Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Bestiality: Can an animal "consent"?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
    Highly debatable, since most of the improvements have been bought with massive deficit spending, various forms of debt slavery, radically diminished social trust, and a decreased national IQ. The degredation of the nation would never have been seen as worth the reduction in crime rates, which are in fact, only really due to a much lower level of people actually being out and about (and also due to greater mistrust of the police, as fewer crimes in the cities get reported when the police can't be trusted. More witnesses in public=more crime reports.)

    Your preaching to the choir.



    Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
    The only ones truly isolated, at least in America, would be the Amish. For the rest, I'd volunteer that a much larger number of people than you give credit for have done that thing known as "repentance" at some point in their lives, and brought about the partial social restoration that eras like the late 70s and most of the 80s were known for. It actually was a better time for a great majority of people, and even the women's magazines were light-years ahead in moral understanding.
    I don't remember giving numbers, outside of a shrinking Beaver population, or writing anything regarding repentance, but ok. Repentance doesn't attribute to social restoration unless the turnabout effects ones outward behavior, this would include partial as well. I'm no doomsayer, I get it and say amen to it!

    Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
    Again, it's only sort of worked for the Amish. But if you want to defeat the culture, you actually will have to be both engaged enough with it to speak its language, and free enough from its temptations to resist their call in other contexts.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mr. Anderson View Post
      Argument fails: The claim doesn't have to be truthful to bear authority, current politics give evidence of this fact. The authority of the priest is claimed to be a delegated authority, not their own. Or it would be ignored. Therefore the appeal is to a non-secular authority. The actual reality of it's truthfulness has no bearing in the matter.
      So what exactly is the distinction that separates a false religion from a secular philosophy? They both come from a human brain. Please elaborate on how the Church of Scientology has a moral foundation and secular humanism does not.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
        So what exactly is the distinction that separates a false religion from a secular philosophy? They both come from a human brain. Please elaborate on how the Church of Scientology has a moral foundation and secular humanism does not.
        s based on an outside authority

        One is based on an outside authority, false or not, and the other is based on what the homies are feeling is good for today. And since the difference is so significant that the false religions moral code has solid foundation and the secular moral code has a fluid foundation, how much better still would a religious moral code be if it were truly divine revelation. Said revelation from transcendent to temporal would look like what? Even something as simple as a bush afire that isn't consumed must be perceived and processed through the mind before you can describe it to another. Your appeal to a natural process taking place is only a description of a symptom, not the process by which the symptom arrived.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mr. Anderson View Post
          s based on an outside authority

          One is based on an outside authority, false or not, and the other is based on what the homies are feeling is good for today. And since the difference is so significant that the false religions moral code has solid foundation and the secular moral code has a fluid foundation, how much better still would a religious moral code be if it were truly divine revelation. Said revelation from transcendent to temporal would look like what? Even something as simple as a bush afire that isn't consumed must be perceived and processed through the mind before you can describe it to another. Your appeal to a natural process taking place is only a description of a symptom, not the process by which the symptom arrived.
          So if I say I have a philosophy, it does not have a moral foundation. But if I say a ghost told me this philosophy, or that my philosophy is built into supernatural laws that govern the universe, then it does have a moral foundation? If a religion is false, it was made up by its founder, just like a philosophy. The difference is that people can improve a philosophy over time through discussion, while a religion is immutable. If someone is going to make something up, I trust the democratic option more than the dictatorial option, since the former is non-arbitrary and the latter is arbitrary.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
            If someone is going to make something up, I trust the democratic option more than the dictatorial option, since the former is non-arbitrary and the latter is arbitrary.


            Being arbitrary has nothing to do with whether or not it is democratic or dictatorial. If a million idiots decide on something arbitrarily it will still be just as arbitrary as if one single idiot did it.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post


              Being arbitrary has nothing to do with whether or not it is democratic or dictatorial. If a million idiots decide on something arbitrarily it will still be just as arbitrary as if one single idiot did it.
              A democracy makes a philosophy into a system that can be improved. Look at any secular philosophy. Through debate and rumination, a historical and global conversation arises through which bad ideas fall to the wayside and strong ideas rise to the top. It's not at all dissimilar from the scientific method, if not exactly that.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                A democracy makes a philosophy into a system that can be improved, or deteriorate, there's just no telling which way it will go. Look at any secular philosophy. Through debate and rumination, a historical and global conversation arises through which disliked ideas fall to the wayside and preferred ideas rise to the top. it's pretty much the opposite of the scientific method.
                Fixed it for you. There's no need to thank me.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                  So if I say I have a philosophy, it does not have a moral foundation. But if I say a ghost told me this philosophy, or that my philosophy is built into supernatural laws that govern the universe, then it does have a moral foundation?
                  Yes. / A ghost is just a dead you, so no foundation. / There can only be physical laws governing the universe instituted be a supernatural being within a Christian theist's worldview. Not to sure about other religious views to speak for them. Grabbing for straws now are we?

                  Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                  If a religion is false, it was made up by its founder, just like a philosophy. The difference is that people can improve a philosophy over time through discussion, while a religion is immutable. If someone is going to make something up, I trust the democratic option more than the dictatorial option, since the former is non-arbitrary and the latter is arbitrary.
                  The appeal to an immutable authority brings with it an immutable objective foundation. True or false is of no difference. Under such a code, if we disagree with the code we break the moral code by living in disobedience to it. We can't change it. Bestiality will always be right or wrong based off the code, that's what a foundation does. A secular subjective moral code or philosophy will always lean in time to the weakest link of the human condition. Everybody wants to consider themselves and their desires as good and normal. They will strive to have whatever behavior that is brought under the code.
                  Last edited by Mr. Anderson; 07-08-2014, 08:45 PM. Reason: clarification

                  Comment

                  Related Threads

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 09:58 AM
                  4 responses
                  13 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Stoic
                  by Stoic
                   
                  Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                  16 responses
                  194 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post One Bad Pig  
                  Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                  53 responses
                  419 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Mountain Man  
                  Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                  25 responses
                  114 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post rogue06
                  by rogue06
                   
                  Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                  33 responses
                  198 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Roy
                  by Roy
                   
                  Working...
                  X