sinker 0 #176 July 2, 2003 ok... so someone thinks that cow is my grandfather and thus chooses to die of starvation instead of killing it for food. It is completely within the realm of human reason to be able to discern that the cow is not/cannot be the living manifestation of a deceased human. It is not necessary to reference any religion to discover that. getting circumsized, pierced or tattooed does not disrupt any normal biological function as does the forcing of clitorectomies on pubescent tribal girls. such acts appear to me to be morally neutral, except of course a person does pierce themselves to the extent that they have mutilated their body more than in a superficial way. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #177 July 2, 2003 The only natural laws that I know of are those that involve existence. Your food example would fit into that because food is necessary for existence, using it for another purpose is not its intended natural use. However, how you treat other people is a moral, subjective view. Animals live in the natural world, and they can treat others of their own species poorly in order to better survive. Survival of the fittest and battling for the right to mate is one reason many species thrive. If the population of humans on earth were to exceed its capacity to support them, then killing other humans may be a natural and necessary process in order to ensure survival. Respect and dignity are intangible and unnecessary for survival. Yes, they're nice to have, but not something required by nature. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #178 July 2, 2003 QuoteIt is completely within the realm of human reason to be able to discern that the cow is not/cannot be the living manifestation of a deceased human. It is not necessary to reference any religion to discover that. But you would have to prove the Hindu religion to be false. That's not possible without proving the truth of a "competing" religion. Neither of which has ever been done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #179 July 2, 2003 >And I counter that if that's all they want, just to fuck like rabbits for > the sake of fucking . . . Well, rabbits do it for reproduction (hence the old saying) but anyway . . . >Just b/c you don't think it is demeaning to the human person >doesn't mean it's not demeaning in reality. "Reality" doesn't have much meaning in this sense. Values are based on personal choices, not by objective, universal standards. If it is demeaning to either person, it's a debasing act. If it's not demeaning to either person, it's not. You may consider that it demeans the person, and that's fine. Opinions on what's good and what's not vary througout the world. We cut the tips off baby boy's penises; other cultures would consider that a horrible and evil thing to do. But we see it as normal; even a good thing. We think that making a woman cover her face is awful, but require women (under threat of jail!) to cover their breasts. Other places think we're a bunch of perverts for what we allow women to show; yet other places think we're prudes for not letting them show more. Who is right? Depends on where you are. > However, why does the woman's desire for sex perdure even when >she is not in estrous, when procreation can not possibly take place? >Well, bonding, union, one-ness. Not "fucking." Union. The giving of > oneself to another in the most pure, sublime, complete way > possible. And the pleasure comes (no pun intended) as a natural > fruit of the act. Unfortunately, this view is hardly espoused in our > society at all any more. I think there are levels of that. There is the sort of sex you have where you don't even know the other person, all the way to having sex only for procreation with your wife. Everyone draws the line as to what's meaningless and what's not at a different place. Sex has as much meaning as you give it. Personally I'm not into the anonymous sex thing, and never have been, but that's just me. I can decide that what I'm doing is demeaning (or not) and have that mean something; that doesn't really hold if I decide what someone else is doing is demeaning. They are the better judge of that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #180 July 2, 2003 there's a difference b/t natural law and laws of nature. one governs all of nature, i.e. gravity, the other governs the realm of human acts. one need not subscribe to any religious belief system to discover that human beings, while animals, are not JUST animals. We are clearly on the top of the food chain so to speak. While we are animals, we are so much more... we create, we ponder, we love OUTSIDE of any biological need to do so. As such, there are other laws or dictums or principles that are unique and universal to all humans. Take overpopulation for example, which you bring up. It would be a grave crime towards humanity to electively kill other humans due to a perceived scarcity of resources. Did you know that every single person in the entire world can fit within the state of Texas and each person would have 150 (or is it 1500 square feet) of room? Because of mankinds ability to be creative and to problem solve in a way that no other animal can, this world will never be in a situation where humans will have to electively exterminate other humans b/c there aren't the resources to survive. We haven't even come close to utilizing the sea's potential to feed us. And look at the south west, where I am from... what once was a barren desert, unsurvivable not many generations ago, is a thriving part of our country. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #181 July 2, 2003 really i'd be interested in any method you had to prove that the animating force of the cow was not the same one that animated a deceased relative.. its a belief, just like yours in a resurrected carpenter and cannot be proven or disproven…. Why don’t you eat human flesh? you should also check your religions history..piercing and tatoos have both been condemned on moral basis.. other than the physical trauma and loss of enjoyment from sex, please explain what biological function is prevented by a clitorectomy? i'll admit i find the practice repugnant, but that is from an attraction to clitori, not from any moral standpoint other than the fact that the girl has no say in the matter....any more than i did when i was circumcised..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #182 July 2, 2003 QuoteBut you would have to prove the Hindu religion to be false. That's not possible without proving the truth of a "competing" religion. Neither of which has ever been done. why is that the case that you can only disprove one religion by proving the truth of another? it doesn't take any theologizing to discover that cows are tasty and bear no resemblence at all to a deity. they aren't intelligent. they die. they smell bad. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #183 July 2, 2003 Quote"Reality" doesn't have much meaning in this sense. Values are based on personal choices, not by objective, universal standards. If it is demeaning to either person, it's a debasing act. If it's not demeaning to either person, it's not. this conversation will always be reduced to you saying truth is relative and me saying that it isn't. I don't think it's demeaning to shoot someone in the head. They don't either. Bam. Done. Are we both right? Are we both wrong? -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #184 July 2, 2003 Quote they die. they smell bad. note: not intended as blaspheme so do carpenters...and some cultures find them tasty as well...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #185 July 2, 2003 Quotereally i'd be interested in any method you had to prove that the animating force of the cow was not the same one that animated a deceased relative.. so you have a point that I can't think of a rebuttle off the top of my head. but do YOU think that the life force of that heffer may in fact be the deceased George Troy? No? Why not? It either is or it isn't. Believing it is doesn't make it so. Believing it isn't doesn't either. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #186 July 2, 2003 Quoteit doesn't take any theologizing to discover that cows are tasty and bear no resemblence at all to a deity. You'll need to explain that to 850 million Hindi. I'm sure some of them have done quite a bit of theologizing. You're making an assumption based on your belief of what constitutes a deity. But that is your belief, not a universal truth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #187 July 2, 2003 Quoteother than the physical trauma and loss of enjoyment from sex, please explain what biological function is prevented by a clitorectomy? a normal function of sex is the ability to orgasm. when someone is unable to orgasm during the sexual act, that is a dysfunction. I'm not saying that HAVE to always orgasm, but they have to have the potential to have one. In most cases, the clitorectomy prohibits the ability for the woman to have an orgasm. That is the biological function that is prevented. Also, our identities are very intimately intertwined with our sexuality. The forced removal of the clit frequently does violence to that as well. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #188 July 2, 2003 QuoteQuote"Reality" doesn't have much meaning in this sense. Values are based on personal choices, not by objective, universal standards. If it is demeaning to either person, it's a debasing act. If it's not demeaning to either person, it's not. this conversation will always be reduced to you saying truth is relative and me saying that it isn't. I don't think it's demeaning to shoot someone in the head. They don't either. Bam. Done. Are we both right? Are we both wrong? both are right if the culture agrees.. example seppuku from pre-industrial Japan, where it was a place of honor to be asked to assist in the proper ending of a disgraced samurai. western culture calls suicide and assisted suicide immoral, but that doesnt mean we are "right"____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #189 July 2, 2003 QuoteBut that is your belief, not a universal truth. Yes, it is my belief. Is it yours? Do you think that cows possess the souls of deceased humans? Honestly... do you really think that is true? -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #190 July 2, 2003 QuoteI don't think it's demeaning to shoot someone in the head. They don't either. Bam. Done. Are we both right? Are we both wrong? In that case you would both be right. Take for example to soldiers in the old west fighting comanchees. They are about to be over run. One has 2 bullets left, the other is out of ammo. He asks the guy with ammo to shoot him in the head so that he can't be tortured before being killed by the comanchees. Is it wrong for him to carry out that wish? I would say no. Circumstances and environment can alter what is right and what is wrong. There is no universal right or wrong. It will always be personal judgment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #191 July 2, 2003 Quoteboth are right if the culture agrees.. example seppuku from pre-industrial Japan, where it was a place of honor to be asked to assist in the proper ending of a disgraced samurai. western culture calls suicide and assisted suicide immoral, but that doesnt mean we are "right" sure it does. you're not disproving my point that just b/c a culture sanctions murder or suicide that such actions are right. If a culture espouses moral relativism, chaos ensues. And the universe is not chaotic. There is incredible order from a macro to micro scale. It's everywhere and to deny it is just baffling to me. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #192 July 2, 2003 QuoteQuotereally i'd be interested in any method you had to prove that the animating force of the cow was not the same one that animated a deceased relative.. so you have a point that I can't think of a rebuttle off the top of my head. but do YOU think that the life force of that heffer may in fact be the deceased George Troy? No? Why not? It either is or it isn't. Believing it is doesn't make it so. Believing it isn't doesn't either. no, i would think that returning as a cow would be a step down the spiral...a cat however ...but i'm also not presuming to tell another person (an entire culture really) that they are wrong!!! "i cant prove it, i just know it your wrong!!"____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #193 July 2, 2003 QuoteQuoteBut that is your belief, not a universal truth. Yes, it is my belief. Is it yours? Do you think that cows possess the souls of deceased humans? Honestly... do you really think that is true? No, I don't. But I also find it unbelievable that Jesus was the human manifestation of God. Does that mean it's completely within the realm of human reason to be able to discern that Jesus cannot be the living manifestation of God? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #194 July 2, 2003 no, they would both be wrong. it is never right to intentionally do something to kill yourself or someone else. who knows... someone may come and save them from their captors. the captors may have a change of heart (humans have thoses, you know). any number of possibilities exist. true, they will likely die at the hands of their captors. that doesn't make suicide and murder acceptable. well, to you maybe. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #195 July 2, 2003 Quotenote: not intended as blaspheme so do carpenters...and some cultures find them tasty as well... not intended maybe, but in bad taste, surely... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #196 July 2, 2003 Quotethey will likely die at the hands of their captors. that doesn't make suicide and murder acceptable. well, to you maybe Exactly. It does to me. I would think it immoral and cruel to disregard their request. How can it be a universal truth if not everyone agrees? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #197 July 2, 2003 QuoteQuoteboth are right if the culture agrees.. example seppuku from pre-industrial Japan, where it was a place of honor to be asked to assist in the proper ending of a disgraced samurai. western culture calls suicide and assisted suicide immoral, but that doesnt mean we are "right" sure it does. you're not disproving my point that just b/c a culture sanctions murder or suicide that such actions are right. If a culture espouses moral relativism, chaos ensues. And the universe is not chaotic. There is incredible order from a macro to micro scale. It's everywhere and to deny it is just baffling to me. uh..i'm not sure which universe your paying attention to, but ours is PLENTY chaotic, order is only a temporary state.... morality is relative to the culture not to the individual.. there are subcultures that have variations on moral themes, but they usually agree on the major points.. please prove that murder and suicide are "wrong"____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #198 July 2, 2003 in this debate I have not been arguing for the belief that Jesus is the human manifestation of God. I've been arguing that their are values/principles/morals etc. that are universal and govern all persons. One of those principles being that it is wrong for a person to starve when they have food available. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #199 July 2, 2003 Quotenot intended maybe, but in bad taste, surely... Not any more so than your comment would have been to a Hindu. There's that perception thing again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #200 July 2, 2003 touche. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
