Although the 'virus' in lingo of some groups is ideas. I posted about that years ago, although I assume others said it in many places.
Many stories, like zombie films and such use that metaphor. And ideas do spread in similar ways. Although most of zombie films are backwards. If you remove violence filter, you see it as spreading of compassion, and some that call that being dead.
Although I think Darwinism is a bad doctrine that limits concepts of existence, and when those other concepts of the spiritual are removed, things like eugenics and 'anything goes' pop up. Amoral concepts.
Basically he doesn't know it but he is speaking of spiritual concepts, if you think of as ideas as living, like spoken of in many places. There is a concept that groups of people are like a brain, and ideas are like an organism, and that organism wants to spread, and there is a purpose, either hatred of people, or making life better for people. Some hate people, some like people.
Instead think of it as spiritual forces, that do push people to support ideas, if they can show the person that it is worth sharing those ideas. Although there may not be self gain, with concepts of bigger goals that are more about community with empathy, the self goal is sometimes lowered.
He is correct some people can change the meaning of beliefs by lying about them, there are Machiavellians that do that with many belief systems. Although a meaning of a belief can also be corrected.
If you act without a moral component, you are advocating for sociopaths. And from that what is the conclusion of what is the best coarse of action? Although depends on what you define what morals are.
In a non moral world, eugenics seems to make alot of sense, that 'no morale thinking' is how many can be killed, the problem is no morals then makes what is most important, and the criteria for who lives not based on any morals either. Since it is not a component of the calculation.
If someone had power, and no morals, would they believe they could decide life and death? And how would they decide what should live and die? What ideas would they think should be spread and what ideas hindered?
That video is terrible in my view, but maybe I am letting some thoughts on what is 'morals' intersect with my viewing of its value.
Machiavellian teaches to rule without morals, and that spell needs to be broken.
Then again, this guy was wrong also.
Magician James Randi shows us a trick
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euMxQs9_43k
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
