, not dismissing out of hand, otherwise we are throwing out half the data.  One hundred years ago, popular opinion would have leaned one way, and today it leans the opposite.  It is difficult, if one has an opinion, to see things from another POV, particularly one that might be offensive to one.  Human beings have multiple dichotomies, emotionally and intellectually.  If you really want to understand what happened, one has to walk in the boots and moccasins of both parties.  The overall conflict and the battle were tragedies of course (unless one wants to assume the warmongering POV).

Now to why I post this here ... having sympathy for both Europeans and ME/NA immigrants doesn't mean I am a cultural relativist.  Just because I can appreciate both European and ME/NA cultures doesn't mean I am a cultural relativist.  I have toyed, in the past, with the notion of retiring outside the US, because it would be more interesting.  Morocco and Turkey came to mind ... because I am not a xenophobe, and they seemed relatively civilized.  I have considered Mexico also, for the same reasons.  Unfortunately the world has become so much more violent, those alternatives are no longer under consideration.  Does that make me a un-patriotic, race-betraying, misceginating traitor?  This is how I read an under text in these posts ... but that is the difference between appreciating my own culture vs being a chauvinist, being patriotic vs being jingo.  I can be from, and in favor of Judeo-Christian/Greco-Roman civilization without wanting to extirpate all other peoples ... I don't want to extirpate anyone, let alone use my own culture as an excuse, an excuse for some sick warmongering fantasy.

If you knew me here more, knew all my posts (don't bother there are too many) you will know how vital an issue these things are for me.  As Shiranu writes, there are those butt-hurt WASP folks who think their empire is slipping away (and it will eventually) because the non-WASP folks aren't genuflecting every time one of the WASP ubermensch walks by ... but I am no WASP.  I can see that it is both "good to be the king" and be peasant enough to give the king the finger when he isn't looking ;-)

[Baruch]

Sirvas et al ... y'all are like me when I was young.  To far into your own heads.  Applying Goedel's theories to language?  Y'all need to get out more, develop your EQ.

Shiranu - hope things will get better for you.  You have a lot of EQ, but need to be more pragmatic in your own life.

[pr126]

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/26/germanys-open-door-policies-inspiring-says-facebook-ceo-zuckerberg/

Inshallah.

Why should we have all the fun.

Get tens of millions of "refugees" and have a ball.
They will quickly assimilate and be a productive part of your society in no time. Two months or less.

What could go wrong?

[josephpalazzo]

I am not refering to personal truth. I am saying truth value can only be determined using the set of data we have available and is not possible to say it wont change given another set of data (maybe even one that includes the previous one or parts of it).

Fine, thanks for the clarification.

Here Tarski´s undefinability theorem is also relevant, since if we consider existence as a sufficiently strong formal system or that at least it behaves like one (or can be modeled using one), we cannot define truth within this system.

We can  define truth within this system, if we accept the unprovable truths as true until new data says otherwise. This is your point above.

We can define truth if we are able to step out of this system, like we do in your example: we are talking about the raining day situation. This process implies a metalanguage.

I'm not sure what is this metalanguage, and if we really need it. As long as we know how to delineate the provable truths from the unprovable truths, we are fine. It's when we are misguided or have left our skepticism dormant that we can confuse these two sets. We just need to be more vigilant and more rigorous in our thinking.

. Agree with your characterization of the hypotheses as unprovables. I do not see how or why are you inserting the concept of worldview or opinions in what I said tho.

Your worldview will be of great importance in setting up your unprovable truths. As an extreme example, take Hitler and his worldview of a master race (unprovable truth). Within that worldview, exterminating the inferior race was a logical deduction. Now take away that unprovable truth, then the action of exterminating becomes horrific. In all us, we have a worldview, and in this worldview, we are more or less logical. If two of such worldviews are at odds, the clash will inevitably lead to violence as each side perceived itself to be logically right.

This is when reason helps us deal with differing moral systems (with "axioms", but better described as "starting points" in this context, that are simply assumed) that exist in a society. The reason we choose reason (heh) as the common starting point is because without it we would have to rely on chance so we could communicate in any meaningful way, hoping the other part has a similar mindset to our own...making the very act we are engaging on right now futile.

Agree.

[pr126]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE0atYJi8uM#t

[Baruch]

There is a recent article that shows that the economic crisis and refugee crises were created deliberately by the European elites (Bilderbergers) to destroy European socialism.  Your enemy isn't just Merkel, it is the Queen and Pope.  The US and China and Russia are assisting in the demise of the EU ... a plot by the US (with European collusion) that has outlived its usefulness, just like the welfare state in the US.  No need to stop the beating of the peasants, now that the Russians behave themselves.  We have the same problem here ... our leaders despise our citizens, and so do your leaders despise you.

[pr126]

Germany: Traditional sausages banned in public canteens out of respect to Muslims claims Merkel ally

Respect?

I don't think it is respect. It is FEAR.



Question:
How can a 7th century savage ideology destroy a technologically advanced civilization?

Answer:
We help them.

[Munch]

Germany: Traditional sausages banned in public canteens out of respect to Muslims claims Merkel ally

Respect?

I don't think it is respect. It is FEAR.



Question:
How can a 7th century savage ideology destroy a technologically advanced civilization?

Answer:
We help them.

There isn't enough ways in all the languages on earth to say the line 'Fuck Merkel', and her establishment.

[josephpalazzo]

There isn't enough ways in all the languages on earth to say the line 'Fuck Merkel', and her establishment.

According to German laws, the earliest date for the next federal election is 27 August 2017, and the latest date for the next election is 22 October 2017. I hope by then the people there will elect someone who will address that nightmare properly. But that's more than a year away, and a lot damage can be done.

[Baruch]

I will admit that Merkel et al ... their policy is in comprehensible ... unless they are quislings working with the folks I mentioned, to destroy modern Europe.  Europe never got rid of its Medieval institutions, and as such they are dragging you back to a pre-modern life style ;-(  In the US, we will be one happy plantation run by the Confederacy.  See Handmaid's Tale.