Noah Crossfield

Prattville, AL, United States

Someone is shy

Noah hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Noah Crossfield
Posted over 2 years ago
Can naturalism support a universal, moral code?
It depends on how you define universal moral code. I would say no, if you are considering a "good and evil" definition of moral. The symbiosis and golden rule arguments are pointing to a world that is defined simply by sociological benefit. We act a certain way because it helps humans as a species survive. This concept can explain many different things that we consider basic rights. (We dont kill because it hurts the species and also because we dont want to be killed. We hope that by outlawing murder, we will reduce the chance of murdered.) This type of thinking can explain many things that we consider moral, but, once again, it depends on your definition of moral. Another possibility is that through evolution humans have some of this golden rule concept built into our genetic makeup. Humanity is a social species. We could have some of these traits (such as empathy) built into our DNA and that is why we consider things "right and wrong." It does raise the question of sacrifice though. Why would evolution ever lead to selfless sacrifice as a good thing if it hurts oneself? If you believe there is a true "good and evil" or "right and wrong," it must be asked where did that come from? Is it beyond scientific understanding (aka supernatural)? Could it simply "just be?" Is it just a complex form of evolution? If all morality is a complex form of evolution, what does that mean to one's personal worldview? (Random fact, this was one of the questions that C.S. Lewis wrestled with when he was examining his spirituality. Since he believed that there was a true good and evil, he concluded there must be something more than just the physical world.) It is a great question to think over. I got really distracted in that last paragraph. I do not believe that naturalism can support a universal moral code because a universal moral code seems to be in a more philosophical realm. Naturalism can however support a society of people that are kind and overall nice people.
Noface
Noah Crossfield
Posted over 2 years ago
Media breaking news reports.
This raises the question, "Who is responsible? The media for getting out news as fast as possible or the public for taking the breaking news reports as undisputed fact?" While I am against the media being manipulative, I must ask how much of the situation depends on the viewer's assessment of what he/she sees? I personally am skeptical of those emotional interviews discussed in the opening post. Should we as viewers realize that breaking news might be a little off while it first being reported? I personally would rather know as much as I can as fast as I can. I would want to know the major details such as where it is and if it is dangerous as soon as I could. The finer details could be told later. I think delaying reporting the event until the further evidence is obtained would be a worse scenario.
Noface
Noah Crossfield
Posted over 2 years ago
isn't the social stigma surrounding addictions counterproductive?
I think this is a complicated scenario. I believe that you are right in stating that addictions are fueled by feelings of helplessness and isolation, but the entire situation is larger than that. First, one must look at what causes some of these stigmas. Lets examine alcoholism. Alcoholism is commonly associated with drunk driving. Drunk driving accidents are horrific and very bad for society. Because alcoholism is a large factor in drunk driving accidents, society should stigmatize drunk driving. Society condemns actions that are harmful to the people of a society (it also condemns things that are different from the normal, but that isnt applicable to this conversation). This is why we praise good work ethics and don't like criminals. It encourages people to fit within certain limits of what is helpful to a society. Addictions normally do not aid a healthy successful life. Drug addictions and alcohol addictions normally make keeping a job harder. Because we do not normally desire major addicts in society, the stigma against addictions is still useful. That being said, I see what you are saying about society judging an addict. This seems to be a generalization though. I know of many different organizations and treatment options that are available for addicts. Counseling groups and rehabilitation centers are excellent examples. While society may condemn addiction, there are still havens which help with the very serious problem of addictions. Personally, I know many people with addictions. I see the addiction in their life and the harm that addiction brings. I still see the addiction in a negative light. I still see it a stigma. However, I still love and care for these people. They are still people. I can accept a person while not praising every choice they make. That doesn't make their actions any less harmful though.
Noface
Noah Crossfield
Posted over 2 years ago
Will the absence of Religion make the world more peaceful ?
I think that this is a really complex issue. Most of these "would the world be better if" questions are rather unproductive in nature though. Most of these issues have both good and bad aspects; we cannot make a valid judgement simply because we do not know what history would be like without it. That being said, I do not know if there would have been less wars without many religions. There were many wars that did have religious underpinnings. Many of the wars in Europe were between Catholic and Protestant nations. However, is religion the cause of it? It is likely that the British Isles and France would have conflict because of their proximity; they would be in competition for resources. Religion was a major cause of those wars, but there would probably still be conflict even if there was no religion just due to human nature. As Barry Palmer said, it would also be a lot more fitting to say that religion is used to justify wars. In addition to that, in talking about religion, one must be incredibly specific about what one is talking about. There are pure forms of religion and then there are the misconstrued versions that people have. Islam translated is "peace." Most Muslims are incredibly peaceful people who want to improve the world, but there certainly are some who are using the faith to incite radical behavior. It would be incredibly unfair to say that all Muslims are radical extremists, so the definition of religion is incredibly important. Finally, it is also important to note that religion has also been part of peace and good. The story of slavery and civil rights in the western world is a good example. William Wilberforce, one of the main leaders of the antislavery movement in Great Britain, was an evangelical Christian. Dona Beatriz was a leader in the anti-slavery movement in Kongo and a Christian. Martin Luther King Jr. was a preacher who led the civil rights movement. Their actions were influenced by religion. Religion has its peaceful side too.
Noface
Noah Crossfield
Posted over 2 years ago
Sunken Cities
I think this sounds like an interesting idea. The biggest question would probably have to deal with the cost. Would be more expensive to build this city? It seems like it. I think this option will become much more viable if the population was in desperate need of housing. It almost seems like the resources spent on the underground city could build a slightly better above ground city.
Noface
Noah Crossfield
Posted over 2 years ago
Debate: Who's to blame for bullies?
I think the situation is very complex. We had to research this for my Comp 2 class, and I learned one fact that was quite interesting. I learned that a lot of bullies are actually bullied themselves. Creates an odd dynamic. Sometimes it bullying is based partially on an inability to express one's self in appropriate ways. I could see this being due to a parent's raising of a child. It seems to be much larger though. While it seems to be a factor, it is certainly not the only one.
Noface
Noah Crossfield
Posted over 2 years ago
Should Americans eliminate the Electoral College and elect their presidents through simple majority vote?
Age Funk, you have seen the flaws of the Electoral College system. It can discourage voter turnout. Discouraging voter turnout is probably the best argument against the system. The other comments about the bi-partisan system actually encapsulate the goal of the system. When the U.S. was first created, it was very diverse. The bi-partisan system normally works in larger diverse states; the parliamentary model works better in less diverse states. There were lots of immigrants in the colonies, and the economies of the North and the South were drastically different. There were lots of different ideas and interest groups with conflicting ideas. The two-party system tries to force platforms that untie as many people as possible. This would prevent one group from trying to legislate only for its benefit. (For example, if the people located in the major cities of the US could gather enough support to win the election for whoever they wanted, they could pick one candidate who put ridiculous land taxes on the entire nation. This would severely hurt the people who live in rural states while the city-dwellers were largely unaffected. This is just an example, but it demonstrates the point.) The two-party system forces the two different parties to make platforms that are broad to gather as many votes as possible. If the US had a system like the Czech Republic, the popular primary that you spoke of could very well lead to two candidates that did not represent the public at large. (Maybe two candidates that were pro-military and also pro-life. If one did not like those stances, he could not vote against them because both candidates would be for it.) The popular election would then be less representative of the wishes of the people than the two-party system. I see what you are saying. The system is not perfect, but the alternative has the potential to be much worse.
Noface
Noah Crossfield
Posted over 2 years ago
Should Americans eliminate the Electoral College and elect their presidents through simple majority vote?
I see what you are saying, but this is due mainly to the fact that we stopped adding representatives to the House of Representatives. We used to keep adding representatives based on population, but now we just switch how many seats a state can have based on population. If we added representatives, (or atleast gave representatives more vote based on population, or some similar system) the problem would be moot. I think it would be easier to change this aspect of the electoral college than change the electoral college.
Noface
Noah Crossfield
Posted over 2 years ago
Should Americans eliminate the Electoral College and elect their presidents through simple majority vote?
I see what you are saying as well, Age Funk, but I do not think that a popular vote would really solve the problem. It can go either one of two ways. Lets take the example about Oregon's presidential vote being "wasted." I see how you could argue that about half the state didnt have a vote in the election, but if a popular vote system was used, a similar result would occur. The only difference would be that the "wasting of votes" would be on the national level instead of the state level. Oregon's votes for Romney would be added to the population vote, but since Obama got the majority, the Romney votes still get "thrown out." Because only one person can be the president, about half of the nation will not vote for him. This is just do to the nature of the election; it isnt based on the Electoral College. The other part of the system is that it encourages only two candidates. Since a candidate has to win a majority of a state to get any electoral votes, a candidate has to have a lot of backing. It discourages less popular candidates from running. This helps prevent the population from splitting the vote greatly. (if three equally popular candidates ran in an popular-vote election, one could win with about 35% of the vote which is significantly less than what normally happens in the Electoral College system.) This is the trade off. I personally find this a worthy trade off.