Affirmative Action for Conservative Professors

[DaShi]

Agathon seems to suffer from extreme paranoia. Does he hear voices to?

[Berzerker]

2. Free will implies the ability to act outside of physical laws (i.e. there's a nonphysical "soul" that's dictating your actions rather than the physical laws).

That's spirituality and the transcendence of the soul, free will is merely your ability to make decisions within the physical world.

[Rogan Josh]

Of course free-will is a religious concept. It is incompatible with science, has no experimental evidence for or against it and cannot be proven. How more 'religious' could it be?

[JohnT]

Well, this thread devolved from a semi-interesting troll to another "let's talk about stupid-assed religion" really quick.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
If the brain's algorithm dictates actions, how are there choices? At any point in time, the choice is purely a function of the algorithm.

Exactly. The brain decides by using the algorithm.

Let me put it this way: Does a computer have free will since its coding will decide what it does? Does an ant have free will since its biological coding will decide what it deos?

A computer is not self-aware, as demonstrated by the fact that it doesn't realize that it's self-aware.

Only a self-aware being makes choices.

(btw, self-awareness isn't religious, it's pretty easy to deduce given the fact that you are self-aware)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
So, what about the number pi? Have you ever seen it? Is its existence affected by physical laws?

The number pi doesn't "exist" - it's a number! Numbers are part of a whole slew of a priori stuff that doesn't exist, but is true.

BTW, you have failed to explain why a decision influenced by outside causality is free will. Making a decision is not a criteria for free will; bacterias make decisions.

No, they don't. See the post above.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I think you guys have been uselessly picking on Ramo. No, anything non-physical is not necessarily religious. Free will, however, clearly and definitely doesn't fit into maths or any other a priori science. Ramo's statement may have been too short and prematurate, but it was obviously right at its root. Free will is a religious concept, as it is based on the existence of a non-physical, immortal soul. Is that so hard to understand?

1. science is, by definition, not a priori, since it deals with EMPIRICAL fact

2. free will can be deduced a priori, thus it is a priori, as much as math

3. free will != immortal soul! Why do I have to keeps saying this! Free will = I make my own decisions.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Of course free-will is a religious concept. It is incompatible with science, has no experimental evidence for or against it and cannot be proven. How more 'religious' could it be?

READ MY FRIGGING POSTS - I'VE F***ING PROVED THAT I HAVE FREE WILL

FREE WILL = I MAKE MY OWN DECISIONS

I MAKE MY OWN DECICISIONS

I HAVE FREE WILL

HOW F***KING HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Not if you're looking at where the idea originates.

Ned:

You have the relentless ability to annoy everybody when you post.



If you look at the Judges who ruled in favour of R v. Wade, would you classify any of them as conservatives?

Well, the Judge who wrote the opinion was a Republican!

Republicans, as I said, value liberty. The right of privacy is an essential aspect of Liberty. The farther right one goes, the more one wants the government to dissappear and leave one alone. Libertarians are on the extreme right.

Liberalism has always valued equality over liberty - and the source of this ethos is Christianity.

The label conservative is applied to the American Right who are a both ideologically Libertarians and religious. This puts them in internal conflict when it comes to abortion, drugs, etc. The American Left, though, have the same problem. They value equality over liberty except when it come to personal liberty.

[JohnT]

Well, the Judge who wrote the opinion was a Republican!

As was Earl Warren (I don't know if he's the one who wrote the opinion, though... we could be talking about the same person.)

[Ned]

Well John T., the Republicans are constantly being criticized for being inconsistent. They say they value liberty and less intrusion by government, but this seems the only apply the things economic and not things social. This is a valid criticism, in my opinion. The source of this inconsistency, if not hypocrisy, is the fact that most Republicans also seemed to be religious. The far right, the Libertarians, are at least consistent because they extend their concepts of right and wrong to personal liberty as well.

The left in the United States also has the same problem, but in reverse. They seem to want to have the government involved in all aspects of our economic life, but when it comes to personal liberties, they want the government to leave them alone. Further, the left advocates the Christian ideals of equality, but they are antireligious. They deny that Christianity or religion in general has anything of value to offer humanity.

[Ned]

Also, I find it interesting that is almost "common knowledge" today that only Democrats are in favor of civil rights. My wife, who does not come from this country, was shocked and surprised to find that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Many, perhaps even some on this forum, believe that Earl Warren, the man behind Brown v. Board of Education, was a Democrat. He was not. He was a Republican appointed by Dwight Eisenhower. Brennan, the man who wrote Roe v. Wade, was a Republican. It was Senator Dirksen, a Republican, who led the fight in the Senate for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was Richard Nixon, a Republican, who began Affirmative-action.

And, as I have pointed out before in other threads, the Massachusetts Supreme Court that just gave as the ruling in favor of gay marriage, is composed of six Republicans and one Democrat.

All this goes to show is that Republicans can be and in fact are in favor of civil rights and equal treatment of all. But more than this, Republicans have been in the center of fundamental change in this area since Lincoln.

Why? Because Republicans are on the whole religious and because of this truly believe in the equal rights of all.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
HOW F***KING HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?

Now you know how I feel talking to you right-whingers sometimes.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Also, I find it interesting that is almost "common knowledge" today that only Democrats are in favor of civil rights. My wife, who does not come from this country, was shocked and surprised to find that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

This is because after the Civil Rights movement, the racist Southern Democrats left the part and took over the Republican party. From the time of President Nixon's "Southern Stategy" to today, the Republican Party has been the modern party of segregation. Meanwhile, the Democrats, largely purged of the white supremicists, has become the party of Civil Rights.

Is that so hard to understand?

[Ned]

Che, so you say.

And, BTW, go to hell.