Marlon Bundo

[seer]

Because in my moral framework - it is not moral to unnecessarily cause distress to a living thing. All animals eat, and we either eat living plants or living animals. That is part of the normal circle of life. But if I choose to kill that cow by skinning it while still alive, and then systematically cutting of choice cuts until the animal expires, I am needlessly causing pain and anguish and my moral code makes that an immoral act - largely on the basis of my valuing life and happiness and health and not limiting that to just humans. But if the cow is put down humanely, I have no moral proscription against it.

OK, so we are back to your opinion. Got it...

[seer]

Yours is right for you. Mine is right for me. A rational argument does not mean it is universally true or right, Seer. It simply means it is sound (if correctly constructed) and valid (if it is based on true premises) so it can be used to guide choices.

But when we attempt to decide between the two opinions (I like pizza and you don't) there is no logical or rational way to come to a conclusion.

[rogue06]

Calling extremist Muslims "true" Muslims displays your ignorance and your bigotry towards Islam. Statistically, extremists are a small fraction of the Islamic population, even in Islamic countries. They do tend to have power, so they set the laws in many of these countries. But worldwide, that is not true.

But the support for their goals and to a slightly lesser extent their actions is startling high.

For instance, shortly after 9/11 a poll of Kuwaitis (the people America had fought to liberate from Sadam Hussein's invasion only a decade earlier) found that 42% thought that Osama bin Laden is a "Freedom Fighter," and not a terrorist.

According to a poll conducted by the Sunday Times of London of British Muslims and released 2 months after 9/11, 40% thought that bin Laden was "justified" in mounting a war against America^[1]1. Keep in mind that bin Laden's primary beef with the U.S. is that the Saudis were allowing a relatively small number of us to stay in the country to keep an eye on Saddam

[Sparko]

his extremist ideas, imo.

So now traditional conservative family values that have been around forever are "extremist ideas"

[Mountain Man]

I meant to say "different cultures throughout the world set that boundary at different places." That does not mean it can be set anywhere.

Why not?

Source: Can We Be Good Without God?

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...d-without-god/

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

Yes - it does. But human morality is not based on animal actions.

But people use animal behavior to justify the morality of human behavior all the time. Like saying homosexuality is not immoral because it is natural because it even happens in the animal kingdom. But nobody says rape is natural because it happens in the animal kingdom.

And if morals are just relative anyway and arbitrarily set up by society, then morality is really nothing more than animal behavior because that is what we are after all, right? Our "morals" are mean no more than whatever arbitrary rules chimps come up with in their societies.

[carpedm9587]

I think you are making my point.

Then apparently we've been agreeing violently all this time and you concur that morality is subjective.

You are not making sense Carp. You were just arguing that things that conformed to social trends were "ahead" and things that did not were "behind" - morality. So if and when you buck a social norm by your own definition you are "behind" morally.

I'm making perfect sense. The trend to how the LGBTQ is "moving ahead' both in terms of my moral norms and the evolving norms of society. They are "moving behind" as far as people like you are concerned. If society was not working in this direction, and I thought it should - then society would be "behind" from my perspective, and doing fine from it's perspective. When I buck a social moral trend - I am "ahead" by my assessment and behind by society's. I'm not sure why this is confusing to you. It's a natural consequence of recognizing morality as subjective.

And your religious bigotry is duly noted.

Since I do not have a bigotry towards any particular religion that I know of...

That can not be said for your position on the LGBTQ community - or at least the LG part...

Right there is nothing, we are all simply left with our moral opinions.

Those two sentences are not necessarily linked. There is something: our moral frameworks or "opinions" if you wish.

[carpedm9587]

OK, so we are back to your opinion. Got it...

Of course you are...if you're talking about my moral framework - just as we are talking about your opinion when yuo voice something related to your moral framework.

[carpedm9587]

But when we attempt to decide between the two opinions (I like pizza and you don't) there is no logical or rational way to come to a conclusion.

Why on earth would we try to decide between the two opinions? My like of pizza has to do with me - your like of pizza has to do with you. Both can be simultaneously true without contradiction. I'm not seeing your problem with this. Nor am I seeing how this makes this "irrational."

[Sparko]

Why on earth would we try to decide between the two opinions? My like of pizza has to do with me - your like of pizza has to do with you. Both can be simultaneously true without contradiction. I'm not seeing your problem with this. Nor am I seeing how this makes this "irrational."

It matters if you try to ban the eating of pizza because you think it is wrong.

[carpedm9587]

But the support for their goals and to a slightly lesser extent their actions is startling high.

For instance, shortly after 9/11 a poll of Kuwaitis (the people America had fought to liberate from Sadam Hussein's invasion only a decade earlier) found that 42% thought that Osama bin Laden is a "Freedom Fighter," and not a terrorist.

Not a surprise to me - it is, after all, a religious/muslim country and they tend to lean far to the right. Indeed, 42% is lower than I would have predicted.

According to a poll conducted by the Sunday Times of London of British Muslims and released 2 months after 9/11, 40% thought that bin Laden was "justified" in mounting a war against America^[1]1. Keep in mind that bin Laden's primary beef with the U.S. is that the Saudis were allowing a relatively small number of us to stay in the country to keep an eye on Saddam

So first...I'd like to look at some of the original sources for this, and the other data reported. Can you provide links? Second, I am somewhat dubious about surveys done immediately after traumatic incidents, and immediately after (or during) significant millitary effort within predominantly Muslim countries. Do you have any data that is more recent - preferably BEFORE Trump started insulting the entire Muslim world. Say 2014-2015?

[carpedm9587]

Why not?

Source: Can We Be Good Without God?

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...d-without-god/

© Copyright Original Source

Because taking sexual advantage of another human being is immoral - and sex with an immature child is, be definition, taking sexual advantage, since they lack the capacity to make mature sexual decisions and/or resist adults. Do I REALLY need to explain that to you?

[carpedm9587]

But people use animal behavior to justify the morality of human behavior all the time.

Then go argue with them...

Like saying homosexuality is not immoral because it is natural because it even happens in the animal kingdom. But nobody says rape is natural because it happens in the animal kingdom.

So my argument is that homosexuality cannto be called "unnatural" since it is common in nature. Rape may or may not be natural, that does not make it moral. Perhaps you (and these others) are not clear on the difference between "natural" and "immoral?"

And if morals are just relative anyway and arbitrarily set up by society, then morality is really nothing more than animal behavior because that is what we are after all, right? Our "morals" are mean no more than whatever arbitrary rules chimps come up with in their societies.

Morals a relative, yes. They are not arbitrary. Those two terms are not equivalent (much though moral absolutists keep trying to make that claim). Morality is indeed "animal behavior" but requires a sentient mind. There is no "morality" where there is no sentience.

[carpedm9587]

It matters if you try to ban the eating of pizza because you think it is wrong.

Why on earth would I try to ban the eating of pizza - and on what basis would I classify it as wrong? That simply makes no sense. We're talking about a food preference.

[Sparko]

Then go argue with them...

I am.

Given the number of instances of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom - where evolution is hard at work - your use of "unnatural" is simply uninformed

So my argument is that homosexuality cannto be called "unnatural" since it is common in nature. Rape may or may not be natural, that does not make it moral. Perhaps you (and these others) are not clear on the difference between "natural" and "immoral?"

Picking nits. You were implying that by "natural" homosexuality is therefore morally OK.

Morals a relative, yes. They are not arbitrary. Those two terms are not equivalent (much though moral absolutists keep trying to make that claim). Morality is indeed "animal behavior" but requires a sentient mind. There is no "morality" where there is no sentience.

Explain why. What makes an behavior moral or immoral if it is just a relative preference? Why is rape OK for a chimp but not a person?