johnydon22:


irritated
/ˈɪrɪteɪtɪd/
adjective
showing or feeling slight anger; annoyed.

Feeling slight anger does not sufficiently describe how I feel when people with highly developed minds deprive me of a learning opportunity. There's way more ignorance floating around for me to feel slight anger and annoyed.

Frustrated better describes how I felt. Frustrated that a person with a capable mind might be adding to that ignorance as opposed to diminishing it. I hold you in very high esteem johnydon22 and I'm very very frustrated that you don't appear to know this.

Geofavor:
The thought of having a clone of me makes my stomach rumble. I can't imagine staring at another me. Resident evil comes to mind. My clones would think they are me. They would have my emotions and everything. They wouldn't want to be harvested like a tree bearing fruits -- the same way I wouldn't want it done to me. They will be me.

The immorality is the last thing to even worry about, because this will be chaotic.

Your clone can't be of the same age as you

budaatum:

Killing anyone is wrong for me because I doubt I'd like how I might feel if I killed someone and I don't like feeling bad so I stay away from such things. I get this feeling from studying people killing and how killers feel and how I imagine I might feel if I were killed. I'd be dead if killed and miss everything that happens afterwards and life is way too interesting for me to be forced to miss it all. I reckon the person I kill might feel the same way I might so I'd rather not be the cause of such feelings in another.

So how does this relate to Clones?

ABCthings:
So how does this relate to Clones?

When I think clone, I do not think liquid in a petri dish but something very close to a full grown human being. Op did say my clone did have a mind. Killing my clone would be like killing a human being. In fact, it might be worse than killing another human being, now that I think of it! I am of the assumption a clone of me would look like me, be like me and very almost be me. Killing my clone might feel like killing myself! Or at least a very close relative, don't you think?

budaatum:

When I think clone, I do not think liquid in a petri dish but something very close to a full grown human being. Op did say my clone did have a mind. Killing my clone would be like killing a human being. In fact, it might be worse than killing another human being, now that I think of it! I am of the assumption a clone of me would look like me, be like me and very almost be me. Killing my clone might feel like killing myself! Or at least a very close relative, don't you think?

Yep!
and the creation of clones itself is unneccesary, they are prone to psychological trauma(feeling inferior)
but wait! what if they are pseudo-humans
will killing them still be wrong?

ABCthings:
Yep!
and the creation of clones itself is unneccesary, they are prone to psychological trauma(feeling inferior)
but wait! what if they are pseudo-humans
will killing them still be wrong?

What would a pseudo-human be? Describe it please.

budaatum:
What would a pseudo-human be? Describe it please.

;DPseudo-false that is we wouldn't consider them as humans rather be ordinary replica like china-made carbon-copies.

budaatum:

What would a pseudo-human be? Describe it please.

Pseudo-false
that is we wouldn't consider them as humans rather be ordinary replica
like china-made, carbon-copies.

ABCthings:
;DPseudo-false
that is we wouldn't consider them as humans rather be ordinary replica
like china-made, carbon-copies.

We? If they stand like a human, walk like a human and talk like a human that's human enough for me. Even if they were chimpanzees, apes or monkeys, I still would balk at killing them!

I'm wondering why I don't feel the same about chicken, ants and goats though.

budaatum:

We? If they stand like a human, walk like a human and talk like a human that's human enough for me. Even if they were chimpanzees, apes or monkeys, I still would balk at killing them!

I'm wondering why I don't feel the same about chicken, ants and goats though.

Na wa ooo!

budaatum:

We? If they stand like a human, walk like a human and talk like a human that's human enough for me. Even if they were chimpanzees, apes or monkeys, I still would balk at killing them!

I'm wondering why I don't feel the same about chicken, ants and goats though.

Buda have you seen this movie? 'The Island'

Shepherd00:

Buda have you seen this movie? 'The Island'

Afraid not. Tell me about it.

budaatum:
Afraid not. Tell me about it.

It's exactly what the OP said. Just Google it and read the preview.

johnydon22:

Oh God.
#sighs

Which One?

budaatum:

I wasn't bothered with your "puerile". You couldn't even spell it right so I assumed you might not know what it meant either. But even if you did, it still didn't bother me since its just your subjective opinion.

Bad mouth.lol.

johnydon22:


And what is wrong in killing humans?

Would u love to be killed?

@op... I go with Hardmirror and Lordreed's view on the topic

johnydon22:


I do think that it is self explanatory. But let me try again; A creator can do whatever it pleases with its creations. The same moral constraints do not apply for the created and the creator.

Agreed

budaatum:

Unfortunately, morality is precisely like that. Homosexuality is one to note. If you're gay in Nigeria you are going to hell while UK has a Gay Parade and neither can give a reason the other will accept.

But hey! If you think we are so puerile and funny and worthy of your condescension you are very welcome to educate us with your view and raise our morals to your lofty level please.

Thumbs up Buda. Nicely put

johnydon22:
Actually, it isn't.

It is sir.

Lmao. There are Christians in both Nigeria and Uk that believe a homosexual is going to hell. Innit?

So? Should we pretend there are no Christians in Both Nigeria and UK that think homosexuals are not going to hell? If so, doesn't that describe morality the way Buda did?

Oh i think your arguments on morality is peurile alright.

Why?

I have not even made 1 moral claim. I have only been asking how you reach a moral conclusion of which you seem unable to say.

Isn't that funny?

Again i ask, why is killing wrong?

I think he has explained why killing is wrong (to him), you just don't agree, which of course u also have the right not to.

budaatum:

Morality is in the eye of the beholder unless you want to impose some heavenly godly morals on everyone. Most have abandoned that idea so they impose laws instead to guide morals. But even laws have their limitations so the wiser add education to it too to guide your morals, and prison if you break the law.

Can I ask you questions? Why are you so uncivil? Why do you think your opinion is any more less puerile to anyone else's? Are you well in the head? I'm just wondering johnydon22 because I can't quite recall you being this way except of very recent!

I think he is losing it

johnydon22:
An explanation will be in order even though i have explained this over and over before.

Ok here goes, a snappy one: Morality is an imagined order, imagined orders are not personal beliefs, it is a collection of beliefs in a principle.

Any imagined order only makes sense and is effective as an intersubjective principle. E.g: money.

The value of money is as a result of a collective belief by everyone.

Once everyone loses this belief, the concept becomes useless.

If everyone in Nigeria agrees today that the states in the Eastern part of the country will now be known as Biafra, it automatically becomes Biafra. The land or the people didn't change, only the belief did.

Imagined orders aren't personal as they are concepts that transpire between a collective whole.

Nnamdi Kanu saying, he is a Biafran doesn't make it so. He may believe it but it is not effective, it doesn't make SE Biafra.

Mr A saying, i don't believe in money, doesn't make money any less valuable - the only thing that would is everyone who believes in this value to lose this belief.

Likewise, one person saying, I don't believe stealing is wrong affect the moral weight of that action since morality refers to interactive actions.

If only one man lived on earth, they won't be a "killing is wrong"

It takes an intersubjective belief in this principle by a given clime.

So there are three natures of morality in ethics;

1. Objective morality - Morality as an inherent part of the universe, a transcendent quality. This is the most meaningful conceptualization since it is non-arbitrary by definition - alas, only as a philosophical position since it doesn't work like that in a practical sense

2. Intersubjective - as explained above

3. Subjective which by definition is meaningless since it eliminates the interactive considerations of a moral action.

But then, basis in morality refers to fundamental derivative beliefs we use to insill moral values.

E.g: Killing is wrong.

Mr A killed an ant
Mr B killed a human?

Who do we abhor? Mr B of course, why? Aren't both guilty of killing?

This implies that the nature of being right or wrong isn't necessarily in the action. The weight of right or wrong comes with our fundamental assumption on the subject.

So, for us to think killing a human is a graver abhorrence to killing say an ant, means our value belief of both subjects aren't on par.

So when i ask for moral basis, it is not to say i do not agree with your reasons for a moral judgement, it is because a conclusion without basis makes an assumption that moral quality is an intrinsic part of an action which is demonstrably not so.

And you forget that intersubjective believe starts with one person?

frank317:


Would u love to be killed?

@op... I go with Hardmirror and Lordreed's view on the topic

Again whether i like to be killed or not is not a pointer to the morality of killing. WTF!

frank317:


I think he is losing it

Of course i am, sometimes it is frustrating spoon feeding people things you'd expect they know.

And i know my arguments have become more intricate than they use to be, they no longer echo your beliefs intoto they in fact make you question them and think harder, i understand the discomfort

frank317:

It is sir.


So? Should we pretend there are no Christians in Both Nigeria and UK that think homosexuals are not going to hell? If so, doesn't that describe morality the way Buda did?

The effective moral belief must be pravelent, the thoughts of a minority do not affect an intersubjective imagined order (It is not up to lone individual convictions)

I'm pretty sure in Nigeria today, they are people who lack a belief in Nigeria but rather believes in Biafra or some that believe in the idea of Odua. Does this validate this belief? Not at all. Does it invalidate Nigeria? Nope.

But once we all agree either by coercion or volition that these entities exist independently, they do so.

Why?

Reaching a moral conclusions without first outlining a derivative basis is in fact puerile like a theist saying 'God did it' without outlying how that conclusion is reached

I think he has explained why killing is wrong (to him), you just don't agree, which of course u also have the right not to.

No actually, there wasn't any basis.

Postulation; killing is wrong.

Question; Killing an ant or a human

Answer: Human.

Question: why?

Answer: because it deprives people of what's theirs

Question; why is depriving people of their thing wrong?

Answer; would you like to be killed? Tell me your address

Question; Whether i like it or not isn't a moral weight. Again i ask, why is depriving people their thing wrong?

Answer; just tell me where you live.

See? This is pretty much how the whole thing is going. The postulation is a moral conclusion and he still tries to give weight to this moral conclusion using another moral conclusion. Lol.

Moral basis isn't another action, it is a fundamental belief on the subject not an action.

Men!!! This is tiring

johnydon22:

Men!!! This is tiring

You're tired

It's not easy thinking, is it.

frank317:


And you forget that intersubjective believe starts with one person?

An imagined order doesn't become effective until it is held as a fundamental framework for the majority within the clime.

Nigeria for example doesn't objectively exist, it exists because we believe it does.

Value in money doesn't exist objectively, it is valuable only because we believe it is.

If Frank wakes up tomorrow and insist Nigerian naira is worth nothing, this is Frank's subjective belief, it doesn't really change or affect anything unless the whole of Nigeria adopts this belief in which case it becomes intersubjective.

This is how imagined orders work.

budaatum:

You're tired

It's not easy thinking, is it.

Troll someone else

johnydon22:
Troll someone else

Nope thank you. I'm not tired. Besides, you never marked my homework! Whassup?

johnydon22:

Nigeria for example doesn't objectively exist, it exists because we believe it does.

Really? So I can believe Nigeria does not exist and Nigeria will stop existing just like that?

Methinks you imagine!

budaatum:

Really? So I can believe Nigeria does not exist and Nigeria will stop existing just like that?

Methinks you imagine!

Are you serious with this? Or just trolling? Because the explanation is right there on the same post you quoted. Tell me if you are being serious?

johnydon22:
Are you serious with this? Or just trolling? Because the explanation is right there on the same post you quoted. Tell me if you are being serious?

If you believe but don't go and officially change the name of the country where would planes taking off in foreign lands land when they say they are going to Nigeria? Or do they too need to share this your believing in the imaginary with you?

Believing the crap in your head has no effect on reality! What you all believe is irrelevant unless you act on that believe!

Seroous is buda's disease!