Total posts: 855
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
if you believe it is immoral to harm animals then you must also believe it is immoral to slaughter them animals.
Well it's a good thing that I don't consider harming animals immoral in and of itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Morality is a personal impulse.
Your continual refusal to answer a simple question forces me to assume an answer. Based on the quoted statement, bestiality is only wrong if a person believes it is wrong. In other words, you believe that bestiality is a justifiable act depending on the individual's personal preferences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why can't you answer this simple question ?
Why can't you answer mine?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I personally do not condone either the abuse and or slaughter of humans or animals.
That is not a direct answer to my question. Is it wrong for humans to have sex with animals? A yes or no will suffice.
The question posed in this topic, the question that you've been dodging is,How can someone be in favor of granting rights to animals and still fabricate elaborate excuses for maintaining modern factory farms ?
If you go back to the OP, you will see that your statement is a misrepresentation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) you want to protect animals from pain and discomfort (THEN) you must grant them rights(IFF) you grant rights to animals (THEN) you should not slaughter them
If rights are granted by humans, then humans can also take those rights away.
Is it wrong for humans to have sex with animals? Quit dodging the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Isn't it obvious ?
I'm holding out hope that you aren't going to justify humans degrading themselves with animals.
So, what anyone happens to do with their own property is of no concern to the state.
My hope is dwindling fast.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What about shocking a dog with a cattle prod every time you want them to move from one cage to another ?
What does this have to do with the original question of whether bestiality is morally evil or not?
And does property have rights ?
Only humans have rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think it's "moral" to keep a chicken (and or a calf and or a goose) locked in a small cage for it's entire life ?
That would depend on the needs of the animal. A chicken would do better in a cage than a dog, though neither would thrive in that environment. I would suggest that no one keep such an animal in those conditions but again, I would be hesitant to make it a black and white moral imperative.
But I am still failing to see the relevance to the question of whether bestiality is moral or not. Are you at least building up to that point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think it's "moral" to keep a dog locked in a small cage for it's entire life ?
Dogs have certain requirements to maintain their health. Being kept in a small cage would be seriously detrimental to a dog's health. However, I would be hesitant to assign a black and white moral imperative not to keep a dog in a cage.
But I am still failing to see the relevance to the question of whether bestiality is moral or not. Are you at least building up to that point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Is a chicken more "alive" or less "alive" than a dog ?
It is just as much "alive" as a dog is. The only distinction between the two is a manmade one that is a matter of perception. But they are both just animals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm asking (IFF) you consider chickens (and or books) property or not.
Yes, I would consider them property. But they are also distinct because one is alive and one is not. That is why I wouldn't consider ripping up a book to be harmful. I am failing to see what that has to do with the original question of whether bestiality is morally evil or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It sounds like you're arguing that a person has a right to have sex with their books and their chickens. Is that correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you believe killing is worse than assault ?
Yes. But I'm interested to see where you're going to go on this one...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
However, there have been some pretty horny animals that I have came across in videos and movies that would be fine with having consensual, non PTSD causing sex with humans.
I would strongly advise you stop watching such videos and movies for your own personal wellbeing. You might also benefit from examining the foundation of your moral philosophy that allows for humans to degrade themselves with beasts in such a way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
So you don't believe bestiality is wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
This is incorrect. Animals don't consent to beastiality or to being killed for meat. If you value animal consent enough to ban having sex with them, you also should be vegan.
This is incorrect. I don't want banned because of the issue of consent. I want it banned because it's an abomination and morally evil in and of itself. And I have a foundation to say so.
Is lack of consent the only reason you think bestiality is wrong? Assuming you actually believe it is wrong of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Is it morally wrong to have sex with animals?
If so, then there is no hypocrisy to make it illegal to have sex with animals while not being a vegetarian.
If not, I hope you don't have pets.
If so, then there is no hypocrisy to make it illegal to have sex with animals while not being a vegetarian.
If not, I hope you don't have pets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Including the preceding sentence helps make the meaning of Exodus 12:49 clear:
"No uncircumcised male may eat [the Passover]. The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you."
Exodus 12:49 is obviously not saying that foreigners should be treated the same as native-born Israelites in all respects. The very section it is found in is makes multiple distinctions between the two. It makes far more sense that "The same law" is in reference to the prohibition of uncircumcised males eating the Passover meal.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you believe an oppressor/oppressed relationship also exists ?
Only where true oppression exists.
Created:
And do you consider yourself a post-Hegelian ?
No.
So would you say that "oppression" doesn't exist ?
I believe oppression exists. I am unsure whether "oppression" exists.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you're looking for a "true source" of the ideology of today, then Hegel would probably be the place to go. Even the term "neo-Marxism" would not exactly be accurate to describe what we are today. The term "Woke" or "Wokeness" is used now to describe the current stage we are seeing in this progression.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
That is a very convincing argument...
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
At it's core, it is just another attempt to create an oppressor/oppressed relationship. Just like Marxism.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So this, "neo-marxism" stuff is the true source of Systemic-Racism™ in Hindu culture for the past 5000 years ?
No. Systemic racism, as it is most widely used in the current cultural context of the U.S.A., is part of a larger ideology that can be identified as neo-Marxism.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
That depends on how you define "systemic racism," and whether that definition stems from neo-Marxism
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is the ideology from which the whole concept of systemic racism comes from. It's a new form of Marxism. Neo-Marxism.
If you are going to argue in favor of systemic racism, you would be wise to understand the rest of the ideology that goes with it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Then we shouldn't be discussing the function of the Supreme Court. We are discussing the concept of systemic racism and how it is part of larger neo-Marxist system that will lead to a totalitarian takeover.But you seem to believe we are already under totalitarian rule because some unidentified group of politicians own the Supreme Court, and that is apparently a bad thing because you believe the Supreme Court should also respect the Constitution. But you also are arguing for the concept of systemic racism, which identified the Constitution as being a driver of systemic racism and white supremacy.To summarize the inconsistency, let me put it in a format you may prefer:
- If the Constitution is a form of systemic racism
- And the Supreme Court is tasked with upholding the Constitution
- Then the Supreme Court is perpetuating systemic racism
You can't consistently argue against systemic racism and for the Supreme Court to respect the Constitution - a systemically racist document.
Shorter summary:
- Neo-Marxism, which is the ideology that systemic racism is a main part of, is totalitarian.
- You are being inconsistent.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, so what's your policy proposal ?
That question shows me you still don't know what we're discussing.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Then we shouldn't be discussing the function of the Supreme Court. We are discussing the concept of systemic racism and how it is part of larger neo-Marxist system that will lead to a totalitarian takeover.
But you seem to believe we are already under totalitarian rule because some unidentified group of politicians own the Supreme Court, and that is apparently a bad thing because you believe the Supreme Court should also respect the Constitution. But you also are arguing for the concept of systemic racism, which identified the Constitution as being a driver of systemic racism and white supremacy.
To summarize the inconsistency, let me put it in a format you may prefer:
- If the Constitution is a form of systemic racism
- And the Supreme Court is tasked with upholding the Constitution
- Then the Supreme Court is perpetuating systemic racism
You can't consistently argue against systemic racism and for the Supreme Court to respect the Constitution - a systemically racist document.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you even know what we are discussing right now?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
IS THE CONSTITUTION PART OF THE SYSTEM OF WHITE SUPREMACY?PERHAPS A CASE CAN BE MADE FOR THAT, BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FUNCTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
WHAT DOES THE FUNCTION OF THE SUPREME COURT HAVE TO DO WITH A THREAD ABOUT SYSTEMIC RACISM?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
IS THE CONSTITUTION PART OF THE SYSTEM OF WHITE SUPREMACY?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's a completely different conversation (which I'm more than happy to engage in).
No it's not. The thread is titled, "The many debates on systemic racism in America are flawed." Here was my comment:
But isn't the Constitution itself part of the system of white supremacy? It was written by white men for white men. Why should they respect it?
Why should the Supreme Court respect a racist document that is part of the system of white supremacy? Are you a white supremacists?
Created:
But isn't the Constitution itself part of the system of white supremacy? It was written by white men for white men. Why should they respect it?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you want government bureaucrats to be in charge of determining what human rights you deserve,THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE NOW.
Not quite. The politicians who think they have the right to rule as totalitarians still have the Constitution to keep them in check. But even that can only last so long when people have no desire for freedom. Just give them their iphone and a bag of Cheetos and they'll let the government bureaucrats do whatever they want.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i hope you realize that adolphhitler was staunchly anti-marxist.
I hope you realize that was a tongue in cheek comment and not meant to be taken as a technical term. But it still doesn't change what I previously said.
Marxism is the philosophy that will lead to total government control. If you value freedom, you should reject Marxist philosophies, of which CRT is one. If you want government bureaucrats to be in charge of determining what human rights you deserve, then allow CRT to continue unhindered. Its up to you.
Created:
Posted in:
This does not have to be a deep philosophical issue or debate. I am just interested to hear people's thoughts. The questions below are just a few examples of ways to approach the topic:
How consistently must a person lie before we stop trusting them completely?
If a person has lost our trust to some degree, how can they earn it back?
How can we discern when a liar is telling the truth?
What biases might we have that make us want to continue trusting the liar, even after he/she has shown no commitment to telling the truth?
How consistently must a person lie before we stop trusting them completely?
If a person has lost our trust to some degree, how can they earn it back?
How can we discern when a liar is telling the truth?
What biases might we have that make us want to continue trusting the liar, even after he/she has shown no commitment to telling the truth?
Created:
-->
@Username
Just because there's a racial disproportionality that stems from a system doesn't mean that we have to tear it all down.
You may not think so, but the ideology that is driving the current narrative about systemic racism disagrees with you.
Created:
-->
@Username
But the narrative is that systemic racism is woven into the very fabric of American society. The systems were created with the intention of benefitting white people, and will continue to do so. So until the systems are torn down and rebuilt, systemic racism will exist to benefit white people. And the disparities will continue and there is nothing that black people, as a group, can do to overcome those disparities as long as all those systems are in place.
That means that black people will continue to fall on the short end of those disparities compared to white people until America is deconstructed.
That means that black people will continue to fall on the short end of those disparities compared to white people until America is deconstructed.
Created:
-->
@Username
I don't know what you mean by "the system". I think there are many systems and institutions in the country. Systemic racism can occur in any one of them.
I am referencing a single system to refer to all systems within the context of the U.S.
I think the bulk of your argument(s) are like this: QB of team A (hereafter QB-A and TA) is causing Team B (TB) to lose. Therefore, QB-A causes TB to lose as a necessary outcome. If TB starts winning or losing less, than QB-A must have lost his skill. The second and third sentences are non-sequiturs from the first.
The analogy doesn't work because of the non-sequiturs. As I showed from the quote in my last post, which is consistent with CRT, systemic racism causes disparities. That is the evidence and proof of it. If I asked you to prove systemic racism exists, how would you do it? You can't point to an explicit example, so you have to find disparities, and then find a supposed cause of the disparity. Would you prove systemic racism exists today using another means?
Created:
-->
@Username
Qualifiers:
"less intelligent"
I am not referring to the capacity to learn new information, but rather acquired skills typically learned in education. This would include areas such as proficiency in reading, writing, math, and critical thinking. It is often claimed that inequitable access to government dollars in public education results in lower proficiency in those areas.
"less qualified for skilled jobs"
This would typically be the result of lower intelligence (as I have just qualified it), as well as being unable to go to college for various reasons.
"do more drugs"
I have seen this claim often, but would be more accurately stated, "more likely to do drugs," rather than the current phrasing. But we can leave that one out for the sake of the argument.
An added qualifier--
Here is a description of systemic racism:
Harris said systemic racism creates disparities in many "success indicators" including wealth, the criminal justice system, employment, housing, health care, politics and education.
SOURCE: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5343549002
So systemic racism "creates" racial disparities as a necessary outcome. The incomes may vary between individuals or localized populations. But as an entire group, these disparities will continue under the current system. So let me rephrase the statement slightly with those qualifiers.
Black people are, on average, less intelligent, poorer, less qualified for skilled jobs, more obese, and commit more crimes than white people, and those disparities will continue to characterize back people as an entire group if the system continues as it is.
The key factor is that black people are unable to overcome racial disparities as an entire group as a necessary outcome. Systemic racism "creates" those results. If black people could overcome their disparities and surpass white people in those areas, it could no longer be said that systemic racism exists. That is Critical Race Theory.
Would you now say the claim is racist?
Created:
-->
@Username
Would you say that the following claim is racist?
Black people are, on average, less intelligent, poorer, less qualified for skilled jobs, more obese, do more drugs, and commit more crimes than white people, and there is nothing they can do in the current system to change those inevitable outcomes.
Created:
-->
@Username
That depends on how you define systemic racism. Can you point to a law that is explicitly racist?
Do you believe that policies like Affirmative Action that give preference based on skin color are justified because of racial disparities?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
No. This does not tie to how a corrupt government can extend a divine prerogative. It's one thing to state that it's in God's plan to have a corrupt government destroy itself; it's another to say "King Nebuchadnezzar's practice of execution is just and sanctioned by God."
We may be missing each other on a key detail. How would you define a corrupt government? Are all governments corrupt?
No such spectrum is logically justifiable. There's collectivism; there's individualism. Sustaining this notion of "spectrum" is an oft used device for those who have no intention of resolving their logically dissonant notions.
I would partially agree that there are core concepts of an -ism that people must hold to to be part of that group. But individualism is not necessarily a monolithic ideology with only a single set of beliefs. From what I understand, it has actually changed over time. I would agree though that there is not an actual individualism/collectivism spectrum. Rather, individuals may embrace certain values from each -ism. This is what I meant to portray with the imagery of a "spectrum," but I will try to avoid that for clarity.
While it is possible for individuals to hold contradictory beliefs from each -ism, it is also possible that a completely different view which holds certain values from both sides is actually correct. For instance, I would argue that the biblical worldview values both individual liberties and the collective good, and this is in no way contradictory. The tension in this position is caused by the introduction of sinful actions by humans, not by a contradiction in the ideology itself.
The main point is that the Bible does not promote Collectivism or Individualism because those are manmade ideologies. But there are certain values from both ideologies that can be found in the Bible.
that one can be the subject of his/her own experience and express his/her values as they see fit so long as they afford another the capacity to the same. And there's no greater value than that.
Would you say that consistent Individualism only considers a person's freedom valuable, but not the actual person? Consider the case with the newborn. It seems you only value the newborn's autonomy, but not it's life. Otherwise, it would not be morally acceptable to leave the baby, knowing that it is not physiologically developed enough to survive on it's own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"foundation in the Pentateuch" means nothing to me.What does that mean exactly to you ?It's not obvious what you think the difference is.Please be slightly more specific, perhaps with an example from real-life or something.
The Old Testament presents a comprehensive worldview that answers fundamental questions:
- Who/what is man?
- Where did we come from?
- Why are we here?
- What's wrong with the world?
- How can what is wrong be made right?
This is not the only way to analyze a worldview, but it makes the point. From a textual standpoint, whatever Jesus meant by, "Treat others as you want to be treated," it must be consistent with the worldview of the Old Testament ("the Law and the Prophets").
There is no such assumption of a particular underlying worldview in the general statement, "Treat others fairly." What is fairness, and who determines that? That depends on your worldview. So yes, one statement is more specific than the other.
Forget the analogy aspect for a second.How would you answer the question as it is presented, at face value ?
It seems that GPT3 is a form of AI. Since I do not consider AI a moral agent, I would not consider the AI morally culpable. I would categorize the AI as an automaton, making the programmer responsible, intentionally or unintentionally, for the actions of the AI.
Put more simply, the programmer.
To this question, my answer is probably not with the given information. It could be considered negligence with dire consequences, perhaps even punishable by law, but probably not murder.Manslaughter perhaps ?
Perhaps. I am not familiar enough with the specific laws to say. Was there a specific point you were making here?
THE ANSWER DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION OF GOD.OMNIPOTENT OMNISCIENT GOD CREATED AUTOMATONS.SEMIPOTENT SEMISCIENT GOD CREATED MALFUNCTIONS.
The idea that God created humans as automatons with no moral agency is unsupported by Scripture. The very first humans were given a moral command which they willfully broke. That is evidence of moral agency.
All humans begin their journey to their moral outlook with a blank slate.The starting point is you.You (either intentionally or unintentionally) look for external codes and guideposts and traditions and systems that MATCH your internal conscience.You evaluate the data available to yourself and then you ADOPT an external tradition or system or code (if it feels like a "good-fit").My internal moral sense tells me "do not do things to other people that you would not want them to do to you".I did not "learn" this from anything outside of myself.
Put simply, you pick and choose based on personal preference, correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Depending on how you define deportation, no.Let's say some people show up at the border of your country and say that they are fleeing for their very lives.You ask them to present evidence, and they only have eye-witness-testimony (which is considered solid-gold in a civil court).You tell them they need better evidence, like corroborating testimony and or photographs or video or something.They don't have any evidence other than their own eyes and ears.So you reject their application and send them back to where they came from.AND THEN THEY ARE MUTILATED AND OR KILLED.It almost seems like "murder" to me.That's not a definition.IT'S EVEN MORE PRECISE THAN A DEFINITION, IT'S A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE.
The question you are asking about the specific example is not asking whether "deportation = murder" because that is a question of definitions. So, you are asking two distinct questions. Here are the two questions you are asking:
- Would you say that deportation = murder ?
- Would you say that deporting a specific group of people who are claiming they are fleeing for their lives, which ultimately ends up with them being killed = murder?
My answers:
- This is a question of definitions. "Would you say that [the lawful expulsion of an alien or other person from a country] = [the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought]?"
To this question, my answer is no. The definitions are absolutely not the same. - The second question is dealing with a particular situation. Since I would not define deportation as "a specific group of people who are claiming they are fleeing for their lives, which ultimately ends up with them being killed," this question is deciding whether the particular actions of an individual or group can be considered murder.
To this question, my answer is probably not with the given information. It could be considered negligence with dire consequences, perhaps even punishable by law, but probably not murder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
They're both equally vague.
No, they're not. One has its foundation in the Old Testament. The other means whatever you want it to mean because there is no foundation to work from.
I believe the "golden-rule" is a concise expression of our "better-instincts".I do not believe that all the Jewish teachings are logically coherent.
So you cherry-pick based on your opinion of which teachings make sense to you while rejecting those that don't.
If I tasked the GPT3 with controlling a number of robots and taking care of the elderly in a retirement facility or a hospital for example, and I dialed up the creativity to say TWENTY-NINE and watched it for about a week and everything seemed to be working great, and then three months later a robot ended up causing the death of one of the residents, WHO WOULD YOU HOLD RESPONSIBLE ?
The analogy doesn't work because you are talking about a computer program, not a moral agent.
But you still haven't answered the question: Did God create humans as automatons?(IFF) GOD CAN PREDICT ALL POSSIBLE FUTURES (AND) GOD CAN CHANGE ANY AND OR ALL VARIABLES THAT LEAD TO THOSE FUTURES (THEN) GOD CAUSED EVERY ACTION YOU BELIEVE YOU "CHOSE" FOR YOURSELFthe other option would be that god is NOT able to predict all possible futures and or NOT able to change any and or all variables that lead to those futures.the only way for humans to have hypothetical free-will is for god to NOT KNOW what we are going to do.only gods IGNORANCE and or INCOMPETENCE can absolve them from responsibility.ALSO,If edward bernays proved anything at all, they proved that humans are ridiculously predictable.
That wasn't a clear answer. A yes or no will suffice. Did God create humans as automatons?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Continuing to post the same verses is not helping your case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I'm arguing that the governments as they are and their discretion in practicing execution is not extension of God's will because they are corrupt.
From Jeremiah 27:6-8:
- “Now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant, and I have given him also the wild animals of the field to serve him. All the nations shall serve him and his son and his grandson until the time of his own land comes; then many nations and great kings will make him their servant. “It will be, that the nation or the kingdom which will not serve him, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and which will not put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, I will punish that nation with the sword, with famine and with pestilence,” declares the Lord, “until I have destroyed it by his hand.
Was the government of Babylon corrupt?
Did the government of Babylon serve as an extension of God's will?
That's an important distinction. Because one results in the initiation of aggression toward the newborn and the other doesn't.
So if I leave my newborn baby in an empty house with some money for groceries and no intention of aggression, that is morally acceptable?
The point I'm attempting to illustrate is that no one is owed help--not even a baby...The Bible is lousy with collectivist notions, so it's only natural that an adherent will propose arguments which are odds with my individualist ones, and vice versa.
The Bible is not purely collectivist. If we consider collectivism and individualism on a spectrum, a biblical worldview would fall somewhere in between. But either end brings one to an extreme view - which ultimately removes the inherent value of others. The collectivist values the group rather than the individual, meaning no individual has rights or value in and of themselves. Their rights and value comes from their identify with the group, and can be removed for the good of the group.
Your form of individualism removes inherent value from others because the only value they have is ascribed by the individual. The only obligation I have is to myself; everything else is coercion. And I don't see any other conclusion if you can argue that parents have no obligation to keep their children alive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You did it again! 🤣🤣🤣
I then posted BIBLICAL verses that contradict the idiot. SEE HERE>>>This is the account of Noah and his family. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.Genesis 6:9[Zechariah and Elizabeth] And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.Luke 1:6And if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless. 2 Peter 2:7By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead. Hebrews 11:4
You are of the stupid belief that taking a mishmash of verses from the New & Old Testaments in the hope that they appear to dove-tail nicely for the reader and that they will take this as one complete and coherent story is nothing less than slight of hand, by YOU!We are not all as stupid as you believe we are.
Created: