| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/24/2010 12:06:34 PM · #4276 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So it is less immoral to cause suffering to save person from a perceived threat of greater suffering. |
It still has to be demonstrably real. You can empirically show that people who aren't vaccinated tend to suffer illness. You cannot show that killing people suspected of witchcraft stops bubonic plague. Therefore, the initial suffering is not justified. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 12:58:37 PM · #4277 |
Note that in lawsuits the plaintiffs typically ask to be compensated for "pain and suffering" -- they are not the same thing. Not all pain leads to suffering.
I'd consider suffering to be the emotional distress engendered by the sensation of avoidable pain. A person getting a shot for tetanus does not "suffer" at the needle prick because of the ability to weigh the "risk/benefit" ratio of the alternative. Someone getting their ears pierced will feel pain but will not "suffer."
The innocent person who is kidnapped and tortured would suffer, whether the torture was physical or purely psychological, as will the schoolkid who is teased about physical or personality characteristics. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 01:03:05 PM · #4278 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Given that humans are a part of nature, that human evolution itself is a natural (i.e. amoral) event, he's trying to get you (and others) to explore, or zero in on, the idea of where what we do/think/say, *as humans*, stops being natural (i.e. amoral) and begins to carry moral baggage the rest of the way. |
Human evolution is natural, which has nothing to do with whether something is moral, and at no point does that change. See "pathetic fallacy" above. |
Yes, that's the POINT we're chasing after, danggit. There is a point at which it *does* change, given that a world sans humans doesn't even have the concept of morality embedded in it, assuming, of course, that morality is a human construct, which is the given upon which the line of reasoning is being worked out.
Surely you can work out the fascinating implications of this on your own, fine thinker that you are? You've certainly been given enough hints, or are you just gonna keep ignoring them all?
Shannon, your arguments amount to exploring the littoral zone and claiming to know the abyss. There's a LOT more to this than your simplified line of reasoning is admitting to.
R. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 01:18:24 PM · #4279 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So it is less immoral to cause suffering to save person from a perceived threat of greater suffering. |
It still has to be demonstrably real. You can empirically show that people who aren't vaccinated tend to suffer illness. You cannot show that killing people suspected of witchcraft stops bubonic plague. Therefore, the initial suffering is not justified. |
So, what would you say to people who hear/see statistical evidence that suggests homosexuality spreads STDs faster than heterosexuality? Should those people vote against gay marriage because of the perceives threat of STDs?
Message edited by author 2010-01-24 13:49:41. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 01:49:51 PM · #4280 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
what would you say to people who hear statistical evidence that suggests homosexuality spreads STDs faster than heterosexuality? Should those people vote against gay marriage because of the perceives threat of STDs? |
The same thing we would say to people who hear statistical evidence that suggests heterosexual sex spreads STDs faster than abstinence. Should those people vote against heterosexual marriage because of the perceived threat of STDs? |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 01:51:30 PM · #4281 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So, what would you say to people who hear statistical evidence that suggests homosexuality spreads STDs faster than heterosexuality? Should those people vote against gay marriage because of the perceives threat of STDs? |
Married gays don't "sleep around" (especially with married heterosexuals) and spread STDs -- the logical implication of your statistic (even if valid) would actually be the reverse of what you suggest. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 02:13:48 PM · #4282 |
Thanks Robert. It makes me feel better when I know someone understands the conversation. Sometimes I really do wonder if I am just so bad a writer as to not be able to get my point across, but it's nice to know that somebody reading gets what I am saying or at least trying to point out.
Shannon, you keep putting the adjectives backwards. Does it makes more sense to understand I am arguing that "amoral" is the defining characteristic of "natural" and not vice versa? (or at least that's the argument I'm conceding for the sake of this conversation.) |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 02:21:57 PM · #4283 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So, what would you say to people who hear statistical evidence that suggests homosexuality spreads STDs faster than heterosexuality? Should those people vote against gay marriage because of the perceives threat of STDs? |
Married gays don't "sleep around" (especially with married heterosexuals) and spread STDs -- the logical implication of your statistic (even if valid) would actually be the reverse of what you suggest. |
There you go. There's a good argument that does not bash gay marriage opponents. Use arguments like that and the opposition might not feel so offended. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 02:51:07 PM · #4284 |
| Many religious people (Muslims, Jews, Christians) believe that discrimination that causes suffering is immoral. But those same people believe that gay marriage is even more immoral than discrimination. So, in the eyes of religious people, they are choosing the least immoral option. The three religious groups named above probably include half of the global population. Proponents of gay marriage have learned that its not easy to make religious people give up their beliefs or abandon their faith. As a result, many supporters of gay marriage resort to religion bashing and telling religious people that their faith is a lie. This has happened in this thread, and as you might guess, it's not a very effective way to get religious people on your side. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 02:52:58 PM · #4285 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Human evolution is natural, which has nothing to do with whether something is moral, and at no point does that change. |
Yes, that's the POINT we're chasing after, danggit. There is a point at which it *does* change... |
The point you're chasing is void due to fallacious reasoning. "The fallacy is committed whenever a statement to the effect that some object [nature] has a simple indefinable property [amorality] is misunderstood as a definition that gives the meaning of the simple indefinable property. [nature is not the definition of amorality]" There is no change from the natural to the immoral. Humans declare something to be immoral and that's it.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does it makes more sense to understand I am arguing that "amoral" is the defining characteristic of "natural" and not vice versa? |
No, it doesn't matter which way you go. If "amoral" is the defining characteristic of "natural," then you could ask at what point wristwatches and and socks become natural because they're amoral. You are assuming that "natural" is the defining characteristic of "amoral," in which case socks could not be amoral because they're not natural. Obviously, this is a false assumption, and without it you can't ask when something natural changes to something that's not amoral. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 02:57:15 PM · #4286 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
No, it doesn't matter which way you go. If "amoral" is the defining characteristic of "natural," then you could ask at what point wristwatches and and socks become natural because they're amoral. You are assuming that "natural" is the defining characteristic of "amoral," in which case socks could not be amoral because they're not natural. Obviously, this is a false assumption, and without it you can't ask when something natural changes to something that's not amoral. |
LOL. I'm just going to call uncle because that paragraph indicates I probably have HOURS of discussion ahead of me. You don't even seem to be in the same ballpark as me for the point I'm making. I'm out of ideas on how to get you on the same page so we can even have a discussion.
Message edited by author 2010-01-24 14:57:36. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 03:02:18 PM · #4287 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Many religious people (Muslims, Jews, Christians) believe that discrimination that causes suffering is immoral. But those same people believe that gay marriage is even more immoral than discrimination. So, in the eyes of religious people, they are choosing the least immoral option. |
Argumentum ad populum. The potential for greater suffering does not exist just because lots of people think it does. Until recently, those same people believed that treating blacks or women as equals is even more immoral than discrimination. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 07:30:44 PM · #4288 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
As a result, many supporters of gay marriage resort to religion bashing and telling religious people that their faith is a lie. This has happened in this thread, and as you might guess, it's not a very effective way to get religious people on your side. |
Speaking personally, I don't "bash religion" because of anything to do with same-sex marriage, or anything other than the fact that religion is a myth, and belief in God a delusion. Plenty of opposition to same-sex marriage comes from secular individuals, and plenty of support comes from religious supporters and institutions.
Religion is so very easy to discredit for so many other reasons than the perceived position of any number of adherents for any particular social or political issue. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 07:46:50 PM · #4289 |
I've missed a couple of pages of discussion with a good excuse: I was attending a gay marriage. I have been to a couple now - in case anyone was wondering the service and event was pretty much exactly the same as any other (civil) wedding. It was very enjoyable to see my friends who love each other so much make this public commitment.
They also gained some important legal rights.
I would encourage anyone who objects to gay marriage actually to attend one - afterwards you really do wonder what all the fuss is about.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2010 08:11:27 PM · #4290 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Given that humans are a part of nature, that human evolution itself is a natural (i.e. amoral) event, he's trying to get you (and others) to explore, or zero in on, the idea of where what we do/think/say, *as humans*, stops being natural (i.e. amoral) and begins to carry moral baggage the rest of the way.
It's an important question, it's a difficult question to answer, and all your obfuscation regarding the lack of a continuum between unrelated concepts doesn't change that. In fact, it's more than a little insulting.
R. |
I may be completely off here, but I think you are getting at rationality. Animals aren't considered immoral because they aren't considered to have the capability of reason. Humans do. However, it should be noted that those who are believed to be incapable of rationality are also deemed to be incapable of moral judgments (the vegetative, the extremely young, the demented, etc.). So, the point at which 'natural' amoral man becomes capable of being considered immoral is in the use of rationality. Once man can use reason to classify things as good or bad, man becomes capable of immorality. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 10:35:16 PM · #4291 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Speaking personally, I don't "bash religion" because of anything to do with same-sex marriage, or anything other than the fact that religion is a myth, and belief in God a delusion. Plenty of opposition to same-sex marriage comes from secular individuals, and plenty of support comes from religious supporters and institutions.
Religion is so very easy to discredit for so many other reasons than the perceived position of any number of adherents for any particular social or political issue. |
You might not "bash" religion, but when you boldly make such statements as the ones above, religious people probably aren't going to give you much respect either. It's one thing to say that you personally believe that religion is a myth, but it's another thing entirely to say that it's a fact that religion is a myth, and that belief in God is a delusion. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 10:38:17 PM · #4292 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Louis:
Speaking personally, I don't "bash religion" because of anything to do with same-sex marriage, or anything other than the fact that religion is a myth, and belief in God a delusion. Plenty of opposition to same-sex marriage comes from secular individuals, and plenty of support comes from religious supporters and institutions.
Religion is so very easy to discredit for so many other reasons than the perceived position of any number of adherents for any particular social or political issue. |
You might not "bash" religion, but when you boldly make such statements as the ones above, religious people probably aren't going to give you much respect either. It's one thing to say that you personally believe that religion is a myth, but it's another thing entirely to say that it's a fact that religion is a myth, and that belief in God is a delusion. |
That's just Louis being Louis. I wouldn't sweat it too much. He's self-admittedly prone to hyperbole... |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 10:42:11 PM · #4293 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
You might not "bash" religion, but when you boldly make such statements as the ones above, religious people probably aren't going to give you much respect either. |
I don't really care who gives me respect and who doesn't, quite frankly. Anyone with a decent set of dialectic balls isn't going to get offended at ideas during discussion. Those who do need to get a grip, or at least learn that they have no right not to be offended. Also, this. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 10:46:57 PM · #4294 |
on a related note, we're looking for an organization that promotes diversity, to be shared with our daughters' schools. Many in this thread may have information that would help - please take a look at the thread:
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=966629
thanks everyone :) |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 10:50:11 PM · #4295 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I don't really care who gives me respect and who doesn't, quite frankly. Anyone with a decent set of dialectic balls isn't going to get offended at ideas during discussion. Those who do need to get a grip, or at least learn that they have no right not to be offended. Also, this. |
I agree with your blog regarding the sanctity of personal opinion in North America. But for the record, I never said that I was personally offended by your statements. It goes both ways. Religious people have been accused of being incapable of reasonable discourse due to their close-mindedness and unwillingness to accept the notion that they could be wrong. But when a non-religious person says that it is a fact that religion is a myth, doesn't that display the same unwillingness to accept the possibility of being wrong?
Message edited by author 2010-01-24 22:52:00. |
|
|
|
01/24/2010 11:37:19 PM · #4296 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
when a non-religious person says that it is a fact that religion is a myth, doesn't that display the same unwillingness to accept the possibility of being wrong? |
No it doesn't. You certainly don't have any problem proclaiming that God is a fact, but such an opinion doesn't mean Louis is unwilling to be proven wrong. This is what unwillingness looks like:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm a Christian and I believe what I believe. No amount of scientific evidence will change that. |
Show Louis evidence that religion is not a myth, and I'm pretty sure he'll change his mind.
Message edited by author 2010-01-24 23:37:42. |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 12:01:10 AM · #4297 |
| I remember the "amoral pig" comment. Clearly all the aardvarks were really pissed off at Louis' reply. |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 12:10:51 AM · #4298 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
when a non-religious person says that it is a fact that religion is a myth, doesn't that display the same unwillingness to accept the possibility of being wrong? |
No it doesn't. You certainly don't have any problem proclaiming that God is a fact, but such an opinion doesn't mean Louis is unwilling to be proven wrong. This is what unwillingness looks like:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm a Christian and I believe what I believe. No amount of scientific evidence will change that. |
Show Louis evidence that religion is not a myth, and I'm pretty sure he'll change his mind. |
I said what I said, and I'll hold to it, because you cannot use science to prove that God exists, nor can you use it to prove that he doesn't. Science cannot prove the big bang because the environment that the big bang supposedly occurred in is impossible to replicate. Therefore the big bang theory is untestable. You can theorize about the big bang, but you can't test it. The same applies to God. You certainly can't put him in test tube. I can offer some reason and logic that supports Christianity, but reason and logic do not prove anything. I can offer you some archeological evidence that supports the validity of the Bible, but that doesn't prove the existence of the supernatural. Asking a Christian to prove that God exists is like asking someone to prove the big bang. Either way you can call upon observation and experience, but neither can be tested.
Message edited by author 2010-01-25 00:11:39. |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 12:23:58 AM · #4299 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm a Christian and I believe what I believe. No amount of scientific evidence will change that. |
Show Louis evidence that religion is not a myth, and I'm pretty sure he'll change his mind. |
I believe that evidence is forthcoming but not until this thread reaches infinity + 1 pages long.
Message edited by author 2010-01-25 00:24:21. |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 06:17:31 AM · #4300 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I said what I said, and I'll hold to it, because you cannot use science to prove that God exists, nor can you use it to prove that he doesn't. Science cannot prove the big bang because the environment that the big bang supposedly occurred in is impossible to replicate. Therefore the big bang theory is untestable. You can theorize about the big bang, but you can't test it. The same applies to God. You certainly can't put him in test tube. I can offer some reason and logic that supports Christianity, but reason and logic do not prove anything. I can offer you some archeological evidence that supports the validity of the Bible, but that doesn't prove the existence of the supernatural. Asking a Christian to prove that God exists is like asking someone to prove the big bang. Either way you can call upon observation and experience, but neither can be tested. |
I think that you are quite wrong in all respects with this post.
As you say, some archeological evidence supports some of the (non-supernatural) elements of the bible - but it also disproves some supernatural parts of the bible (like the story of the great flood).
One can absolutely use science to test for the presence of a god. The results demonstrate quite clearly that there is no evidence of a god intervening in the modern era in a statistically significant and measurable way. Accordingly, the science consistently demonstrates an overwhelming probability that the god as described in, say, the bible does not exist.
Conversely, "theories" such as the happening of the big bang and evolution can be proven with overwhelming certainty. The evidence - literally billions or trillions of directly observable items - surrounds us constantly and consistently.
|
|
