| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
05 Jan 2005 03:39:00 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral or know
what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
.
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
05 Jan 2005 07:26:24 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral or know
what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It lacks the consent of both parties.
--
--sexkitten--
In Loving Memory of Jim Addison
9/18/71 - 12/30/04
Seeing you lie there,
no movement, no life, no soul
broke my heart and
pushed me to the ground.
I began to cry and reached for love
but the one i loved had gone away
leaving me alone
to face the ever trying day
My head knew you were gone for ever,
but my heart held onto the hope you were just sleeping
for the all moments I saw you alive,
was a treasured moment worth keeping.
Now I need to let go for good,
but it is the hardest thing to do,
to let something go you love,
to have nothing there and nothing to do.
I had never loved something so dear
and for days i let my tears flow
until the realization hit me,
I had to let you go.
- Jessica Millar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
05 Jan 2005 08:01:01 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> said:
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral or know
what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It lacks the consent of both parties.
Actually, it usually does not, according to the experts. It is just
that one of the parties does not have the life experience to know what
the consequences of consent will probably be. IOW, it is not "informed
consent" because the child does not have the ability to evaluate what
it means to his/her life.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
05 Jan 2005 10:25:13 PM |
|
|
Jim07D5 wrote:
--sexkitten-- <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> said:
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral or know
what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It lacks the consent of both parties.
Actually, it usually does not, according to the experts. It is just
that one of the parties does not have the life experience to know what
the consequences of consent will probably be. IOW, it is not "informed
consent" because the child does not have the ability to evaluate what
it means to his/her life.
Jim07D5
True. The consent of a party without sufficient mental capacity to
consent is considered no consent at all. However, we have to dumb things
down for Gactimus.
--
--sexkitten--
In Loving Memory of Jim Addison
9/18/71 - 12/30/04
Seeing you lie there,
no movement, no life, no soul
broke my heart and
pushed me to the ground.
I began to cry and reached for love
but the one i loved had gone away
leaving me alone
to face the ever trying day
My head knew you were gone for ever,
but my heart held onto the hope you were just sleeping
for the all moments I saw you alive,
was a treasured moment worth keeping.
Now I need to let go for good,
but it is the hardest thing to do,
to let something go you love,
to have nothing there and nothing to do.
I had never loved something so dear
and for days i let my tears flow
until the realization hit me,
I had to let you go.
- Jessica Millar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 12:10:13 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> said:
Jim07D5 wrote:
--sexkitten-- <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> said:
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral or know
what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It lacks the consent of both parties.
Actually, it usually does not, according to the experts. It is just
that one of the parties does not have the life experience to know what
the consequences of consent will probably be. IOW, it is not "informed
consent" because the child does not have the ability to evaluate what
it means to his/her life.
Jim07D5
True. The consent of a party without sufficient mental capacity to
consent is considered no consent at all. However, we have to dumb things
down for Gactimus.
I can't disagree.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 06:51:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 21:25:13 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jim07D5 wrote:
--sexkitten-- <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> said:
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral or know
what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It lacks the consent of both parties.
Actually, it usually does not, according to the experts. It is just
that one of the parties does not have the life experience to know what
the consequences of consent will probably be. IOW, it is not "informed
consent" because the child does not have the ability to evaluate what
it means to his/her life.
Jim07D5
True. The consent of a party without sufficient mental capacity to
consent is considered no consent at all. However, we have to dumb things
down for Gactimus.
And it *still* won't be able to comprehend.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
05 Jan 2005 04:42:35 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral or know
what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It damages, or harms, another being.
I -hate- that this always have to be explained to Priests.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
05 Jan 2005 05:18:10 PM |
|
|
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
news:crhqj2$ef$2@news.onecall.net...
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral or know
what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It damages, or harms, another being.
What if the minor participates?
I -hate- that this always have to be explained to Priests.
What you hate is that the wanting to allow laws to protect people based on
sexual orientation opens up a can of worms that you can't refute. What is
to stop someone from any "sexual" preference wanting laws to protect him or
her?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
05 Jan 2005 06:54:16 PM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
news:crhqj2$ef$2@news.onecall.net...
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral or know
what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It damages, or harms, another being.
What if the minor participates?
The minor will still be damaged in the long run,
according to almost -all- Psych contexts today.
I -hate- that this always have to be explained to Priests.
What you hate is that the wanting to allow laws to protect people based on
sexual orientation opens up a can of worms that you can't refute.
I have yet to see anything I haven't refuted. You go for
the close, and you have yet to even pass the Portico.
What is
to stop someone from any "sexual" preference wanting laws to protect him or
her?
Nothing, other than the basic premise of harming another.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
05 Jan 2005 09:15:50 PM |
|
|
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
news:cri2a1$2fo$4@news.onecall.net...
Osprey wrote:
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
news:crhqj2$ef$2@news.onecall.net...
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral or know
what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It damages, or harms, another being.
What if the minor participates?
The minor will still be damaged in the long run,
according to almost -all- Psych contexts today.
Source?
I -hate- that this always have to be explained to Priests.
What you hate is that the wanting to allow laws to protect people based
on sexual orientation opens up a can of worms that you can't refute.
I have yet to see anything I haven't refuted. You go for
the close, and you have yet to even pass the Portico.
What is to stop someone from any "sexual" preference wanting laws to
protect him or her?
Nothing, other than the basic premise of harming another.
Let's see those sources please.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 12:25:52 PM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
news:cri2a1$2fo$4@news.onecall.net...
Osprey wrote:
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
news:crhqj2$ef$2@news.onecall.net...
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral or know
what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It damages, or harms, another being.
What if the minor participates?
The minor will still be damaged in the long run,
according to almost -all- Psych contexts today.
Source?
Here is an interesting one:
http://crimemagazine.com/03/geoghan,1201.htm
Or how about the Book: "Harm Done"
Feel free to hit Amazon.
Or, do you want a Doctoral Level Thesis ?
P.E. Mullen, J. Fleming: Long-term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse. Issues in Child Abuse Prevention 9
(Autumn 1998).
I -hate- that this always have to be explained to Priests.
What you hate is that the wanting to allow laws to protect people based
on sexual orientation opens up a can of worms that you can't refute.
I have yet to see anything I haven't refuted. You go for
the close, and you have yet to even pass the Portico.
What is to stop someone from any "sexual" preference wanting laws to
protect him or her?
Nothing, other than the basic premise of harming another.
Let's see those sources please.
See above.
Of course, there are always a -few- dissenters...
G. Powell, A. Chalkley: The effect of pedophile attention on the child. In: B. Taylor (ed.):
Perspectives on pedophilia. Batsford Academic, 1981.
This work, for example, tries to examine cases where it was voluntary, and non-forced,
and concludes sometimes such cases aren't that bad. Sometimes.
I did put the word -=ALMOST=- in the claim. :)
But remember this... almost all pedophiles, were victims of pedophiles,
themselves.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
05 Jan 2005 05:08:54 PM |
|
|
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crhqj2$ef$2@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral or know
what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It damages, or harms, another being.
Why is harming somebody wrong?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
05 Jan 2005 06:51:27 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crhqj2$ef$2@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral or know
what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It damages, or harms, another being.
Why is harming somebody wrong?
Would you want to be harmed ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
05 Jan 2005 08:13:09 PM |
|
|
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:cri24o$2fo$3@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crhqj2$ef$2@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral or
know what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It damages, or harms, another being.
Why is harming somebody wrong?
Would you want to be harmed ?
No, but that is irrelevent. Does a chicken want to be harmed? No, but we
kill and eat them and think nothing of it. Why is hurting people wrong?
.
|
|
|
| User: "sAnToLiNa" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 10:14:34 PM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:_YCdnTtIp6woA0HcRVn-og@rcn.net...
Why is hurting people wrong?
Why is hurting people wrong assuming there's such a thing as God's objective
morality?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 12:05:37 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:cri24o$2fo$3@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crhqj2$ef$2@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral or
know what morality entails.
o
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It damages, or harms, another being.
Why is harming somebody wrong?
Would you want to be harmed ?
No, but that is irrelevent.
Irrelevant ?
Not really, it is the first cousin to the
Cognitive Imperative, and the primary step to
realizing right from wrong.
Not to mention, one iteration away from the Golden Rule,
found in most of the religions.
(Do unto others... Want for a Brother what that Brother
would want...)
Does a chicken want to be harmed? No, but we
kill and eat them and think nothing of it.
Who says killing a chicken isn't wrong ?
Just because we "think nothing of it", doesn't mean it
is right. Psychopaths think nothing of killing people,
and it is still wrong.
I know several Koreans that would love to take
your favorite pet cat or dog, and skin and eat it.
They wouldn't think twice about it.
But, if they did, it would be wrong.
Why is hurting people wrong?
See above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 12:39:28 PM |
|
|
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crjuo0$j8m$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:cri24o$2fo$3@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote:
news:crhqj2$ef$2@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral or
know what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It damages, or harms, another being.
Why is harming somebody wrong?
Would you want to be harmed ?
No, but that is irrelevent.
Irrelevant ?
Not really, it is the first cousin to the
Cognitive Imperative, and the primary step to
realizing right from wrong.
What does not wanting to be hurt have to do with right and wrong? Chickens
don't want to be hurt but they have no concept of right and wrong.
Not to mention, one iteration away from the Golden Rule,
found in most of the religions.
If there is no god and all religions are false then why should we follow
the golden rule?
Does a chicken want to be harmed? No, but we
kill and eat them and think nothing of it.
Who says killing a chicken isn't wrong ?
Just because we "think nothing of it", doesn't mean it
is right. Psychopaths think nothing of killing people,
and it is still wrong.
I know several Koreans that would love to take
your favorite pet cat or dog, and skin and eat it.
They wouldn't think twice about it.
But, if they did, it would be wrong.
Why is hurting people wrong?
See above.
You never answered the answer the question. Why is hurting people wrong?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer Bataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 01:07:35 PM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message news:RuSdnRdvaKZ9GEDcRVn-1w@rcn.net...
(snip)
If there is no god and all religions are false then why should we follow
the golden rule?
Indeed. Why?
Why not answer your own question.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 02:20:35 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crjuo0$j8m$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:cri24o$2fo$3@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote:
news:crhqj2$ef$2@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral or
know what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It damages, or harms, another being.
Why is harming somebody wrong?
Would you want to be harmed ?
No, but that is irrelevent.
Irrelevant ?
Not really, it is the first cousin to the
Cognitive Imperative, and the primary step to
realizing right from wrong.
What does not wanting to be hurt have to do with right and wrong?
Think about that one. You are being obtuse.
Chickens
don't want to be hurt but they have no concept of right and wrong.
Do they, or don't they, we may never know.
Not to mention, one iteration away from the Golden Rule,
found in most of the religions.
If there is no god and all religions are false then why should we follow
the golden rule?
Because, enough people don't want to be hurt, that if you
-do- hurt them, eventually, they will gang up on you,
and hurt -you- , think on it.
You reap what you sow, so mind what you sow.
No God necessary. Cultural Karma.
Does a chicken want to be harmed? No, but we
kill and eat them and think nothing of it.
Who says killing a chicken isn't wrong ?
Just because we "think nothing of it", doesn't mean it
is right. Psychopaths think nothing of killing people,
and it is still wrong.
I know several Koreans that would love to take
your favorite pet cat or dog, and skin and eat it.
They wouldn't think twice about it.
But, if they did, it would be wrong.
Why is hurting people wrong?
See above.
You never answered the answer the question. Why is hurting people wrong?
See above, it is a very "Kant"ian based argument.
You are like other people, what is behind their eyes is
what is behind theirs, more or less.
You don't want to be hurt.
Therefore, it follows that others don't want to be hurt.
So, if you do hurt them, they are liable to hurt you.
And you don't want to be hurt, right ?
Therefore, hurting others is wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 02:34:27 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:20:35 -0500, Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net>
wrote in message news:<crk6l3$lf2$1@news.onecall.net>:
You never answered the answer the question. Why is hurting people wrong?
See above, it is a very "Kant"ian based argument.
You are like other people, what is behind their eyes is
what is behind theirs, more or less.
You don't want to be hurt.
Therefore, it follows that others don't want to be hurt.
So, if you do hurt them, they are liable to hurt you.
And you don't want to be hurt, right ?
Therefore, hurting others is wrong.
What Gactimus is really saying is that the only thing keeping him from
hurting other people is his belief in God. Pretty scary, really.
--
Lurlean Lie #10:
I'm sure old Curt-See-Bare (deep throats) all the time.
news:7908c278.0310151920.29215c3f@posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 02:40:56 PM |
|
|
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crk6l3$lf2$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crjuo0$j8m$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:cri24o$2fo$3@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote:
news:crhqj2$ef$2@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral or
know what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It damages, or harms, another being.
Why is harming somebody wrong?
Would you want to be harmed ?
No, but that is irrelevent.
Irrelevant ?
Not really, it is the first cousin to the
Cognitive Imperative, and the primary step to
realizing right from wrong.
What does not wanting to be hurt have to do with right and wrong?
Think about that one. You are being obtuse.
Chickens
don't want to be hurt but they have no concept of right and wrong.
Do they, or don't they, we may never know.
Not to mention, one iteration away from the Golden Rule,
found in most of the religions.
If there is no god and all religions are false then why should we
follow the golden rule?
Because, enough people don't want to be hurt, that if you
-do- hurt them, eventually, they will gang up on you,
and hurt -you- , think on it.
You reap what you sow, so mind what you sow.
No God necessary. Cultural Karma.
Does a chicken want to be harmed? No, but we
kill and eat them and think nothing of it.
Who says killing a chicken isn't wrong ?
Just because we "think nothing of it", doesn't mean it
is right. Psychopaths think nothing of killing people,
and it is still wrong.
I know several Koreans that would love to take
your favorite pet cat or dog, and skin and eat it.
They wouldn't think twice about it.
But, if they did, it would be wrong.
Why is hurting people wrong?
See above.
You never answered the answer the question. Why is hurting people
wrong?
See above, it is a very "Kant"ian based argument.
You are like other people, what is behind their eyes is
what is behind theirs, more or less.
You don't want to be hurt.
Therefore, it follows that others don't want to be hurt.
So, if you do hurt them, they are liable to hurt you.
And you don't want to be hurt, right ?
Therefore, hurting others is wrong.
That still doesn't answer the question. Just because someone doesn't want
something done to them doesn't make it wrong. The two concepts are
unrelated. Your argument explains why it might not be a good idea to hurt
other people, not why it is wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 02:56:19 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crk6l3$lf2$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crjuo0$j8m$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:cri24o$2fo$3@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote:
news:crhqj2$ef$2@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral or
know what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It damages, or harms, another being.
Why is harming somebody wrong?
Would you want to be harmed ?
No, but that is irrelevent.
Irrelevant ?
Not really, it is the first cousin to the
Cognitive Imperative, and the primary step to
realizing right from wrong.
What does not wanting to be hurt have to do with right and wrong?
Think about that one. You are being obtuse.
Chickens
don't want to be hurt but they have no concept of right and wrong.
Do they, or don't they, we may never know.
Not to mention, one iteration away from the Golden Rule,
found in most of the religions.
If there is no god and all religions are false then why should we
follow the golden rule?
Because, enough people don't want to be hurt, that if you
-do- hurt them, eventually, they will gang up on you,
and hurt -you- , think on it.
You reap what you sow, so mind what you sow.
No God necessary. Cultural Karma.
Does a chicken want to be harmed? No, but we
kill and eat them and think nothing of it.
Who says killing a chicken isn't wrong ?
Just because we "think nothing of it", doesn't mean it
is right. Psychopaths think nothing of killing people,
and it is still wrong.
I know several Koreans that would love to take
your favorite pet cat or dog, and skin and eat it.
They wouldn't think twice about it.
But, if they did, it would be wrong.
Why is hurting people wrong?
See above.
You never answered the answer the question. Why is hurting people
wrong?
See above, it is a very "Kant"ian based argument.
You are like other people, what is behind their eyes is
what is behind theirs, more or less.
You don't want to be hurt.
Therefore, it follows that others don't want to be hurt.
So, if you do hurt them, they are liable to hurt you.
And you don't want to be hurt, right ?
Therefore, hurting others is wrong.
That still doesn't answer the question. Just because someone doesn't want
something done to them doesn't make it wrong. The two concepts are
unrelated. Your argument explains why it might not be a good idea to hurt
other people, not why it is wrong.
Actually, it meets the definition of "wrong" in -several- places.
Wrong adj.
1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
2.
1. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
2. Unfair; unjust.
3. Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn.
4. Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the wrong thing.
5. Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure: the wrong way to shuck clams.
6. Not functioning properly; out of order.
7. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention.
8. Designating the side, as of a garment, that is less finished and not intended to show: socks
worn wrong side out.
adv.
1. In a wrong manner; mistakenly or erroneously.
2. In a wrong course or direction.
3. Immorally or unjustly: She acted wrong to lie.
4. In an unfavorable way. See Synonyms at amiss.
n.
1.
1. An unjust or injurious act.
2. Something contrary to ethics or morality.
2.
1. An invasion or a violation of another's legal rights.
2. Law. A tort. See Synonyms at injustice.
3. The condition of being in error or at fault: in the wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 03:05:12 PM |
|
|
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crk8o4$m3m$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crk6l3$lf2$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crjuo0$j8m$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:cri24o$2fo$3@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote:
news:crhqj2$ef$2@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral
or know what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It damages, or harms, another being.
Why is harming somebody wrong?
Would you want to be harmed ?
No, but that is irrelevent.
Irrelevant ?
Not really, it is the first cousin to the
Cognitive Imperative, and the primary step to
realizing right from wrong.
What does not wanting to be hurt have to do with right and wrong?
Think about that one. You are being obtuse.
Chickens
don't want to be hurt but they have no concept of right and wrong.
Do they, or don't they, we may never know.
Not to mention, one iteration away from the Golden Rule,
found in most of the religions.
If there is no god and all religions are false then why should we
follow the golden rule?
Because, enough people don't want to be hurt, that if you
-do- hurt them, eventually, they will gang up on you,
and hurt -you- , think on it.
You reap what you sow, so mind what you sow.
No God necessary. Cultural Karma.
Does a chicken want to be harmed? No, but we
kill and eat them and think nothing of it.
Who says killing a chicken isn't wrong ?
Just because we "think nothing of it", doesn't mean it
is right. Psychopaths think nothing of killing people,
and it is still wrong.
I know several Koreans that would love to take
your favorite pet cat or dog, and skin and eat it.
They wouldn't think twice about it.
But, if they did, it would be wrong.
Why is hurting people wrong?
See above.
You never answered the answer the question. Why is hurting people
wrong?
See above, it is a very "Kant"ian based argument.
You are like other people, what is behind their eyes is
what is behind theirs, more or less.
You don't want to be hurt.
Therefore, it follows that others don't want to be hurt.
So, if you do hurt them, they are liable to hurt you.
And you don't want to be hurt, right ?
Therefore, hurting others is wrong.
That still doesn't answer the question. Just because someone doesn't
want something done to them doesn't make it wrong. The two concepts are
unrelated. Your argument explains why it might not be a good idea to
hurt other people, not why it is wrong.
Actually, it meets the definition of "wrong" in -several- places.
Wrong adj.
1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
2.
1. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
2. Unfair; unjust.
3. Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn.
4. Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the
wrong thing.
5. Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure: the
wrong way to shuck clams. 6. Not functioning properly; out of order.
7. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention.
8. Designating the side, as of a garment, that is less finished and
not intended to show: socks worn wrong side out.
adv.
1. In a wrong manner; mistakenly or erroneously.
2. In a wrong course or direction.
3. Immorally or unjustly: She acted wrong to lie.
4. In an unfavorable way. See Synonyms at amiss.
n.
1.
1. An unjust or injurious act.
2. Something contrary to ethics or morality.
2.
1. An invasion or a violation of another's legal rights.
2. Law. A tort. See Synonyms at injustice.
3. The condition of being in error or at fault: in the wrong.
By your definitions, there was nothing wrong with the Holocaust.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer Bataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 03:09:05 PM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message news:EeqdnezVwqaVNUDcRVn-qA@rcn.net...
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crk8o4$m3m$1@news.onecall.net:
(big snip)
n.
1.
1. An unjust or injurious act.
2. Something contrary to ethics or morality.
2.
1. An invasion or a violation of another's legal rights.
2. Law. A tort. See Synonyms at injustice.
3. The condition of being in error or at fault: in the wrong.
By your definitions, there was nothing wrong with the Holocaust.
Say what????
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 03:54:12 PM |
|
|
Elmer Bataitis wrote:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message news:EeqdnezVwqaVNUDcRVn-qA@rcn.net...
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crk8o4$m3m$1@news.onecall.net:
(big snip)
n.
1.
1. An unjust or injurious act.
2. Something contrary to ethics or morality.
2.
1. An invasion or a violation of another's legal rights.
2. Law. A tort. See Synonyms at injustice.
3. The condition of being in error or at fault: in the wrong.
By your definitions, there was nothing wrong with the Holocaust.
Say what????
I think he means the other poster, not the dictionaries definition,
or me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 03:22:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:05:12 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crk8o4$m3m$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crk6l3$lf2$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crjuo0$j8m$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:cri24o$2fo$3@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote:
news:crhqj2$ef$2@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be moral
or know what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It damages, or harms, another being.
Why is harming somebody wrong?
Would you want to be harmed ?
No, but that is irrelevent.
Irrelevant ?
Not really, it is the first cousin to the
Cognitive Imperative, and the primary step to
realizing right from wrong.
What does not wanting to be hurt have to do with right and wrong?
Think about that one. You are being obtuse.
Chickens
don't want to be hurt but they have no concept of right and wrong.
Do they, or don't they, we may never know.
Not to mention, one iteration away from the Golden Rule,
found in most of the religions.
If there is no god and all religions are false then why should we
follow the golden rule?
Because, enough people don't want to be hurt, that if you
-do- hurt them, eventually, they will gang up on you,
and hurt -you- , think on it.
You reap what you sow, so mind what you sow.
No God necessary. Cultural Karma.
Does a chicken want to be harmed? No, but we
kill and eat them and think nothing of it.
Who says killing a chicken isn't wrong ?
Just because we "think nothing of it", doesn't mean it
is right. Psychopaths think nothing of killing people,
and it is still wrong.
I know several Koreans that would love to take
your favorite pet cat or dog, and skin and eat it.
They wouldn't think twice about it.
But, if they did, it would be wrong.
Why is hurting people wrong?
See above.
You never answered the answer the question. Why is hurting people
wrong?
See above, it is a very "Kant"ian based argument.
You are like other people, what is behind their eyes is
what is behind theirs, more or less.
You don't want to be hurt.
Therefore, it follows that others don't want to be hurt.
So, if you do hurt them, they are liable to hurt you.
And you don't want to be hurt, right ?
Therefore, hurting others is wrong.
That still doesn't answer the question. Just because someone doesn't
want something done to them doesn't make it wrong. The two concepts are
unrelated. Your argument explains why it might not be a good idea to
hurt other people, not why it is wrong.
Actually, it meets the definition of "wrong" in -several- places.
Wrong adj.
1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
2.
1. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
2. Unfair; unjust.
3. Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn.
4. Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the
wrong thing.
5. Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure: the
wrong way to shuck clams. 6. Not functioning properly; out of order.
7. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention.
8. Designating the side, as of a garment, that is less finished and
not intended to show: socks worn wrong side out.
adv.
1. In a wrong manner; mistakenly or erroneously.
2. In a wrong course or direction.
3. Immorally or unjustly: She acted wrong to lie.
4. In an unfavorable way. See Synonyms at amiss.
n.
1.
1. An unjust or injurious act.
2. Something contrary to ethics or morality.
2.
1. An invasion or a violation of another's legal rights.
2. Law. A tort. See Synonyms at injustice.
3. The condition of being in error or at fault: in the wrong.
By your definitions, there was nothing wrong with the Holocaust.
I guess you feel that the Holocaust was not a violation of anybody's
rights, then. That's not really a surprise coming from you.
---
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be
adorned by a downright moron."
H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 03:28:45 PM |
|
|
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:30brt0ps5pavd9khk6vlsbs3loovospi4j@4ax.com:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:05:12 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crk8o4$m3m$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crk6l3$lf2$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crjuo0$j8m$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:cri24o$2fo$3@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote:
news:crhqj2$ef$2@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be
moral or know what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It damages, or harms, another being.
Why is harming somebody wrong?
Would you want to be harmed ?
No, but that is irrelevent.
Irrelevant ?
Not really, it is the first cousin to the
Cognitive Imperative, and the primary step to
realizing right from wrong.
What does not wanting to be hurt have to do with right and wrong?
Think about that one. You are being obtuse.
Chickens
don't want to be hurt but they have no concept of right and wrong.
Do they, or don't they, we may never know.
Not to mention, one iteration away from the Golden Rule,
found in most of the religions.
If there is no god and all religions are false then why should we
follow the golden rule?
Because, enough people don't want to be hurt, that if you
-do- hurt them, eventually, they will gang up on you,
and hurt -you- , think on it.
You reap what you sow, so mind what you sow.
No God necessary. Cultural Karma.
Does a chicken want to be harmed? No, but we
kill and eat them and think nothing of it.
Who says killing a chicken isn't wrong ?
Just because we "think nothing of it", doesn't mean it
is right. Psychopaths think nothing of killing people,
and it is still wrong.
I know several Koreans that would love to take
your favorite pet cat or dog, and skin and eat it.
They wouldn't think twice about it.
But, if they did, it would be wrong.
Why is hurting people wrong?
See above.
You never answered the answer the question. Why is hurting people
wrong?
See above, it is a very "Kant"ian based argument.
You are like other people, what is behind their eyes is
what is behind theirs, more or less.
You don't want to be hurt.
Therefore, it follows that others don't want to be hurt.
So, if you do hurt them, they are liable to hurt you.
And you don't want to be hurt, right ?
Therefore, hurting others is wrong.
That still doesn't answer the question. Just because someone doesn't
want something done to them doesn't make it wrong. The two concepts
are unrelated. Your argument explains why it might not be a good idea
to hurt other people, not why it is wrong.
Actually, it meets the definition of "wrong" in -several- places.
Wrong adj.
1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
2.
1. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or
wicked. 2. Unfair; unjust.
3. Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn.
4. Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the
wrong thing.
5. Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure: the
wrong way to shuck clams. 6. Not functioning properly; out of
order. 7. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social
convention. 8. Designating the side, as of a garment, that is less
finished and not intended to show: socks worn wrong side out.
adv.
1. In a wrong manner; mistakenly or erroneously.
2. In a wrong course or direction.
3. Immorally or unjustly: She acted wrong to lie.
4. In an unfavorable way. See Synonyms at amiss.
n.
1.
1. An unjust or injurious act.
2. Something contrary to ethics or morality.
2.
1. An invasion or a violation of another's legal rights.
2. Law. A tort. See Synonyms at injustice.
3. The condition of being in error or at fault: in the wrong.
By your definitions, there was nothing wrong with the Holocaust.
I guess you feel that the Holocaust was not a violation of anybody's
rights, then. That's not really a surprise coming from you.
Who gave rights to the Jews in Germany?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 04:21:35 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:30brt0ps5pavd9khk6vlsbs3loovospi4j@4ax.com:
I guess you feel that the Holocaust was not a violation of anybody's
rights, then. That's not really a surprise coming from you.
Who gave rights to the Jews in Germany?
What you, at the root of your argument, pose, is
actually corruption of the foundation of Bacon's Essays on
the New Atlantis, which founded the roots of the
DOI and Constitution of our Country.
Bacon ultimately concludes that each person is
born with awareness, and consciousness, and therefore
has a Soul... and that Soul is due certain
un-alienable rights, because it is a Soul,
a creation of God.
If you remove God from the postulate, and replace
Soul with "Self Awareness", you come up with the
same basic sense of ethics.
Others are like -you-, and -you- would want
others to respect -your- rights... so, therefore
what works when scaled is for you to respect
others rights, and they yours.
Having self awareness,
entitles you to Certain Inalienable Rights.
It isn't a matter of "who" granted them, so much so,
the penners of the DOI even used the "God of Nature",
rather than any particular God... trying to
convey that very idea....
That Rights, are the Inalienable Inheritance due
-any- person with reasonable Self Awareness.
Such -was- the Foundation of Our Country,
then along came Bush and the NeoCons, they don't
believe that anyone is due rights.. other than them.
The Perspective of the Kings of Old.
Just like Rush Limpballs, he couldn't stand people who stand
up for rights, or the ACLU, until -he- needed someone to
defend his....
Spoiled Privileged People tend towards this Perspective.
All it takes to set them right, is like Rush, get caught
up in the system, and have those rights denied... suddenly,
they see the light.
That reality, I suspect, drove the early eye for eye,
tooth for a tooth, type law. It actually worked quite well,
until accidents were brought into it, as opposed to intentional
actions.
In other words, I accidentally knock a tooth out
of a coworker, and the overly literal of the age, decided
that I should have one knocked out of me. Once Again,
the conservatives of the day, lacking brain power,
became overly literal.
A reoccurring theme down through history.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 03:47:27 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:28:45 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:30brt0ps5pavd9khk6vlsbs3loovospi4j@4ax.com:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:05:12 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crk8o4$m3m$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crk6l3$lf2$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crjuo0$j8m$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:cri24o$2fo$3@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote:
news:crhqj2$ef$2@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be
moral or know what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It damages, or harms, another being.
Why is harming somebody wrong?
Would you want to be harmed ?
No, but that is irrelevent.
Irrelevant ?
Not really, it is the first cousin to the
Cognitive Imperative, and the primary step to
realizing right from wrong.
What does not wanting to be hurt have to do with right and wrong?
Think about that one. You are being obtuse.
Chickens
don't want to be hurt but they have no concept of right and wrong.
Do they, or don't they, we may never know.
Not to mention, one iteration away from the Golden Rule,
found in most of the religions.
If there is no god and all religions are false then why should we
follow the golden rule?
Because, enough people don't want to be hurt, that if you
-do- hurt them, eventually, they will gang up on you,
and hurt -you- , think on it.
You reap what you sow, so mind what you sow.
No God necessary. Cultural Karma.
Does a chicken want to be harmed? No, but we
kill and eat them and think nothing of it.
Who says killing a chicken isn't wrong ?
Just because we "think nothing of it", doesn't mean it
is right. Psychopaths think nothing of killing people,
and it is still wrong.
I know several Koreans that would love to take
your favorite pet cat or dog, and skin and eat it.
They wouldn't think twice about it.
But, if they did, it would be wrong.
Why is hurting people wrong?
See above.
You never answered the answer the question. Why is hurting people
wrong?
See above, it is a very "Kant"ian based argument.
You are like other people, what is behind their eyes is
what is behind theirs, more or less.
You don't want to be hurt.
Therefore, it follows that others don't want to be hurt.
So, if you do hurt them, they are liable to hurt you.
And you don't want to be hurt, right ?
Therefore, hurting others is wrong.
That still doesn't answer the question. Just because someone doesn't
want something done to them doesn't make it wrong. The two concepts
are unrelated. Your argument explains why it might not be a good idea
to hurt other people, not why it is wrong.
Actually, it meets the definition of "wrong" in -several- places.
Wrong adj.
1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
2.
1. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or
wicked. 2. Unfair; unjust.
3. Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn.
4. Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the
wrong thing.
5. Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure: the
wrong way to shuck clams. 6. Not functioning properly; out of
order. 7. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social
convention. 8. Designating the side, as of a garment, that is less
finished and not intended to show: socks worn wrong side out.
adv.
1. In a wrong manner; mistakenly or erroneously.
2. In a wrong course or direction.
3. Immorally or unjustly: She acted wrong to lie.
4. In an unfavorable way. See Synonyms at amiss.
n.
1.
1. An unjust or injurious act.
2. Something contrary to ethics or morality.
2.
1. An invasion or a violation of another's legal rights.
2. Law. A tort. See Synonyms at injustice.
3. The condition of being in error or at fault: in the wrong.
By your definitions, there was nothing wrong with the Holocaust.
I guess you feel that the Holocaust was not a violation of anybody's
rights, then. That's not really a surprise coming from you.
Who gave rights to the Jews in Germany?
Do you yet understand the difference between violating laws and
violating rights?
Read the UN UDHR and tell us whether or not the Holocaust was a
violation of rights.
---
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be
adorned by a downright moron."
H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 04:02:48 PM |
|
|
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:0ecrt09sks9381a2kl03nmahtjpko9oo38@4ax.com:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:28:45 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:30brt0ps5pavd9khk6vlsbs3loovospi4j@4ax.com:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:05:12 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crk8o4$m3m$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crk6l3$lf2$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crjuo0$j8m$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:cri24o$2fo$3@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote:
news:crhqj2$ef$2@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be
moral or know what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It damages, or harms, another being.
Why is harming somebody wrong?
Would you want to be harmed ?
No, but that is irrelevent.
Irrelevant ?
Not really, it is the first cousin to the
Cognitive Imperative, and the primary step to
realizing right from wrong.
What does not wanting to be hurt have to do with right and wrong?
Think about that one. You are being obtuse.
Chickens
don't want to be hurt but they have no concept of right and wrong.
Do they, or don't they, we may never know.
Not to mention, one iteration away from the Golden Rule,
found in most of the religions.
If there is no god and all religions are false then why should we
follow the golden rule?
Because, enough people don't want to be hurt, that if you
-do- hurt them, eventually, they will gang up on you,
and hurt -you- , think on it.
You reap what you sow, so mind what you sow.
No God necessary. Cultural Karma.
Does a chicken want to be harmed? No, but we
kill and eat them and think nothing of it.
Who says killing a chicken isn't wrong ?
Just because we "think nothing of it", doesn't mean it
is right. Psychopaths think nothing of killing people,
and it is still wrong.
I know several Koreans that would love to take
your favorite pet cat or dog, and skin and eat it.
They wouldn't think twice about it.
But, if they did, it would be wrong.
Why is hurting people wrong?
See above.
You never answered the answer the question. Why is hurting people
wrong?
See above, it is a very "Kant"ian based argument.
You are like other people, what is behind their eyes is
what is behind theirs, more or less.
You don't want to be hurt.
Therefore, it follows that others don't want to be hurt.
So, if you do hurt them, they are liable to hurt you.
And you don't want to be hurt, right ?
Therefore, hurting others is wrong.
That still doesn't answer the question. Just because someone
doesn't want something done to them doesn't make it wrong. The two
concepts are unrelated. Your argument explains why it might not be
a good idea to hurt other people, not why it is wrong.
Actually, it meets the definition of "wrong" in -several- places.
Wrong adj.
1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
2.
1. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or
wicked. 2. Unfair; unjust.
3. Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn.
4. Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the
wrong thing.
5. Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure:
the wrong way to shuck clams. 6. Not functioning properly; out
of order. 7. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social
convention. 8. Designating the side, as of a garment, that is
less finished and not intended to show: socks worn wrong side
out.
adv.
1. In a wrong manner; mistakenly or erroneously.
2. In a wrong course or direction.
3. Immorally or unjustly: She acted wrong to lie.
4. In an unfavorable way. See Synonyms at amiss.
n.
1.
1. An unjust or injurious act.
2. Something contrary to ethics or morality.
2.
1. An invasion or a violation of another's legal rights.
2. Law. A tort. See Synonyms at injustice.
3. The condition of being in error or at fault: in the wrong.
By your definitions, there was nothing wrong with the Holocaust.
I guess you feel that the Holocaust was not a violation of anybody's
rights, then. That's not really a surprise coming from you.
Who gave rights to the Jews in Germany?
Do you yet understand the difference between violating laws and
violating rights?
Read the UN UDHR and tell us whether or not the Holocaust was a
violation of rights.
The UN wasn't around then. And who decides what rights are?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: Typical Atheists in a Nutshell |
06 Jan 2005 09:57:28 PM |
|
|
In article <3uGdnaugE_0VKEDcRVn-hg@rcn.net>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:0ecrt09sks9381a2kl03nmahtjpko9oo38@4ax.com:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:28:45 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:30brt0ps5pavd9khk6vlsbs3loovospi4j@4ax.com:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:05:12 -0600, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crk8o4$m3m$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crk6l3$lf2$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:crjuo0$j8m$1@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in
news:cri24o$2fo$3@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote:
news:crhqj2$ef$2@news.onecall.net:
Gactimus wrote:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in news:5aZCd.4852$Tf6.2603@fe03.lga:
| It seems that to you, anything goes. So why not
| promote pedophilia? I mean after all, who are you to
| say what's moral, right?
it seems to *you* that anyone without religion cannot be
moral or know what morality entails.
stupid assumption on your part, dave.
So why is pedophilia wrong?
It damages, or harms, another being.
Why is harming somebody wrong?
Would you want to be harmed ?
No, but that is irrelevent.
Irrelevant ?
Not really, it is the first cousin to the
Cognitive Imperative, and the primary step to
realizing right from wrong.
What does not wanting to be hurt have to do with right and wrong?
Think about that one. You are being obtuse.
Chickens
don't want to be hurt but they have no concept of right and wrong.
Do they, or don't they, we may never know.
Not to mention, one iteration away from the Golden Rule,
found in most of the religions.
If there is no god and all religions are false then why should we
follow the golden rule?
Because, enough people don't want to be hurt, that if you
-do- hurt them, eventually, they will gang up on you,
and hurt -you- , think on it.
You reap what you sow, so mind what you sow.
No God necessary. Cultural Karma.
Does a chicken want to be harmed? No, but we
kill and eat them and think nothing of it.
Who says killing a chicken isn't wrong ?
Just because we "think nothing of it", doesn't mean it
is right. Psychopaths think nothing of killing people,
and it is still wrong.
I know several Koreans that would love to take
your favorite pet cat or dog, and skin and eat it.
They wouldn't think twice about it.
But, if they did, it would be wrong.
Why is hurting people wrong?
See above.
You never answered the answer the question. Why is hurting people
wrong?
See above, it is a very "Kant"ian based argument.
You are like other people, what is behind their eyes is
what is behind theirs, more or less.
You don't want to be hurt.
Therefore, it follows that others don't want to be hurt.
So, if you do hurt them, they are liable to hurt you.
And you don't want to be hurt, right ?
Therefore, hurting others is wrong.
That still doesn't answer the question. Just because someone
doesn't want something done to them doesn't make it wrong. The two
concepts are unrelated. Your argument explains why it might not be
a good idea to hurt other people, not why it is wrong.
Actually, it meets the definition of "wrong" in -several- places.
Wrong adj.
1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
2.
1. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or
wicked. 2. Unfair; unjust.
3. Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn.
4. Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the
wrong thing.
5. Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure:
the wrong way to shuck clams. 6. Not functioning properly; out
of order. 7. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social
convention. 8. Designating the side, as of a garment, that is
less finished and not intended to show: socks worn wrong side
out.
adv.
1. In a wrong manner; mistakenly or erroneously.
2. In a wrong course or direction.
3. Immorally or unjustly: She acted wrong to lie.
4. In an unfavorable way. See Synonyms at amiss.
n.
1.
1. An unjust or injurious act.
2. Something contrary to ethics or morality.
2.
1. An invasion or a violation of another's legal rights.
2. Law. A tort. See Synonyms at injustice.
3. The condition of being in error or at fault: in the wrong.
By your definitions, there was nothing wrong with the Holocaust.
I guess you feel that the Holocaust was not a violation of anybody's
rights, then. That's not really a surprise coming from you.
Who gave rights to the Jews in Germany?
Do you yet understand the difference between violating laws and
violating rights?
Read the UN UDHR and tell us whether or not the Holocaust was a
violation of rights.
The UN wasn't around then. And who decides what rights are?
Please say god and then I can ask for the biblical reference for rights
-- especially ones that exist in the US.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
