[grip_daddy]

The discussion that has been on going in the thread about Free Thinkers made me see a trend tying free thinking to subjectivity of morality. It is to my understanding therefore that a free thinker cannot and should not condemn any person(s) for actions taken by that person, as long as such actions pose no harm (physical, emotional, or psychological) to any other person.

This approach to morality is part of defining parameters of postmodern philosophy, which among other things does not give explicit definition to concepts including religious concepts.

In this light, I have been astonished to interact by some individuals and groups of persons claiming to be religious and at the same time proponents of postmodern philosophy. My big question has always been, "Is this not a high level of hypocrisy?"

On the other hand, atheists have found themselves denying the existence of God (of which they have no proof), subscribing to free thought concept, practising postmodern lifestyle, and at the same time exhibiting hard feelings against religious believers. Aren't atheists hypocritical too?

[ATLian]

It is to my understanding therefore that a free thinker cannot and should not condemn any person(s) for actions taken by that person, as long as such actions pose no harm (physical, emotional, or psychological) to any other person.

Again, a freethinker is one who "holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and not be influenced by emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma." I'm not sure I see the connection between the way a freethinker forms his belief system, and a freethinker not wanting to condemn a person as you have described above.

Now, as a freethinker, I do not think that prostitution should be illegal under the law! So prostitutes should be allowed to do their thing with willing customers, and even remit taxes from their incomes to the IRS. But as much as I am for prostitution being legal, if I had an adult sister who decided to be a prostitute, I definitely would condemn her choice of career, and I would have rational logical reasons for condemning it e.g. risk of disease, death through violent customers, unwanted pregnancy, tarnishing of reputation, risk of jail, etc. I would also understand if she was looked down upon by people, fired from her day job for projecting a bad image on her company, and ostracized by her friends. But under no circumstance should the law be allowed to arrest her, jail her and fine her. No way. Same way I can be a none-drinker, but I wouldn't want alcohola prohibited in my country because of that. Ama I can be a Muslim who doesn't eat pork, but I wouldn't want the country to ban all sales of pork products.

Compare my logical approach to that issue, then compare it to that of a Christian whose primary reason for condemning prostitution or eating pork is because god is against fornication and eating of swine!



On the other hand, atheists have found themselves denying the existence of God (of which they have no proof),

The burden of proof is always on the person claiming the truth. If I say that there are 7-legged pygmies who speak Portugese and live in the Nandi Hills, the burden of proof to bring that evidence is 100% upon me. I cannot claim that, then you naturally say you don't believe me, then I expect you to provide me evidence that those pygmies do not exist! Ditto with god. You cannot blame atheists for not believing in god, and you cannot then tell atheists to prove that god doesn't exist.

[ndigila]

Now, as a freethinker, I do not think that prostitution should be illegal under the law! So prostitutes should be allowed to do their thing with willing customers, and even remit taxes from their incomes to the IRS. But as much as I am for prostitution being legal, if I had an adult sister who decided to be a prostitute, I definitely would condemn her choice of career, and I would have rational logical reasons for condemning it e.g. risk of disease, death through violent customers, unwanted pregnancy, tarnishing of reputation, risk of jail, etc. I would also understand if she was looked down upon by people, fired from her day job for projecting a bad image on her company, and ostracized by her friends. But under no circumstance should the law be allowed to arrest her, jail her and fine her. No way. Same way I can be a none-drinker, but I wouldn't want alcohola prohibited in my country because of that. Ama I can be a Muslim who doesn't eat pork, but I wouldn't want the country to ban all sales of pork products.

Compare my logical approach to that issue, then compare it to that of a Christian whose primary reason for condemning prostitution or eating pork is because god is against fornication and eating of swine!

ATLian, tafadhali re-read your post. You've given logical (by your own admission) reasons to condemn prostitution, and the only argument you have for prostitution is 'prostitutes have a right to do anything.' If you honestly weigh out the pros and cons of prostitution (using your post above), do you still think there's rational and logical reasons to support it?

The burden of proof is always on the person claiming the truth. If I say that there are 7-legged pygmies who speak Portugese and live in the Nandi Hills, the burden of proof to bring that evidence is 100% upon me. I cannot claim that, then you naturally say you don't believe me, then I expect you to provide me evidence that those pygmies do not exist! Ditto with god. You cannot blame atheists for not believing in god, and you cannot then tell atheists to prove that god doesn't exist.

The existence of the supernatural (by definition) cannot be scientifically proved or disproved. But since it plays such an important part in human history, it's an issue that cannot be ignored. So there's 2 ways of approaching this problem:
1) Insist that until there's scientific evidence (which there''ll never be) there's no reason to believe in a supernatural being
2) Use a philosophical argument (which would require the so-called "free thinkers" to step out of their comfort zone of naturalism)

[reggie_woic]

ndigila, did u by any chance go to strath?

[ndigila]

Yes, class of 2004

[ATLian]

ATLian, tafadhali re-read your post. You've given logical (by your own admission) reasons to condemn prostitution, and the only argument you have for prostitution is 'prostitutes have a right to do anything.' If you honestly weigh out the pros and cons of prostitution (using your post above), do you still think there's rational and logical reasons to support it?

I watched a documentary of how difficult it is to climb the Everest, and how many people die every year doing it. Under all rational thinking, one should never attempt to climb the Everest. And if you do so, you should do it after some intensive training, using the best guides and equipment in the world, and scaling it from the south side. But does that mean we should ban those whom want to climb it from trying, or make a harsher ban on those solo climbers who try do it from the north side bila any oxygen from attempting it?

My point is just because there are very many logical reasons to condemn something, it doesn't mean that that something should be illegal under the law! I can give you a very long list of why smoking crack five times a day is not good for you. But that doesn't mean the government should ban someone who wants to do it from doing it. I just gave a long list of why prostitution can be dangerous for you. Again, that doesn't mean we should ban prostitution just because two consenting mature adults want to do it bila hurting anybody!

BTW my argument isn't ati 'prostitutes have a right to do anything.' It's that you, as an adult, should be allowed to sell yourself to another willing adult for sex, just as you can sell yourself as a laborer, an actor, a chef, etc.

Think aobut this - The chic the NY Governor was doing used to charge him $5,000 an hour. How many people make that kind of money? Do you know many women in this world would say "Yes" if given a deal where once a month they'd sleep with this guy for an hour and he'd give them $5,000? Why make that illegal? Why deny them that chance?

Also, in the prohibition era, booze was as illegal as drugs now are. Thousands were killed in the illegal booze trade, thousands died from drinking booze brewed by shady characters in unsanitary conditions, thousands were jailed, cops spent thousands of hours chasing booze runners instead of legit criminals, etc. Now booze is legal, it's brewed in good sanitary conditions, etc. Think about if the same thing would happen to the drug trade. I've heard that half the US jail population is there for drug related charges. The billions spent on the "drug war" is ridiculous. Just legalize the trade, which would immediately cut the insane profits off, and the drug industry would become like the booze industry.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by ATLian

My point is just because there are very many logical reasons to condemn something, it doesn't mean that that something should be illegal under the law! I can give you a very long list of why smoking crack five times a day is not good for you. But that doesn't mean the government should ban someone who wants to do it from doing it. I just gave a long list of why prostitution can be dangerous for you. Again, that doesn't mean we should ban prostitution just because two consenting mature adults want to do it bila hurting anybody!

You're still not providing a logical reason why choice matters more than health, all your saying is it does.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by ATLian

Also, in the prohibition era, booze was as illegal as drugs now are. Thousands were killed in the illegal booze trade, thousands died from drinking booze brewed by shady characters in unsanitary conditions, thousands were jailed, cops spent thousands of hours chasing booze runners instead of legit criminals, etc. Now booze is legal, it's brewed in good sanitary conditions, etc. Think about if the same thing would happen to the drug trade. I've heard that half the US jail population is there for drug related charges. The billions spent on the "drug war" is ridiculous. Just legalize the trade, which would immediately cut the insane profits off, and the drug industry would become like the booze industry.

Is it worth spending the billions of dollars on drug war?

Let's say drug trade was legalized. A jamaa can walk into any convenient store, show ID and walk out with some heroine. Eventually, this jamaa gets addicted to heroine. Heroine begins to take a toll on his body and then his productivity at jobo reduces. He eventually gets fired. Now with no source of income, he relies on his buddies to satisfy his dangerous addiction. Eventually his buddies will kataa. (Now if his buddies are also heroine addicts, that even compounds the problem). What happens next? The probable option is to resort to criminal activity. He'll either try to break into the convenient stores to steal heroine ama steal money to buy heroine. He eventually ends up in jail.

Now multiply this scenario on a national scale. More people will become less productive at jobo, and the economy begins to suffer. Thousands of people resort to crime in order to satisfy their addiction. So you still end up with lots of people in jail and on top of that a worse economy.

So legalizing drug trade isn't that simple.

[ATLian]

Originally Posted by ndigila

You're still not providing a logical reason why choice matters more than health, all your saying is it does.

Because you are an adult, you should be able to make those choices for yourself. If we were to make illegal all things that harm people who intentionally do them, do you realize how long that list would be.

Don't you think that you should be allowed to eat 15 Big Macs a day if you wanted to, even though the resulting obesity-related diseases you get would most certainly kill you?

[ATLian]

Is it worth spending the billions of dollars on drug war?

Absolutely not. They can be better spent on more urgent areas. Why spend $150,000 to imprison for 6 months a man who was smoking some weed by himself in his house. How was anyone harmed by that?



Let's say alcohol trade was legalized. A jamaa can walk into any convenient store, show ID and walk out with some alcohol. Eventually, this jamaa gets addicted to alcohol. Alcohol begins to take a toll on his body and then his productivity at jobo reduces. He eventually gets fired. Now with no source of income, he relies on his buddies to satisfy his dangerous addiction. Eventually his buddies will kataa. (Now if his buddies are also alcohol addicts, that even compounds the problem). What happens next? The probable option is to resort to criminal activity. He'll either try to break into the convenient stores to steal alcohol ama steal money to buy alcohol. He eventually ends up in jail.

I've replaced drugs and heroine in your above post with alcohol.

In the prohibition era, the argument you used above is the same that was used by those against legalizing alcohol.

Fast forward to today, and see how things are. of course there are some people who are messed up coz of alcohol, but they are a tiny minority. It's a fact that most people do what they are meant to do - go to work, school, etc - despite alcohol being legal and available all over.

See where your argument fails.

BTW the people who are most opposed to the legalizing of the drug trade are - surprise - the dealers. They know that a legalized drug trade would slash their profit margins from huko 13,000% for cocaine to nothing.


One last question since you're very against legalizing of drugs. Assume kesho when chilling in your backyard, you realize that licking the bark of the tree in your yard can make you as high as a kite. Are you then suggesting that you would be OK with the government immediately making licking of those trees illegal?