Comments for Hypersyllogistic

Comment on The meaning of life by "I thank God" | Hypersyllogistic

"I thank God" | Hypersyllogistic — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:16:14 +0000

[...] and thousands of other awesome events aren’t the acts of an invisible man in the sky. Instead, our destinies are what we make. PermalinkRelated PostsLosing my religionA Paper on Machiavelli's The PrinceRebutting "The [...]

Comment on Remove disorderly conduct, resisting arrest from police arsenals by Strong men use nonviolence | Hypersyllogistic

Strong men use nonviolence | Hypersyllogistic — Mon, 21 May 2012 22:59:23 +0000

[...] What we need to do is raise awareness of the state’s appalling behavior.As I noted here, 50 to 60 percent of Americans trust police highly or very highly; the percentage fluctuates from [...]

Comment on Implementing new theme by TonyEscobar

TonyEscobar — Sun, 20 May 2012 01:51:27 +0000

@SpaceGoat1701 Excellent, thanks man. I was looking for this :/

Comment on Implementing new theme by SpaceGoat1701

SpaceGoat1701 — Sun, 20 May 2012 01:48:27 +0000

@TonyEscobar Just go here: https://developers.google.com/+/plugins/share/

Comment on Implementing new theme by TonyEscobar

TonyEscobar — Sun, 20 May 2012 01:44:55 +0000

I always liked this theme but never used it. Question for you, how did you get the Google Plus “Share” button (versus simply the +1 button). Thanks!

Comment on Is Michael Jackson Guilty? by Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 02:28:00 +0000

HEE-HEE!!

Comment on A Response to Joan Didion’s “On Morality” by Hondapor2gee18

Hondapor2gee18 — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 02:33:00 +0000

How does wagon-train morality differ from religious and social morailty?

Comment on A letter to the president regarding Libya by Can the UN allow Obama to wage war? | Hypersyllogistic

Can the UN allow Obama to wage war? | Hypersyllogistic — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:41:46 +0000

[...] Obama’s war in Libya is illegal. This makes three ways in which the war is illegal: Firstly, the Constitution forbids it. Secondly, the UN charter forbids it. And now, thirdly, the Act under discussion forbids [...]

Comment on A letter to the president regarding Libya by Libya war demonstrates why I hate politics | Hypersyllogistic

Libya war demonstrates why I hate politics | Hypersyllogistic — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 03:41:47 +0000

[...] Psychology ← A letter to the president regarding Libya [...]

Comment on A Sick Town by Charles Craig

Charles Craig — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:40:18 +0000

One comment. There is one reference to a Jewish congregation though the essay says there are only Christian churches.

One query: “I will dream the Secret.” What is the secret?

Comment on A Response to Joan Didion’s “On Morality” by Andre Miles

Andre Miles — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:28:26 +0000

Regardless of where we are from or what cultural or religious believes that we may or may not have, and as long as we are not suffering from some type of a mental illness, I believe that it is safe to say, it is very difficult to find a person who is willing to drive a needle through the eye of a 2 year old cute little orphan baby for no reason at all. I do not believe that there would ever be a good reason for such action; however for the sake of argument let us imagine a super villain who is threatening the world with complete destruction and end of human race unless we drive a needle through the eye of a two year old orphan baby. Suddenly such act may seem a reasonable thing to do. Exchanging on eye for the life of the whole planet as well as the survival of the human race seems reasonably fair. I do realize that throughout history mankind has committed such acts as placing babies in the arms of a red hot molten metal statuette of a Semitic God called (Baal) as offered sacrifice to wipe out their own sin. We have also killed babies for reasons that have included, religious or cultural sacrifice, war, hunger, revenge, jealousy, maintaining royal power, and so on and so forth and I hope everyone is in agreement that doing so is never justified and clearly wrong. The point I am trying to make is that no one is willing to do such thing, just out of the blue and for no reason at all. This is an example of what links all humanity and unites us as one. There for I can comfortably conclude that harming a human being for no reason at all is not subjective, but in fact it can be without a doubt considered a universal law of morality. Let us consider another example. Who is willing to debate that physical pain is a good thing. Once again I do not mean the pain that is endured or given for a particular good or bad reason. I mean pain for no reason at all. We feel pain when we are injected with a syringe when we are vaccinated, but that induced pain is endured by the patient because ultimately it saves his or her life. So once again if we filter out all different types of mental illnesses as well as weird syndromes, or some satanic/false religion or cultural reasoning as well as war, revenge and such similar reasons, once again we can conclude that causing physical pain for no reason at all, can be agreed upon by everyone around the globe as a wrong thing to do.
Stealing is another example that can portray a universal moral law. I am certain that there are people out there who believe that stilling is a short cut to success and in fact it is a smart thing to do. Never the less if these people were to work hard and obtain certain things and they themselves were the victims of theft. They would be in agreement that such an act can results in mental pain of feeling violated and who on the planet enjoys being violated, and I mean if they did not want to be violated as part of some sexual fantasy or experiencing some kind of a weird rush. When I was much younger, I read Les Miserable’s and the main character Jean vale Jean stole a loaf of bread, after many hard and continues attempts of looking for work and being unsuccessful, he could not bear to listen to the crying of his children due to hunger so he stole. Does any mentally balanced human being steal? Yes but we know that it wrong. Some may argue that we only know steeling is wrong because we are told by someone else. I do not agree with that. We are not told everything that we know. Many times we know things because we have experienced things or we simply place ourselves in the position of the other person and imagine how it would feel. No one wants to be or feel violated and is this not another common bond that unties all of humanity? Is this not another universal moral law?
I have to say that I am in disagreement with Joan and I do not hold much value for the nature of her style of reasoning. I feel as if she and people like her have a personal agenda. They are against the idea of morality because they feel as if morality keeps them in bondage and it does not allow them to practice what they wish. Most often the idea of morality is linked to God and creation and when there is no God all is permitted. By using such examples of individuals who committed inhumane or significantly wrong acts while claiming to have done the moral thing, is her attempt to portray the idea of morality in a negative light. Her examples include Klaus Fuchs and Alfred Rosenberg. Fuchs was a British traitor who leaked nuclear secrets to the Soviets, and Rosenberg was the Nazi administrator of Eastern Europe, where the Germans committed their most heinous and most murderous acts during World War II. Both the traitor and the murderer tried to justify their actions by claiming they were doing as their morality demanded. She is making false claims and uses faulty examples to say morality is subjective and there for grounds for disaster. Based on the reasons given throughout this essay Joan ideas of morality is false and holds no validity.

Comment on A Response to Joan Didion’s “On Morality” by carissa

carissa — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:19:11 +0000

I am a student reading this essay for a college prep class. I do not agree with the position that it takes. In the essay, she mentions a social code. In your response you also regard it somewhat. However, I don’t believe it is defined deep enough. The essay mentions that leaving your family for dead on the side of the road is the only “social code” that applies. You allude that murders and self-suicidal is not wrong, because it is not a “universal code”. I have a fight to pick on that. For you see, it IS a universal code that inflicting death is wrong. Think about it. There is only 2 things that link the entire human race together, that is, birth and death. Without a god in the equation (because that is of opinion) we have just this life (also opinion, but I am keeping it simple). If there is no rule of death being wrong, what’s to keep the world from going into anarchy. If we have no rule of death from life, are we no better than the animals? You mentioned that we who follow the code think others who aren’t are “less than human”. I agree with that, except for on life and death. Scientists say that the only 2 things that separate us form animals is that we are aware of life and death, and that we have a written/spoken language (as opposed to only spoken). If we do not adhere to these rules of life and death, we are animals, whether you like it or not. Otherwise, what’s to say we aren’t already all animals?

Comment on Losing my religion by Losing my religion

Losing my religion — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:48:41 +0000

[...] is cross-posted from my site, Hypersyllogistic.) Visit me on the web: Hypersyllogistic | Flickr | Twitter "It is clear that [...]

Comment on Is global warming cynicism “denial”? by Global cooling a crock, as oceans continue warming.

Global cooling a crock, as oceans continue warming. — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:14:47 +0000

[...] aren’t much different from those in alien abduction or vaccination-caused autism. (…) Is global warming cynicism “denial”? | Hypersyllogistic Of course that's only relevant if you're interested in a calm, level-headed examination of the [...]

Comment on The Rise of the Vulcans Paper by Eddie

Eddie — Sun, 09 May 2010 03:18:03 +0000

Very helpful and informative doing a paper on this book and this is very well summarized.

Comment on The meaning of life by Rebutting “The blood-stained century of evolution” | Hypersyllogistic

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:33:10 +0000

[...] with the article about the implications of abandoning God and embracing evolution. As I’ve written before, God is not an alternative to man’s will but rather a vessel into which man pours his will [...]