Lemming

Well, I'm an atheist myself,

But I don't think it's an unjustifiable position that God would understand or have access to a different view or information.

Nice song in #95, by the way.

I'd agree that privacy can be an aspect of Pro Choice, but I'd also say that's because of the difference in perception of abortion.

I 'imagine many Pro Choice, don't view a fetus as a human life, or sacred.

Personally I'd like for government to get rid of the Patriot Act,

And I'd like for many websites and devices to have an option to remove all the spying,

Or just use a website or device 'without said feature,

I think website or device who intentionally 'don't use such feature, could do well in business.

But many still find faith or reason to continue,

That God is good.

Why so much for "The eye of a needle"?

I don't think it's inconsistent with Christianity, that Christians exist who would say Pastor Kenneth Copeland is going the wrong way about Christian faith.

Likely there are Christians who think convincing other Christians to give you money for one's own comfort, is wrong.

I'd agree he made public statements where he spoke with purpose of winning over theists,

But I don't agree that makes him a theist.

If one reads about his private conversations and actions, one sees a very different individual.

Maybe people shouldn't 'buy such technologies,

That can track them or listen to them.

Personally, I don't think Hitler was a Christian, from what I've read about him.

Darn, too late to edit #265,

. . .

Well addon, showing respect to others usually makes me feel better long term,

Treating others right, knowing I've tried my best,

Also often elucidates more positive responses.

Though some people respond better to a lack of respect,

Depends on people, situation.

I think,

Sarcasm 'does make me feel good at times, but usually only for a short time, and then I feel bad about being sarcastic.

Being genuine, earnest, appealing to good will, intent, understanding, lasts 'far longer, for me, usually.

I'd say I agree,

Though there's 'many important moral questions that the majority agrees well enough on,

For instance,

Not killing other adult humans for instance, even if they're of a 'bit different tribe or belief,

I'd say or hope most Americans agree on that,

Though been cultures or times past, when such action has been seen as good.

I 'do agree that the disagreement, of the correctness of a moral question, makes it more relevant,

More important, that it is addressed or fought for, I suppose.

It's a bit inane,

But rereading this, Ouroboros - Wikipedia pops into my mind.

Though It was the 2 snakes eating each other, rather than one.

My first thought is, I suppose it's better if communities live by their own rules,

But I suppose there 'are rules we find so disagreeable, that even if 'we're not living by them, we insist others don't either.

Problem is the even seeming balance of power, on this moral question,

Though I suppose what the 'right answer is, is a problem as well.

Debate Argument: Abortion | Debate.org I argue Con.

Debate Issue: Right to abortion, In some cases | Debate.org I argue Pro.

I suppose people have values, goals, wants,

That they try to maximize,

Though often in conjunction with other values, goals, wants.

Meh, a guy can be feminine, but he's 'still a guy,

A girl can be manly, but she's 'still a woman.

A guy can bang another guy in prison, but it's 'still a guy.

A man or woman can lose their reproductive organs, I'd 'still consider them their starting points of male or female, just disfigured.

. . .

Well, such is 'my view anyhow.

I don't particularly think it wrong, to want to be younger, it's a common want, people miss their strength or looks, or dislike new pains, less time.

No scientific marvel to cause it

Though people can live healthier, to keep their body from deteriorating as quick.

'Might be wrong to deceive people about one's age,

Though I don't think it's wrong to try to be one's best.

Wanting people to see you as the other gender bothers me, 'probably mostly because of social norms,

Second part, 'maybe because I see it as delusional, or turning one's back on oneself.

Even ignoring the surgery,

As a society we have a separation between the sexes,

. . .

What I ask is 'wrong with social norms, etiquette?

You might say it becomes wrong when it harms someone else,

And 'might be that I don't see trans as harmed, when I don't want to keep their company, given their behavior.

I don't like hanging around nude people either, or people making weird noises or smells in public,

Ah but I imagine the response again as,

They can't help it, victims of their brains, body, and wants.

Well 'wants can be helped,

Brain and body a bit harder though, maybe.

Well, beard argument I concede.

And for fitting in diversity and using old lore, 'does seem better to me, that they just use a different fictional world for a Fantasy TV series.

But LOTR has 'some class and rep built, so maybe to them it's a better cash option.

Though one could argue LOTR has 'plenty of diversity,

It just doesn't have the diversity that people look for in their own world.

Taking the other view,

I suppose one could argue either side for dwarf women having beards,

So I'm not sure 'which way the scale falls there,

D&D and pop culture, took it that LOTR female dwarves had beards, often sounds though.

There 'were various races of men in the movies, and books I think.

So it's not a stretch to imagine various races of dwarves or elves,

Certainly were a number of different 'groups of elves in the Silmarillion.

'Maybe Tolkien would have expanded on world, if he'd lived longer,

'Maybe not,

I 'still hold to my opinion though, that he was mainly focused on LOTR as based 'mostly around English, Norse, Germanic, so on mythology.

Maybe there was 'more to his world, he just didn't get enough of a chance to explore, but now it's too late for me, to enjoy 'other people's take on it (Mostly)

Something nice about Pre Disney Star Wars cannon, was I think Lucus had to give an approval of writers contributions,

Allowed it to hold true to the creator a fair bit, to my thinking,

Rather than post mortus approval.

Lurtz was a red/brown color,

Was playable in The Battle For Middle Earth II.

Eh, depictions of orcs in LOTR adaptations vary,

1978 orcs looked  small white lizardlike,

Peter Jackson orcs, look more often a bit rotting corpses to me, though there's more variation than that.

Tolkien thought about, but never committed to orcs being elves corrupted by Melkor.

. . .

Eh, I'm half and half thinking that you're doing this as a joke, or 'actually 'really think the way you do.

It's 'some fun for me to talk about LOTR, since I like it a bit.

Though I find the racism outcry a bit silly.

Wormtongue was white, Sauron was white before he got crushed by an ocean, Gothmog the orc was white, that one orc in the third movie with a skull on his head was white, Denethor was white, many of the Nazgul before becoming Nazgul were white.

Plenty of evil white people.

Eh, orcs vary on the writer,

Warhammer had fungus orcs/orks, as I recall,

Which were a fair bit what the Warcraft Orcs were based off.

Or maybe certain fantasy races in Tolkien's lore were created from the myths of a certain culture, and a certain skin color,

That it makes little sense to have diversity everywhere,

Pff, why not add some gays, trans, more women warriors to the cast, (Sarcasm)

Personally, I find it offensive that I rarely if 'ever see any white Kishi (folklore) - Wikipedia. (Sarcasm)

I really don't see why 'either should be racist.

Tolkien sounds to have repudiated 'real 'life racism, quite a bit.

And as for the movies, I see a white orc on the right hand side of this picture you linked earlier.

I think 'neither, looks like a sea monster.

I thought he meant expanding government, to force people to pay even more taxes.

Tolkien appears to have taken a vague word, created his own, created his own race based on a vague monster.

Fictions deriving more from 'his take on it, than it's older origins.

Is how it seems to me.

It can rain outside, and I might have been planning to stay in all day anyway, schedule unchanged,

But that doesn't change the fact that I acknowledged the truth that it is raining outside.

I'm pretty sure that how one perceives the world, often effects their actions, or other related beliefs, though.

That looks like a 'modern invented orc, not a orc before Tolkien.

Do you have a link of their origins where they were 'less commonly "of horrid form or aspect"?

Does it matter if Their colouring is marred/dark?

Endermen of Minecraft are black, steal items, and cannot swim,

No one's 'seriously saying they're supposed to be Africans.

Righto,

Also, I am reminded of your other thread,

How are you 'not a moral nihilist intellectually, if you acknowledge subjective morality?

Well, if I create some fiction, I 'would be the creator of the evil in that world.

If god existed and created this world, then he'd be the creator of the evil in existence, I'd suppose.

Though maybe one can argue evil is unintended byproduct, intentional or not.

But if unintentional, some would argue such a god not all powerful,

If intentional, some would argue such a god is not good.

Though the theist response would be that such evil 'was necessary, I think.

That those who argue evil's existence being unnecessary, deny the world, and even their very selves existence.

Though, not all theists deities are the same.

Some being of and expression of the world, rather than creating it.

Well, I'm an Atheist, a Materialist, myself.

But if you mention the Problem of Evil, it implies a creator and 'usually something 'beyond the material/known, I think.

Us living in a simulation is common thought for many people,

Though the difference between a computer of wires,

And a computer of X, escapes me.

If it 'were a simulation, no reason we just wouldn't 'remember or 'know what X is.

People 'do die though,

If I don't die due to unnatural causes, then a heart attack, if not a heart attack, then cancer, so on.

There's no reason for the Grim Reaper to start the Reaping Clock the moment one comes into existence,

Clearly they must reap when the events in one's life and body have come about.

I sometimes experience a fear, that if existence 'is infinite, it implies I will exist again one day,

In the sense that existence will happen about, where every molecule is exactly as it was before,

And not in the sense of it being a clone,

As it can 'only be me, if there 'isn't another me, or anything different,

A 'perfect ship of Theseus, no 'new parts as replacements, rather it's 'exactly the same parts.

On the topic though,

Couldn't existence and time just loop around on itself?

Though I suppose that wouldn't explain where it came from, why there is 'something not nothing.

Maybe it's a human flaw, to think that there 'is a beginning?

People 'also speak of the material world as being 'less real, then after, or what we 'truly are (I speak vaguely).

What is it that makes a fiction?

Personally, something that bothers me now and then,

Is the idea of creating fiction,

Though of 'course the characters and world are imaginary, fiction,

I like at times the idea of characters being as 'real as one can,

Characters are often 'supposed to invoke feeling, immersion, 'feel 'real,

But, authors 'are The 'Creators of their characters, of the world they live in,

And 'conflict drives a story,

Though it's awful in a way, one can't have good overcoming evil, if said evil does not exist, be they character or experience.

I suppose one could argue that some fiction exists in which good always triumphs, and there is no evil,

Kids shows for example,

But such stretches my credulity a bit,

How can guns, wars exist in which no one has died,

And 'even such kid shows often have such history, spoken aside, though not 'shown,

It still 'is.

Would you agree that humans are more likely than not, to fall into certain moral attitudes, based on their nature?

Eh, I don't plan on watching it.

Eh, I didn't think the context was clear,

But since you clarified,

It's more clear to me now.

Except animal f***ing, apparently.

Eh, the end purpose of debates vary, depending on different individuals goals.

I read a Manga once, Hikaru no Go - Wikipedia, protagonist plays Go,

I found it fun to read, though I was more interested in the character development/interactions/goals/truths, than the game.

Tried playing the game against a computer, a couple times,

But never 'really learned how to play,

Though to myself, looks fun, interesting,

But never spent anymore time on it.

Indeed, when I posted #46, I said,

I don't 'know what coals 'intent or meaning was,

Hence why in #84, I include a question mark,

Checking to see if my theory of coals 'meaning, was correct.

Eh, just disregarding Isms,

It's common of people to not be so open with their thoughts and beliefs,

'Necessary for harmony, 'normal appearance.

Online is also more. . . Theoretical sphere, also pretend, a game in which one's face is masked, consequences lessened.

Well, I Googled, A Modest Proposal - Wikipedia

Appears to be satire of how society can view people as cogs in the grand machine so to speak,

Their individuality, humanity, mattering less than the collective,

And coal was responding to TheUnderdog #78,

Which appears to say since we kill animals for food, how bad can it be to f*** them?

Though TheUnderdog 'does say consensually f*** them,

I don't agree with the idea of animals being capable of consensual f***ing with humans, myself.

Though the debate says children, opponent brings up animals at some point.

Further,

People often feel that one evil does not excuse the intentional development of 'more evils.

Well, I've no more in my mind to add.

@FLRW

Hm, Google, Pescatarian.

Oh, unexpected, but you're making a joke to imply there is a flaw in his argument?

Right hand does not know what the left hand is doing, so on?

@secularmerlin

It 'sounds more like a goal one is focused on, than a moral argument?

Surely you still 'have 'feelings, reactions, instincts, reflexes of right and wrong?

Being not a metal machine, of no thought or conscious,

Surely you still have selfish moments, give ins, in which you follow your heart, your beliefs of morality?

So you're a practical Nihilist then?

You don't believe in an objective "Right" and "wrong", but you still have wants and goals, and being human, pursue them?

Well, one disagrees with themself at times through introspection, or scruples, and then by such 'does or does 'not, an action.

But surely you have chosen your current course because you consider it 'Right?

Thus making it a moral decision?

It's far from an individual for instance a politician, who makes it his life dream to make roads, and tax people unfairly to make more roads, because he just considers roads so awesome.

Though even that I'd argue is a moral decision, in 'ignoring the people and focusing on one's own interests.

I'd 'assume you would want to promote human wellbeing and protect the public health, due to a concern for other people,

Is this not a moral wont, concern for others?

Are you a Utilitarian now?

Mocking Utility being valued to such an extent over Humanity?