Why is Mississippi the worst state?

[Booz Vivic]

read above

[MavsSuperFan]

many reasons.

Off the top of my head I would guess it is america's poorest state on a per capita basis, or close to it.

Thus it would have underfunded schools.

The reason its poor imo is the same as most of the south, they were former slave states. Slavery in addition to being evil and grossly immoral also imo retards the technological development of an area. In the short term slavery creates a huge economic boom, because of the extremely cheap labor, (only have to provide sustenance), but in the long term it hinders dynamic innovations. Eg. relying on manual labor to harvest wheat rather than inventing the combine tractor

One of the big factors for why the north defeated the south in the civil war was because of the much great levels of industrialization in the north.

[Akrazotile]

many reasons.

Off the top of my head I would guess it is america's poorest state on a per capita basis, or close to it.

Thus it would have underfunded schools.

The reason its poor imo is the same as most of the south, they were former slave states. Slavery in addition to being evil and grossly immoral also imo retards the technological development of an area. One of the big factors for why the north defeated the south in the civil war was because of the much great levels of industrialization in the north.

Youre atheist, right?

What do you base words like evil and immoral on? How do you derive a definition for them?

[riseagainst]

Youre atheist, right?

What do you base words like evil and immoral on? How do you derive a definition for them?

if you kill someone because of his/her skin color, then you are evil and immoral.

[Akrazotile]

if you kill someone because of his/her skin color, then you are evil and immoral.

But if others disagree, how exactly would you explain to them that you arrived at your conclusion?

You guys like "proof and evidence" and all that sciency stuff whenever youre talking down religion. But how is religion different than your self appointed "decidership" of morals. What makes you correct on an objective level?

[MavsSuperFan]

Youre atheist, right?

What do you base words like evil and immoral on? How do you derive a definition for them?

The irony you are missing is the bible justifies slavery. and was actually used by whites to justify enslaving africans.

"slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling" (Ephesians 6:5)

"tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect" (Titus 2:9)

How the Bible was used to justify slavery:

The Christian church's main justification of the concept of slavery is based on Genesis 9:25-27. According to the Bible, the worldwide flood had concluded and there were only 8 humans alive on earth: Noah, his wife, their six sons and daughters in law. Noah's son Ham had seen "the nakedness of his father." So, Noah laid a curse -- not on Ham, who was guilty of some undefined type of indiscretion. The sin was transferred to Noah's grandson Canaan. Such transference of sin from a guilty to an innocent person or persons is unusual in the world's religious and secular moral codes. It is normally considered highly unethical. However, it appears in many biblical passages. The curse extended to all of Canaan's descendants:

bullet Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'. "
Christians traditionally believed that Canaan had settled in Africa. The dark skin of Africans became associated with this "curse of Ham." Thus slavery of Africans became religiously justifiable. Author Anthony Pagden wrote:

"This reading of the Book of Genesis merged easily into a medieval iconographic tradition in which devils were always depicted as black. Later pseudo-scientific theories would be built around African skull shapes, dental structure, and body postures, in an attempt to find an unassailable argument--rooted in whatever the most persuasive contemporary idiom happened to be: law, theology, genealogy, or natural science -- why one part of the human race should live in perpetual indebtedness to another." 1

IMO many parts of the old and new testament are deeply immoral.

further concepts of morality predate christianity

[step_back]

But if others disagree, how exactly would you explain to them that you arrived at your conclusion?

You guys like "proof and evidence" and all that sciency stuff whenever youre talking down religion. But how is religion different than your self appointed "decidership" of morals. What makes you correct on an objective level?

Our morals come from the same place as religious people.

[riseagainst]

But if others disagree, how exactly would you explain to them that you arrived at your conclusion?

You guys like "proof and evidence" and all that sciency stuff whenever youre talking down religion. But how is religion different than your self appointed "decidership" of morals. What makes you correct on an objective level?

there are proof and evidence for morals, but it is not objective. Morals and truths are, on a technical scale, derived from a community/society's standards and the people's way of life. Where do laws come from? Made up by people who base them on the general moral believes of the society as a whole.

Morals could differ from society to society, but it is at least derived from a group of people.

Religion, on the other hand, is derived from.... what exactly? A compilation of stories. Not a collective discussion in a meeting or anything. Also morals/laws/truths can change as society evolves. Can this religion thing change and evolve? From what i've read about religion's history, change is what they fear most.

[Akrazotile]

The irony you are missing is the bible justifies slavery. and was actually used by whites to justify enslaving africans.




further concepts of morality predate christianity

What do the bible and christianity have to do with my question to you?

There was a thread a while back where you stated that religion was an unhealthy and dangerous thing for people in America to participate in because believing something without evidence is a hindrance to medical, educational, and other varieties of progress.

So what is your evidence for how morals are defined?

It's ok to accept as valid what makes you feel comfortable, but you won't tolerate others doing the same thing if their belief set doesn't happen to meet your needs?


Interesting.

[Akrazotile]

there are proof and evidence for morals, but it is not objective. Morals and truths are, on a technical scale, derived from a community/society's standards and the people's way of life. Where do laws come from? Made up by people who base them on the general moral believes of the society as a whole.

Laws, whether they are secular or religious, usually come from a need for mutual protection/preservation. Then morality is conceptualized around them in order to give them a kind of universal validation.

Morals could differ from society to society, but it is at least derived from a group of people.

Since when? Did Hammurabi consult all the peasants in the field for his law code? Did Napoleon? Did Saddam? Whether one person or a group of people create them, laws are established for practical, worldy purposes. There's a reason we don't have laws against how fast you can fly a spaceship. It's not because there's an inherent degree of morality or immorality in speeding in a spaceship... it just has no use for us.

Religion, on the other hand, is derived from.... what exactly? A compilation of stories. Not a collective discussion in a meeting or anything. Also morals/laws/truths can change as society evolves. Can this religion thing change and evolve? From what i've read about religion's history, change is what they fear most.

Funny thing is, modern atheist liberals say they loathe 'sanctimonious religious preachin' and that's fine. But then they do the exact same thing. For instance northerners in early American history had no use for slavery, so of course they were going to champion that as their soapbox card. "Look how much smarter and more progressive we are, WE don't use slaves!" Yeah, because there's no economic incentive. Offer every northern liberal 50k/year to change his mind and the Civil War never gets fought.


I am against slavery because I think it denigrates our innocence as a community. I think it ingrains a desensitization to savagery, and frankly a slight bit of collective denial and naivety is good for a society as a whole, even if it varies on an individual level from person to person. There have always been people who made advancements in critical thought, science, medicine, history, etc. even within the boundaries of very religious communities. You can still internally believe whatever you want, wherever you are. If you go around stomping on religion, what grounds will YOU have to stand on? Your 'evidence or gtfo' card will not play when YOU want to preach morals and right/wrong. Where's your evidence?

If you don't like a particular political push from a religious group, then attack the merits of the policy. Why attack the religion? You aren't above religion, because YOU tell yourself what you prefer to believe in every single bit the same way that religious folks do. You'll buy any "we are all equal" sloganism that gets fed to you, if that's the group you want to fit in with, if that's the ideology that makes you feel comfortable, if that's the position you derive benefit and satisfaction from. You aren't critically analyzing whether we all really are equal on an individual and communal level. You're bearing the flag for your group and that's that. You're singin the hymn.


I don't 'practice' any religion myself currently but I do get a kick from talking-point liberals who have the nerve to claim religious people are in denial. It's a straw man, because everyone is in denial, they're just using it as leverage to elevate their own personal view of reality above others.

[riseagainst]

Laws, whether they are secular or religious, usually come from a need for mutual protection/preservation. Then morality is conceptualized around them in order to give them a kind of universal validation.

This could be correct, but the other way around is also correct and the most common case. Laws are also made to protect what the people believe in.

i.e. Any amendment in the constitution was ratified because there were a large group of people who believe those to be morally correct, inalienable rights as human beings. Not the other way around.

Since when? Did Hammurabi consult all the peasants in the field for his law code? Did Napoleon? Did Saddam? Whether one person or a group of people create them, laws are established for practical, worldy purposes. There's a reason we don't have laws against how fast you can fly a spaceship. It's not because there's an inherent degree of morality or immorality in speeding in a spaceship... it just has no use for us.

Well, when i mentioned a group of people i was generally referring to the democratic process. But those leaders you mentioned were all kings/dictators, so of course no one else had a say in their laws being published. So in these cases, those laws are just what those leaders believed in or whatever favored them anyway.

Funny thing is, modern atheist liberals say they loathe 'sanctimonious religious preachin' and that's fine. But then they do the exact same thing. For instance northerners in early American history had no use for slavery, so of course they were going to champion that as their soapbox card. "Look how much smarter and more progressive we are, WE don't use slaves!" Yeah, because there's no economic incentive. Offer every northern liberal 50k/year to change his mind and the Civil War never gets fought.


I am against slavery because I think it denigrates our innocence as a community. I think it ingrains a desensitization to savagery, and frankly a slight bit of collective denial and naivety is good for a society as a whole, even if it varies on an individual level from person to person. There have always been people who made advancements in critical thought, science, medicine, history, etc. even within the boundaries of very religious communities. You can still internally believe whatever you want, wherever you are. If you go around stomping on religion, what grounds will YOU have to stand on? Your 'evidence or gtfo' card will not play when YOU want to preach morals and right/wrong. Where's your evidence?

If you don't like a particular political push from a religious group, then attack the merits of the policy. Why attack the religion? You aren't above religion, because YOU tell yourself what you prefer to believe in every single bit the same way that religious folks do. You'll buy any "we are all equal" sloganism that gets fed to you, if that's the group you want to fit in with, if that's the ideology that makes you feel comfortable, if that's the position you derive benefit and satisfaction from. You aren't critically analyzing whether we all really are equal on an individual and communal level. You're bearing the flag for your group and that's that. You're singin the hymn.


I don't 'practice' any religion myself currently but I do get a kick from talking-point liberals who have the nerve to claim religious people are in denial. It's a straw man, because everyone is in denial, they're just using it as leverage to elevate their own personal view of reality above others.

I got a little confused by this, not bashing you or anything, because it was so long so i lost my train of thought. But i am not bashing religion, it's just comparing proving the existence of God and proving whether a set of morals is justified are completely different things.

I don't bash religion at all. But i just find it hard to believe in because there is nothing logical about it. Morally speaking, some of the stories and teachings in the bible are very illuminating and i learn from them. But to sit there and tell me that i "must fear" God or i go to hell, a place of immense suffering and forever burning, even though he still loves, is just too grand for my tiny brain, i guess.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Back to the topic at hand,

I don't think Mississippi is the worst state.

New Orleans and Maryland are both pretty sh1tty.

[~primetime~]

Back to the topic at hand,

I don't think Mississippi is the worst state.

New Orleans and Maryland are both pretty sh1tty.

Alaska is up there

[Akrazotile]

Back to the topic at hand,

I don't think Mississippi is the worst state.

New Orleans and Maryland are both pretty sh1tty.

[~primetime~]

Louisiana is a bottom-5 state though