zedvictor4

What the F does that mean?

You've exceeded your one syllable rule and look where it's got you.

Well...I would have to agree that DebateArt is a cut above other sites that I have participated in.

And as feel I liberally democracised rather than dictatacised , then I see no reason to go anywhere else.

Do you feel autocracised in any way?

N.B.  I made up democracised , autocracised and dictatacised, but they seem to work O.K.....It always worked for George Dubya.

Ah.....But this supposedly isn't a moral argument.

Debate websites is a competitive market so dictatorship would probably result in a battle between a few hardliners and everyone else just leaving to find a more appropriate alternative.... You can only dictate if you have a captive audience.

I would describe DebateArt  as more of a liberal democracy.

I've thought hard.

So what do you mean by non-living entity?

And the thread was really concentrating on human purpose as opposed to maggot or bacterial purpose or  the purpose  "non-living entities".

And of course the big question as ever is, does human existence actually have any greater universal purpose at all?....Which in the end will probably all boil down to some sort of religious or pseudo-religious argument.

You've obviously got too much free time on your hands.

Perhaps you need to get out and meet people.

"Religious performance" is relative to sexual performance, that is to say birth rate, and currently Christianity is being out performed.

If you don't produce the kids then you cannot produce the Christians.

Well, I already read your posts and continued the thread with counter posts, which is the nature of the exercise, as I see it.....Though not everyone seems to regard debate and discussion in quite the same way.

Am I a belligerent azzhole, simply because I don't necessarily agree with everything that you suggest.

It was not me that brought primates and Eskimo's into the philosophical equation.  So the  philosophical issue (justifying the consumption of meat) as i see it, is essentially a personal and moral argument, very loosely dressed up as  an interest in human health and dietary issues.

So let me give you a simple response to your question:

When a person does not feel morally obligated to not kill and consume animal flesh, then meat as part of a balanced and varied diet is no more or less healthy or unhealthy than a wholly vegetarian/vegan diet. 

Nonetheless there are other factors which impact upon health and the suitability of diet, which should be taken into consideration.

What is African D.N.A.?.....Do you mean human D.N.A.?

Africa is only defined by an imaginary line on a map.

Right wing nut jobs, left wing nut lobs, moderate nut jobs....All nut jobs is nut jobs.....That's the problem.

I hope that you're not a discriminatory nutjobist 

I would also suggest two options....Chance or purpose.

Chance and purpose are both reliant upon the same basic principle....Something from nothing....Therefore both are just as likely or unlikely.

Theists pluck a god out of thin air without proper explanation and then proceed to surround it with a fantasy tale based upon the lives of a particular group of people that may or may not have existed at a certain time in a certain place, all relatively recently in terms of  human history ....This is the problem with theism....An assumed purpose based upon one of many god principles, embellished with meaningless ritual and mythology, but with no real evidence to support it.

The term god principle merely utilises the commonly used and widely known word "god"  as a suggestion of purpose, but does not assuredly implicate an imaginary uncreated  entity as the reason for a purpose.

Nonetheless all hypotheses are on the table, but firstly any hypothesis that seeks to be a complete hypothesis must therefore overcome the something from nothing conundrum.....And an imaginary uncreated entity that for some other unexplained reason  just doesn't need to be created, quite frankly isn't good enough.

Furthermore any hypothesis that is also based upon the theist principle of unnecessary creation is also valid. Therefore chance is just as likely as purpose, if not more so and if you think about it logically the theist principle of unnecessary creation is actually  more suggestive of chance than it is of purpose.

And by chance  a god just appeared out of nothing and proceeded to create everything......Reminds me of the children's story "Mr Benn" where things appeared "as if by magic"....Maybe that's because they are both imaginary fantasy tales.

Nope.....Theists figured out a hypothesis which cannot be unequivocally substantiated....Atheists also hypothesise, (god principle included) but without the necessity of religion.... The difference is that theists will not admit that their hypothesis cannot be unequivocally substantiated, whereas the atheist tends to remain sceptical about all hypotheses, including their own....Prove to the atheist that your hypothesis is in fact wholly correct and the atheist will be happy to agree.

Well "design" has connotations which lead to other issues.

The fact is, that we are capable of digesting a wide variety of foodstuffs including meat and this is what we have done for millennia. So we have therefore developed as omnivores and not become extinct because of it.

I would suggest that the key to health and vitality is a varied and balanced diet, and this is now easily achievable  without consuming meat or animal derivatives. But this is a relatively modern possibility. Not so long ago meat was a vital component of a balanced diet. The wide range of foodstuffs and supplements that are now constantly at our fingertips is only a very recent social development.

As I previously stated, it's easy to espouse a newly constructed morality from a position of comfort.... Come the apocalypse and you will be eating your neighbour if the supermarket shelves are empty and your neighbour  is all that is available.

How humans classify chimpanzees is irrelevant, classifying is simply an exercise that placates the human need to classify things. The fact is that chimpanzees kill and consume animal flesh....So in fact chimpanzees should rightly be classified as omnivores, or perhaps aggressive omnivores.

Maybe one day we will teach chimpanzees a bit of morality. Because currently they don't seem to appreciate the concept.

And Eskimos live where they do, just as you do.... Though maybe you think that a bit of forced relocation and moral brainwashing is the moral solution to that irksome issue.

More interestingly.....Is the U.S.A. a Nation?...Or just a collection of States...More of a Sub-Continent perhaps.

If dark skinned people are referred to as African Americans does that mean light skinned people are European Americans etc. etc.

Of course, all groups  tend to want to divide themselves into ever smaller and smaller sub-groups.  

Eventually it's just you and I.

Exactly.....You said nothing about bias, though Mr Spode did.

Just as it sounds like that to you.

Who and what are you quoting, you've lost me there.

Atheists understand the truth of day to day reality and are dismissive or sceptical about the likelihood of fantasy worlds contained within mythological and supernatural hypotheses. So no truth claims necessary as far as the atheist is concerned....The onus rests wholly upon theists to prove their truth claims, with fact rather than with fiction.

Me personally, would be just as happy with either an existent god or no god. It wouldn't make much difference if any at all, to day to day reality. Other than we would have to find something else to disagree about. 

Of what real use are aesthetic benefits?....

Did I need an aesthetic benefit to be able to ask you these questions.?

Are you attempting to establish a hierarchy, primarily based upon financial value rather than upon cognitive acuity?...

Not that green coins have a lot of value.

And theism is not biased?

And there is no sound argument for theism either....Both arguments are rendered equally unsound by the nature of the argument...Though the theist does need to provide unequivocal evidence, whereas the atheist just needs to rest on their laurels until such times, when the theist can provide unequivocal evidence....As the atheist hasn't developed a mythological and supernatural hypothesis that requires substantiation....Hence a bit of scepticism is justifiably pertinent.

Sounds like your describing a theist there Mr Ethan.

Eskimo culture evolved around what was available, and that didn't include a lot of fruit and nuts, and health and life expectancy were what they were.  Eskimo's were driven by the necessity of survival and not by a constructed morality.

You live  in a comfortable environment where you can afford to construct moral concepts, but not everyone chooses to adopt your personally assumed morality.

And Chimpanzees love a bit of Red Colobus Monkey, brains first....No morality available.

And if omnivores are meatheads, does that make vegans nutcases?

And a religious Joe and the fatted calf....

Re.  #26.

A tad subjective and also a tad arrogant, to say the least.

Given the historical nature of the bible and it's compilation, I would therefore suggest that interpretation and the acceptance thereof, is the more pertinent quality of the theist, rather than grammatical and cognitive acuity.

Discernment is the atheists best quality....The ability to see the wood for the trees or sort the grain from the chaff, as it were.

Maybe I am a normal person that tends to  impersonate atheists.

If you're ever in the U.K. you more than welcome to call in for a beer and a chat....But let's just keep religion off the agenda.

Cycling and family are my two main religions...But not necessarily in that order.

I usually, only put my atheist hat on between 6.30am and 8.30 am U.K time.

Maybe all the above comments just state the obvious.

A.I. in essence, is no more or less a programmed database than homo sapiens is. Albeit (currently) non-organic as opposed to organic.

Sapience (though a somewhat variable definitive) in essence describes advanced intelligence, and A.I. will certainly continue to advance.  I would suggest that this is an evolutionary certainty/necessity.

Though I always think that the human term "artificial intelligence" is something of an arrogant contradiction...As intelligence is intelligence irrespective of the structural qualities of the computing device.

I don't know much about George Floyd....Was he a perpetual saint?....Because he was allegedly killed by a "White Cop".

Was the light skinned policeman a perpetual sinner because he allegedly  killed a dark skinned guy?

Given that racism is far from exclusive to one particular skin tone,  wasn't the ensuing anti social behaviour and violence,  just as racially motivated and socially abhorrent as the catalyst itself.

So what or who specifically, was the mob violence and anger really aimed at? 

Yep. 

But I would disagree with your analogies.

I would suggest that hard wired, subconscious, is instinctive and therefore genetic.

Whereas nurture is  a consciously programmed operating system, which becomes difficult but not impossible to modify as we get older.

Thanks for the compliment.

You see, we do agree about some things.

And which was the first best point I ever made?

The same principle could and should, therefore  be applied to every little thing that we disagree about. 

So the difference between  a left wing atheist, meat eating, homosexual, cycling, cat loving, dog hating, smart suited, bearded, spectacle wearer....And a right wing, Muslim, vegan, heterosexual, jogging, dog loving, cat hating, casually dressed,  clean shaven, contact-lens wearer....Is all down to genetics...Though I suppose that this would also take into account a tolerance or intolerance gene....It would take along time to breed out all our genetic idiosyncrasies....And how do we agree upon what is and isn't pure?....Perhaps it would be prudent to just eradicate the intolerance gene.

Too right.

They will yell you that it's all a part of the big test to see if you are worthy or not.

Though I would suggest that the giant-ass book was probably compiled by people at a later date.

I think that god only possessed tablet of stone technology at the time... It was obviously a dab hand with a hammer and chisel.

I'll certainly experience the Circus....All those clowns and acrobats.

Are you up late or up early?

I doubt that anyone ever gets it.

We all like to think that we get it....Such is conditioning.

If everyone remains mature and civil then maturity and civility will abound.

Yep.

My ideas of a god principle are along these lines.

So one cannot rightly refer to the concept of deism as a "hoax".  

What I would suggest is that Christianity is simply a mythology woven into the god principle.

it's the maintenance of the myth that still hoaxes. 

Also, it occurs to me that by definitively stating that God is male, you are in fact also implying that a god does exist.

If it did exist and it was as fantastic as people say it is, then it wouldn't try to lift something that was too heavy. It would just create a lifting device. Only foolish people try to lift things that are too heavy?.....Oooooh my back!

You are currently fixated with "Landover".

So what is Landover?

Are you referring to the Magic Kingdom (Terry Brooks), or perhaps the Town in Maryland.....These are the two options that my quick internet search comes up with.

That's me that is....Like I said....Peas in a pod.

We are physiologically omnivorous, so the consumption of meat protein within a varied diet was obviously how our digestive system developed.... Back in the day you couldn't just pop down to the supermarket and pick up a pack of synthesised veggie protein....Back in the day you ate what was available, and if you didn't, you didn't survive for long (not that you survived for long anyway). 

The modern moral argument is simply the modern moral argument...Simply because some people  can comfortably afford to be modernly moralistic.

He was elected because the American people voted for him...Though that's something of a presumption, as U.S. electoral systems are not particularly straightforward.

I'm not sure that the National result ever reflects the popular vote in U.S. Presidential elections. 

Though as a Brit, I wouldn't dream of suggesting that U.S. presidential elections were open to corruption.

The N.Y.P.D. would still be the N.Y.P.D. …..You cannot abolish law enforcement...Perhaps the N.Y.P.D. just requires a different ethos and modus operandi. (Change)

Just tit for tat, friendly jibes... Mr Ethan gives as good as he gets.

Exactly.

Q. How do you change the human world.

A. It slowly changes itself. (Evolution)

There has been an appreciable change in both British and U.S. societies in the past 60 years since I was born....That didn't happen overnight just because a light skinned cop killed a dark skinned guy and people violently protested...Though these sort of events are nonetheless all part of the slow process of change.

Ha Ha.

You were just describing yourself....

Though the content may be different.... the condition is exactly the same.

Good one.

We're obviously peas in a pod you and I....Both loads of fun.

Just talk your own rhetoric through in your head (#5)….Can you not see the obvious flaw in your reasoning (bias)….The problem is always the other sort.

This is not a criticism...I'm just pointing out how the reality of the human condition and human conditioning (in relation to perceivable difference), is clearly emphasised in your post.

If we don't teach our kids that we are all from Planet Earth and therefore all basically the same, then you will never end up with an adult population that is integrated...lighter skin tone or darker skin tone, makes no difference to the shared problem.

If you teach kids nonsense then they will grow up believing in nonsense.

Back to basics violence in the streets is the level playing field.

It's ridiculous to expect that a society is going to be something that you don't condition it to become.

Yep....Sounds like me.

Exactly what I was thinking about you...But don't be mad...Some people are reality challenged.

Works both ways....that's the reality.

True.

Sociologically, crime is it's own problem, irrespective of skin tone.

And as I stated.... Racism is not exclusive.....Though some people prefer to think that it is.