With the racism argument:

While I agree with it as the probable cause for all the upset over immigration, I can't help but think "I find it hard to believe that Swedish people are crossing the border to get to the US illegally... since a) Sweden is, as far as I know, a pretty nice place and b) we're not next to each other."

Maybe Canadians? (But you could argue that comparatively, Canada is the same as the US in terms of niceness vs Mexico.)

Also, wasn't there recently a study published that said that "illegals" are actually LESS of a burden on the healthcare system, or something?

Carl Sagan was the man.

As far as the discussion on 'rights', rights are an intellectual creation that allow us to talk about ethical systems in more conscious/meaningful/useful terms. (I.e. "That ethical system is immoral because it violates Right X etc...) That statement doesn't explain why we would feel we have Right X or why Right X is more useful, etc.., and I point this out because there is evidence that human ethics are actually influenced by Human Evolution. (Perhaps in a related fashion, our conscious discussion of rights is influenced by subconscious ideas already inherent...)

Besides the fact that there's actual observable phenomenon (Similarities across cultures that weren't seemingly influenced by each other), think of it this way.

In terms of evolution, who is better off (generally speaking): a single person, or a group of people. I'd say the group of people, as they are better able to deal with larger threats and are also able to provide more resources. (This should be seen as common sense...) Any advantage that helps that group work better will be more likely to be passed on over things that do the opposite. (Co-operation vs Competition) That's not to say that all co-operation is good and all competition is bad, just that things which help the group succeed (and similarly help the individuals produce offspring) are more likely to be passed on.

Or, just looking at it from a family scale: who is more likely to survive, a family that cares for it's young or a family that doesn't? (Human family, where the baby isn't capable of taking care of itself...)

That's not to say that we should infer moral judgments based on these innate beliefs, since some people are naturally violent and we don't think THAT'S acceptable just because it's a natural tendency. This is all just to give us a better understanding our ethical systems.


Edit: Forgot to add this:

As far as Ivan's point about questioning the "Right to Exist", if the evolutionary foundation of ethics (i.e. they're innate parts of human nature) are to be believed, then it could be imagined that it would rarely come up.

You might think it odd if someone were to question whether there SHOULD be justice in the world or whether we SHOULD be interested in justice, for instance, since it's just an innate part of human nature and we take it for granted sometimes. (Not necessarily that there IS justice in the world, which is a separate issue.)

Read, about a month ago, "A Darwinian Left"... good stuff. (It's short, but I used it in a discussion I led at the Phil Club about Human Nature.)

You didn't know xolik worked for the bureau??

I thought FBI meant Federal Boob Inspector... what is this Bureau you speak of?

 ENTP

Yay for the Warhammer mention, and Weird Tingly Feeling is a "Geek Geek"?

http://www.erightsoft.com/SUPER.html

Awesome program, awful site design.

That converts from most anything to most anything.

That's awesome!

Hitler before the west demonized him.

Argumentum ad hominemArgumentum ad antiquitatemArgumentum ad misericordiamArgumentum ad hominemArgumentum JPFSCum hoc ergo propter hoc
Argumentum ad antiquitatemArgumentum ad populumNon Sequitur
Argumentum ad hominem


Well, you hit most of the good ones.  Would you care to Goodwin the thread while you're at it?

Nazi!

I really don't understand why so many people are against any progress

Because progress != good or better.

Atom Bomb?
Skynet?
1984?

Definitions of religion on the Web:

    * a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
    * an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
      wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


I realize there are several definitions, but how is one better than the other in this case?

Agnosticism can be applied to theists as well as atheists, so it is unfair to treat it as a separate religion.