wiegraf:

The bolded means little of value. How does that change anything? You assign the same amount of rights to the animal as you would a human, that is all that matters.

If we were in the middle of the ocean, but under the jurisdiction of a government, then many courts of law would at least try you for manslaughter or something similar. And note, like I said earlier, this is MURDER, planned out. You do not need to kill in order to survive, no matter how you dress it. You're not a carnivore.

And what's your definition of murder, or does it not involve intent? I did point out intent, yes?

Are you seriously engaging in Anonyism? You do know that the bold is a lie?

1) I never said or implied that animals have the same rights as humans. I said that certain concepts like consent/survival applies to human interactions to animals

2) I didnt say that I wouldnt be tried. I said that no court would put me in jail. Two different things. Stop this anonyism!

3) Humans are carnivores in the sense that they are omnivores ie herbivorous and carnivorous at the same time

wiegraf:
Interesting, you're complaining about my making assumptions? Hmmm. Like above where you claim you wouldn't be tried in any court of law, I see.

lol.....even more Anonyism. I didnt claim that I wouldnt be tried. I clearly said that I wouldnt go to jail. Try again

wiegraf:
And wolves and wild dogs just happen to spend all day around humans. You've done field work on this sort of situations or researched your claims? What was that about assumptions?

http://scienceblogs.com/observations/2011/01/28/reverse-bestiality-when-animal/

There's even a nice video on there featuring a parrot.

You post an article that clearly states that such behaviours havent been studied enough to conclude anything. Furthermore, it clearly says that sea turtles usually avoid humans. So that's an unusual behaviour

Humans have tried to domesticate wolves (and failed mostly) and also there are half wolf breeds of dogs.

wiegraf:
Your point? They do eat their young, yes or no? Then a mother who was denied the right to abort or simply couldn't afford it should be allowed to eat her children if she can't take care of them as well, no? At the very least she should be allowed to eat them if deformed, yes?

Yes, they do eat their children.

Animals are gudied by their evolutionary instincts/morality

We have our evolutionary instincts but as well as logic/reasoning to hone those instincts.

We do not eat babies because we can reason that it a less reasonable opition in many cases. Abortion is a woman's rights issue. I am pro abortion.

wiegraf:
What natural do you mean then? I have this nagging feeling what you deem as 'natural' is arbitrary, yes?

I mean to say "usual". Usual behaviour of dogs or whatever.

wiegraf:
You don't necessarily need shelter. Another (conspicuously false) assumption. Or do you call the occasional shade shelter? And even at that, it's not entirely necessary.

I would like you to spend 4 whole days in your backyard under the sun/moon and without shade or anything. Then, get back to me about your skin.

Also remember there is something called winter in other countries.

wiegraf:
Vegetarians don't have to kill. Removing roots, stems, leaves does not necessarily lead to a plants death, and said parts are easily replaced by said plants. Products like milk, eggs (the young aren't yet alive yet) are probably game as well as . This statement is clearly false.

And as for vegetarians that actually "kill" plants, well, really? Plants have no nervous system of any note, they cannot feel pain. Actually, they cannot 'feel' or 'think' in any capacity. Killing them is comparable to splitting a rock, same amount of pain and harm is inflicted (even 'psychological'). Try killing an animal with a nervous system and their ability to fell emotion (in some) and you'll notice you're explicitly inflicting pain on it.

1) Plants can not feel? lol.....I hope you do know that they react to stimuli! They are conscious and living.

2) Every onion and garlic you eat are killed plants because you harvest them by uprooting them . There are many plants that we uproot to eat.

3) killing is taking a life. pain is inconsequential. A numb or comatose person doesnt feel pain- does that mean killing such a person is not really killing?

wiegraf:
Either ways, bottom line, you need food and water, correct. But you do not need to KILL. And frankly, I do not think killing plants can classify as a crime in any way, anywhere (except it was some rarity, etc, but not because you somehow inflicted pain and suffering on the plant)

You, my good friend, are a murderer.

We need to kill.

Ubenedictus: by d same rule u use then suicide isnt a crime!

That is correct! It is not by force to live! I'm not suggesting we encourage it though (or most of the things in that list actually). But I do think in certain cases assisted suicide is valid. It's very, very tricky to implement though, but mature countries should be able to implement it.

I now expect the people who want to complain about my calling certain countries 'mature' to start b1tching in 3,2,1....

wiegraf:
That is correct! It is not by force to live! I'm not suggesting we encourage it though (or most of the things in that list actually). But I do think in certain cases assisted suicide is valid. It's very, very tricky to implement though, but mature countries should be able to implement it.
I now expect the people who want to complain about my calling certain countries 'mature' to start b1tching in 3,2,1....

u gat some atitude,
the above reminds me of a quote, abt how law breaks down without morality, dat aside.
U have to understand d reason d state makes laws, she makes laws on issues she thinks will be of benefit to her, a dead man has no benefit to d state, infact he is -1 if he was a productive citizen.
In such cases d state has a reason for prosecuting suicide, From an idealistic perspective. So yeah to live is kinda by force, besides ur idea of assisted suicides scares me, every murder case will eventually become assisted suicide or mayb d countries invent "suicide police". Apart form euthanasia, "assisted suicide" is itself scary.

Ah logic, when did you become such a bold faced liar. You should tell the truth and let the devil be ashamed. I'm going to have to listen to some sad music probably involving women b1tching about lying dudes to get over this... the horror

Logicboy03:

Are you seriously engaging in Anonyism? You do know that the bold is a lie?

1) I never said or implied that animals have the same rights as humans. I said that certain concepts like consent/survival applies to human interactions to animals

Yes you did, even if you did not explicitly state it, you definitely implied. Your arguing being consent is the issue, and only humans can give consent. You now claim that animals, incapable of giving consent, should not be shagged because they cannot give consent, a feat doable by only us humans. You've now applied human qualities to other animals, including their right to consent. Yet this right to consent suddenly disappears when you want to make suya.

Shame on you, you hypocrite

Logicboy03:
2) I didnt say that I wouldnt be tried. I said that no court would put me in jail. Two different things. Stop this anonyism!

This is clearly a bold faced lie and an anonysm that would make the man himself proud.

What in the world? Did you clearly state that you would be tried but acquitted? I'm supposed to figure that out how, via telepathy?

And your claim that you would not be convicted anywhere....che, lb. che.. Realy? You'd be convicted for murder or manslaughter if you did that and you know this. You wouldn't be convicted for cannibalism though, which is understandable. But so long as you killed another, especially one still alive and vibrant, na prison get you. No doubt.

Logicboy03:
3) Humans are carnivores in the sense that they are omnivores ie herbivorous and carnivorous at the same time

Oh boy na wa. You are not a carnivore, yes? In other words you can survive without meat, yes or no? And you talk of anonysms *smh*

Logicboy03:
lol.....even more Anonyism. I didnt claim that I wouldnt be tried. I clearly said that I wouldnt go to jail. Try again

Again, you expect me to figure that out, how?

Logicboy03:
You post an article that clearly states that such behaviours havent been studied enough to conclude anything. Furthermore, it clearly says that sea turtles usually avoid humans. So that's an unusual behaviour

Humans have tried to domesticate wolves (and failed mostly) and also there are half wolf breeds of dogs.

You do know dogs are domesticated wolves, yes? *smh*

They avoid humans, but they clearly do attack humans as well. The same way the very vast majority of us wouldn't screw a sheep, yet a few still do. Your point is? Quote for reference

national geograhic:
I shoved a lobster at the turtle who inhaled the crustracean, and then I spun out of its grasp. I felt I was free of the encounter, but then the turtle, with renewed interest, grasped me again with its front flippers from the back and around my shoulders. Once again it attempted to pin me to the bottom. All the while the stupid turtle probed me in my backside. Being a strong swimmer and determined not to be molested any further by this deluded loggerhead, I twisted out of its grasp and made for the surface and my boat.

Logicboy03:
Yes, they do eat their children.

Animals are gudied by their evolutionary instincts/morality

We have our evolutionary instincts but as well as logic/reasoning to hone those instincts.

We do not eat babies because we can reason that it a less reasonable opition in many cases. Abortion is a woman's rights issue. I am pro abortion.

Good, so we don't have to imitate animals since we're capable of abstract reason and many other similar functions, yes? So why do you bring up the 'natural' argument now? It fits your purposes? Like I said, start eating children and toss your laptop out your window, or have you come across an animal 'naturally' using laptops before?

Cherry picking dishonest logicboy is dishonest

Logicboy03:
I mean to say "usual". Usual behaviour of dogs or whatever.

Pursuing the natural argument? *smh*.
Btw, large population does it has never meant automatic good. Lot's of people supported slavery at one point, no?

Logicboy03:
I would like you to spend 4 whole days in your backyard under the sun/moon and without shade or anything. Then, get back to me about your skin.

Also remember there is something called winter in other countries.

And winter exists everywhere on the globe? And about my skin, will it kill me?

Logicboy03:
1) Plants can not feel? lol.....I hope you do know that they react to stimuli! They are conscious and living.

https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=conscious+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

con·scious
/ˈkänCHəs/
Adjective

Aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake.
Having knowledge of something; aware.

Synonyms
aware - sensible - deliberate

So by definition one, are you saying plants go to sleep?
By the second definition, are you saying plants are capable of acquiring knowledge. They are capable of thoughts? Interesting

Do you know what the meaning of a blind assumption is? Provide evidence for your assumption then, I'll be waiting

Reacting to stimuli does not equal feeling. Even a dead body inadvertently reacts to stimuli for sometime after death. Plants simply respond to say light, water etc the same way we react to a swift kick to the knee, it's in their genes. Their programming does not come with feeling pain, or thoughts, or staying awake etc. That's utter nonsense

Logicboy03:
2) Every onion and garlic you eat are killed plants because you harvest them by uprooting them . There are many plants that we uproot to eat.

And there are no plants that can be eaten without killing them I presume, hmmm? On the entire globe, even, hmm? In just about every habitat imaginable, hmm?

Logicboy03:
3) killing is taking a life. pain is inconsequential. A numb or comatose person doesnt feel pain- does that mean killing such a person is not really killing?

We need to kill.

We clearly don't. BOLD FACED LIE

And people kill comatose people all the time, what they call it? Pulling the plug? And animals can come alive and feel pain and interact etc, plants can't. Killing a plant is in no way the same as killing an animal. I repeat, a plant is more or else an inanimate object that grows and can luckily for us, feed us. No thoughts, feelings, etc.

Ubenedictus: u gat some atitude,
the above reminds me of a quote, abt how law breaks down without morality, dat aside.
U have to understand d reason d state makes laws, she makes laws on issues she thinks will be of benefit to her, a dead man has no benefit to d state, infact he is -1 if he was a productive citizen.
In such cases d state has a reason for prosecuting suicide, From an idealistic perspective. So yeah to live is kinda by force, besides ur idea of assisted suicides scares me, every murder case will eventually become assisted suicide or mayb d countries invent "suicide police". Apart form euthanasia, "assisted suicide" is itself scary.

By your reasoning dead unproductive members are useless to the state. Suicidal people are usually pretty useless, so I can't see what you're complaining about. So are elderly, I suppose, people with disabilities, etc. State doesn't need them, they cannot be rehabilitated or it would simply cost too much to do so. So where's the problem with them being dead?

Hehheh. Anyways, governments are also there to protect individual rights. Very important. The US for instance featured a lot of people fleeing religious persecution, their individual right, among it's early inhabitants. Your wishes, so long as they do not harm another, should not be persecuted. Simple. It's your individual right. In a manner of speak, no one should have the right to tell you what you do with your own property. Why? So for all these victimless crimes, really, I cannot see how they qualify as crimes? (bestiality though has victims, that I can agree with). I do not have to agree with them, but why should they be persecuted by law?

Assisted suicide is very tricky, and no time. I'll add it to the list, ty.

two atheists arguing about absolutely nothing... no point... just trying to score intellectual points over the other.

wiegraf:

That is correct! It is not by force to live! I'm not suggesting we encourage it though (or most of the things in that list actually). But I do think in certain cases assisted suicide is valid. It's very, very tricky to implement though, but mature countries should be able to implement it.

I now expect the people who want to complain about my calling certain countries 'mature' to start b1tching in 3,2,1....

well you actually made a good point for once..suicide should not be a crime. There are a lot of situations where some might feel it 'd be better to " die" than live..but again not that it should be encouraged though because then people will just disengage from physicality with the least amount of encountered obstacle without facing their " problems...

One thing I have noticed though is that with humans it is just amatter of TIME..
if the effect of the deed or action deemed to be wrong takes a long time to happen then its ok and not a " crime" .. but if it takes a shorter time then it is more wrong..

Taking ones life is seen as an abomination, a taboo and against the law because it seems to happen quickly but it seems actions which end a life over a somewhat longer period of time are not against the law, even though they achieve the same result lol ...how we got to this conclusion baffles me..

If a person in our society kills himself with a gun, his family members lose insurance benefits. If he does so with cigarettes, they do not. If a doctor assists you in your suicide it is called manslaughter while if a tobacco company does, it is called commerce lol ..

The legality of self destruction , the rightness or wrongness of it seems much to do with how quickly the deed is done...as well as who is doing it. The faster the death, the more "wrong" it seems to be. The slower the death, the more it slips into okayness

Interestingly, this is the exact opposite of what a truly humane or civilized society would conclude ... By any reasonable definition of what we would call "humane," the shorter the death, the better it should be.. Yet society punishes those who would seek to do the humane thing, and rewards those who don't ... To humans the slogan is " punish the sane and reward the insane "

wiegraf:
By your reasoning dead unproductive members are useless to the state. Suicidal people are usually pretty useless, so I can't see what you're complaining about. So are elderly, I suppose, people with disabilities, etc. State doesn't need them, they cannot be rehabilitated or it would simply cost too much to do so. So where's the problem with them being dead?

i hear hitler did this, he followed d principle to d letter, if i would use my secular lens, d above has just one disadvantage, it make u lose face to d masses. That is what d state doesnt want. From my secular lens d state only hold those rights to guarantee d goodwill of d populance.

Hehheh. Anyways, governments are also there to protect individual rights. Very important. The US for instance featured a lot of people fleeing religious persecution, their individual right, among it's early inhabitants. Your wishes, so long as they do not harm another, should not be persecuted. Simple. It's your individual right. In a manner of speak, no one should have the right to tell you what you do with your own property. Why? So for all these victimless crimes, really, I cannot see how they qualify as crimes? (bestiality though has victims, that I can agree with). I do not have to agree with them, but why should they be persecuted by law?
Assisted suicide is very tricky, and no time. I'll add it to the list, ty.

intarasting, i remember saying sumtin abt law and morality. That aside, even those rights are subjective in a secular world, for instance saudi arabia doesnt recognise freedom of religion, communist states like china will crack down freedom of association and press wen it likes. I think all these issue depend on ur prespective. Apart from my raw secular lens, i think law in a democracy has to do with d whim of d majority, as long as there are more religious pipo, those laws will remain, becos religion doesnt measure crime on been vitimless.

davidylan: two atheists arguing about absolutely nothing... no point... just trying to score intellectual points over the other.

This is possibly the first time I've seen you post something reasonable

Ubenedictus: i hear hitler did this, he followed d principle to d letter, if i would use my secular lens, d above has just one disadvantage, it make u lose face to d masses. That is what d state doesnt want. From my secular lens d state only hold those rights to guarantee d goodwill of d populance.

Heh heh, but killing the weak is not the secular way to go, far from it. Hitler et al were more or else fascists, authoritarians of some sort etc. The secular path usually goes hand in hand with democracy for instance means the exact opposite, freedom for all.

I wouldn't even say killing the weak is the logical way to go for the super cold dictators, fascists, etc. Consider henry ford (I think), increased salaries and his fellow industrialists thought him crazy. Next thing, he has the most productive work force around and is making the most money. Happy worker = productive worker. You go around killing people I doubt their loved ones would be much happy with that. Let's not even mention ethics.

It is common for people to imagine life without religion equates to some sort of immoral org.y, but that's usually a terrible assumption. Even the HDI points in the complete opposite actually. For one, it usually means equal treatment of all, regardless of color, religion etc. Then again, most people here seem to incapable of discerning between communism and secular states with large atheist population. These states are usually driven by humanistic principles which don't discriminate (or at least try not to). Humanistic codes are highly ethical, again, one need only look at the HDI

Ubenedictus:
intarasting, i remember saying sumtin abt law and morality. That aside, even those rights are subjective in a secular world, for instance saudi arabia doesnt recognise freedom of religion, communist states like china will crack down freedom of association and press wen it likes. I think all these issue depend on ur prespective. Apart from my raw secular lens, i think law in a democracy has to do with d whim of d majority, as long as there are more religious pipo, those laws will remain, becos religion doesnt measure crime on been vitimless.

This is all correct. I simply don't think it should be, but IT IS WHAT IT IS, in buzugee parlance.

wiegraf:

This is possibly the first time I've seen you post something reasonable

perhaps because this is the first time you are reading without being in zombie mode. You know that mode that is primed without cause to hate anything i say even before the ink dries on my post.

wiegraf:

Heh heh, but killing the weak is not the secular way to go, far from it. Hitler et al were more or else fascists, authoritarians of some sort etc. The secular path usually goes hand in hand with democracy for instance means the exact opposite, freedom for all.

that actually isnt true. The secular position is one of survival of the fittest. Most of the "free" governments you see in western nations were birthed during a period of great religious influence. Hitler and Lenin arent really fascist as much as they merely practice what most atheists hold true.

davidylan:

that actually isnt true. The secular position is one of survival of the fittest. Most of the "free" governments you see in western nations were birthed during a period of great religious influence. Hitler and Lenin arent really fascist as much as they merely practice what most atheists hold true.

Why would you say that? Survival of the fittest is more capitalism (yet oddly enough communism seems to kill a lot more people on average), though that's not strictly accurate as well. Secularism is separation of church and state. A lot of the time a tribes members share the same 'church', so by extension secularism is associated with less tribalism or other forms of discrimination. Though these qualities are not strictly required for secularism, only religion is. You should get the picture, it's associated with progressives, equality, plurality, etc

They practice what most atheists hold true? Puzzling as usual. We believe in mass murder? Were did you get that notion from?

And hitler was at the very least religious even if he wasn't xtian or an active member of a church. But regardless, how were either of them following atheist doctrine?

wiegraf:
Heh heh, but killing the weak is not the secular way to go, far from it. Hitler et al were more or else fascists, authoritarians of some sort etc. The secular path usually goes hand in hand with democracy for instance means the exact opposite, freedom for all.

I wouldn't even say killing the weak is the logical way to go for the super cold dictators, fascists, etc. Consider henry ford (I think), increased salaries and his fellow industrialists thought him crazy. Next thing, he has the most productive work force around and is making the most money. Happy worker = productive worker. You go around killing people I doubt their loved ones would be much happy with that. Let's not even mention ethics.

u didnt really stray from my point at all, d state doesn't kill or deport d unproductive so as not to lose face. Using an economic len those unproductive are just consuming space and limited resource.

It is common for people to imagine life without religion equates to some sort of immoral org.y, but that's usually a terrible assumption. Even the HDI points in the complete opposite actually. For one, it usually means equal treatment of all, regardless of color, religion etc. Then again, most people here seem to incapable of discerning between communism and secular states with large atheist population. These states are usually driven by humanistic principles which don't discriminate (or at least try not to). Humanistic codes are highly ethical, again, one need only look at the HDI

when law is totally freed from morality (d sense of right and wrong), it does fall into relativism and believe, every body has his own perspective and excuse.

This is all correct. I simply don't think it should be, but IT IS WHAT IT IS, in buzugee parlance.

wiegraf:
Why would you say that? Survival of the fittest is more capitalism (yet oddly enough communism seems to kill a lot more people on average), though that's not strictly accurate as well. Secularism is separation of church and state. A lot of the time a tribes members share the same 'church', so by extension secularism is associated with less tribalism or other forms of discrimination. Though these qualities are not strictly required for secularism, only religion is. You should get the picture, it's associated with progressives, equality, plurality, etc

They practice what most atheists hold true? Puzzling as usual. We believe in mass murder? Were did you get that notion from?

And hitler was at the very least religious even if he wasn't xtian or an active member of a church. But regardless, how were either of them following atheist doctrine?

wen i talk of secularism, i mean
www.newadvent.org/cathen/13676a.htm
the devolopment of man on nothing more that "natural morality" away from theism or atheism. Problem no 1 natural morality is a mirage, on its own very problematic, very subjective and prone to relativism. There is hardly a thing called "natural morality". It is purely according to individual perspective. With such "morality" i wont be suprise if involuntary euthanasia is done on a drone sydrom patient 10yrs from now. Becos d so called natural morality is ever changing.

wiegraf: Ah logic, when did you become such a bold faced liar. You should tell the truth and let the devil be ashamed. I'm going to have to listen to some sad music probably involving women b1tching about lying dudes to get over this... the horror

Yawn.....I didnt lie. You are just projecting some butthurt to my side

wiegraf:
Yes you did, even if you did not explicitly state it, you definitely implied. Your arguing being consent is the issue, and only humans can give consent. You now claim that animals, incapable of giving consent, should not be shagged because they cannot give consent, a feat doable by only us humans. You've now applied human qualities to other animals, including their right to consent. Yet this right to consent suddenly disappears when you want to make suya.

Shame on you, you hypocrite

Fail....epic fail.

1) I never said/implied that animals have the same rights as humans
2) I was talking about human interaction with animals
3) I never talked about animal interaction to humans. So, you are putting words in my mouth because that would mean that I support animals have the right to eat humans to survive? See how you assumed nonsense?
4) Consent only applies to se.x in defining ra.pe.
5) Killing/murder are different.


Stop embarrassing yourself. You made a lie that I claimed that animals have the same rights as humans. I never implied or said that. There is no way you can get that from my comment without assuming that I engaged in the first sentence in number 2. Remember what we said about assumptions? hmm?

wiegraf:
This is clearly a bold faced lie and an anonysm that would make the man himself proud.

What in the world? Did you clearly state that you would be tried but acquitted? I'm supposed to figure that out how, via telepathy?

And your claim that you would not be convicted anywhere....che, lb. che.. Realy? You'd be convicted for murder or manslaughter if you did that and you know this. You wouldn't be convicted for cannibalism though, which is understandable. But so long as you killed another, especially one still alive and vibrant, na prison get you. No doubt.

My exact statement was that no court will put me in jail. Any blundering fool could tell that since I mentioned "court", there could be a trial.

And no, I wouldnt go to jail. my choices were either suicide or killing the other man.

wiegraf:
Oh boy na wa. You are not a carnivore, yes? In other words you can survive without meat, yes or no? And you talk of anonysms *smh*

Dogs can survive without meat. What is your point? That we arent omnivorous or what?

wiegraf:
Again, you expect me to figure that out, how?

I expected basic reasoning skills from you.

wiegraf:
You do know dogs are domesticated wolves, yes? *smh*

Fail. Wolves and dogs are different but related species.

Dogs are a different subspecies.

wiegraf:
They avoid humans, but they clearly do attack humans as well. The same way the very vast majority of us wouldn't screw a sheep, yet a few still do. Your point is? Quote for reference

They mostly avoid humans as stated by your article. Stop the Anonyism

wiegraf:
Good, so we don't have to imitate animals since we're capable of abstract reason and many other similar functions, yes? So why do you bring up the 'natural' argument now? It fits your purposes? Like I said, start eating children and toss your laptop out your window, or have you come across an animal 'naturally' using laptops before?

Cherry picking dishonest logicboy is dishonest

wiegraf:
Pursuing the natural argument? *smh*.
Btw, large population does it has never meant automatic good. Lot's of people supported slavery at one point, no?

wiegraf:
And winter exists everywhere on the globe? And about my skin, will it kill me?

1) My exact statement was that winter was in other countries.....not all countries. What is wrong with you?
2) Your skin would be as dry as wood, no matter the amount of cream you use. Too much sunlight is bad. one year without shelter and you'd be dealing with some serious complications not limited to skin cancer.

wiegraf:
https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=conscious+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

con·scious
/ˈkänCHəs/
Adjective

Aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake.
Having knowledge of something; aware.

Synonyms
aware - sensible - deliberate

So by definition one, are you saying plants go to sleep?
By the second definition, are you saying plants are capable of acquiring knowledge. They are capable of thoughts? Interesting

Do you know what the meaning of a blind assumption is? Provide evidence for your assumption then, I'll be waiting

Reacting to stimuli does not equal feeling. Even a dead body inadvertently reacts to stimuli for sometime after death. Plants simply respond to say light, water etc the same way we react to a swift kick to the knee, it's in their genes. Their programming does not come with feeling pain, or thoughts, or staying awake etc. That's utter nonsense



And there are no plants that can be eaten without killing them I presume, hmmm? On the entire globe, even, hmm? In just about every habitat imaginable, hmm?



We clearly don't. BOLD FACED LIE

And people kill comatose people all the time, what they call it? Pulling the plug? And animals can come alive and feel pain and interact etc, plants can't. Killing a plant is in no way the same as killing an animal. I repeat, a plant is more or else an inanimate object that grows and can luckily for us, feed us. No thoughts, feelings, etc.

1) Plants are conscious by even your own definition- they are aware of their surroundings. They react to it.
2) Plants hibernate also.
3) You cant be a vegetarian without killing- you'd have to avoid tubers, roots and bulbs. Thats 3/4 of vegetarian diet.
4) Every seeded fruit you eat without planting is a killed potential plant.
5) Killing a plant is still killing a living thing.
6) We must kill to survive

Wow what a thread!

striktlymi:

@bolded, one of such laws should be that the individuals should be able to demonstrate that they can have a reasonable control of their faculty which should imply a freedom from narcotics

Well, no. Narcotic use shouldn't be a factor really. Same way someone who drinks shouldn't be barred from owning a car. If irresponsible of course you could take away his license. But not if he's minding his business, paying taxes, harming no one else etc etc

striktlymi:
I agree that it would be inappropriate in some cases to deprive the majority because of the actions of a few but there some peculiar cases where the greater good must be brought into play. Before anything is outlawed or accepted into law there should be a cost/benefit analysis. If the cost of a venture outweighs it's benefits then that venture shouldn't be undertaken. The ills of narcotics far outweighs it's benefits hence the need for it to be a no no for me.

Well, society's needs are important, but not at the expense of personal freedom. Profit per say need not be a factor, at all. You can't force someone to make a profit if they're not interested in doing so. Also, what one considers as profit need not necessarily amount to what you consider profit. It seems most muslims would consider your becoming a muslim profitable, I'm sure you don't think of it that way. With all this subjectivity involve everywhere, and note that individuals do make the society, you have to look for the common denominator. Solutions that would at least represent all the individuals that make up the society. For the most part, that would be some version of the golden rule.

Consider slavery. It was beneficial in a sense to the powers that be. In fact in many cases it would be ostensibly beneficial to the economy as a whole as well, which would involve trickle down benefits to some slaves as well. More money means their masters could take better care of them, something some slaves could potentially not do as well on their own. Or consider the effects of cheap labor on certain economies during certain periods, eg, present day china. In many ways, quite a few slaves were better off as slaves, yet that does not mean people should have been forced into slavery, does it?

A population doesn't eat cows as they're revered. There's a food crises, do you now make it law that they eat the cows? Certain people living in abject poverty pray 5x a day. A considerable amount of time is taken out of the day, time that could be used doing more productive things (rather than losing potential clients). Do you now force them to not pray? They leave in abject poverty, yet give a bulk of their salary to a presumed charlatan. Do you force them not to pay tithes? etc etc etc

So the common denominator usually is; individual rights.

You definitely could discourage 'unprofitable' endeavors. Communities in particular can be effective in curbing excesses. We're a social species, measures discouraging potentially dangerous habits can be rather effective. But forcing your morality on others by law is a no no.

striktlymi:
Rat poison? People take all that stuff to get high? My argument is not that narcotics on their own kills people...this is far from it. I am more concerned about the effect it has on people and the potential threat it poses on the society who ultimately becomes the victim here.

Heh heh, no, they use rat poison to kill people or commit suicide, along with many other things of course.

See above. But note something, so long as one is paying bills/taxes and not actively harming others then s/he owes society nothing.

striktlymi:
On their own, No! but with human help, Yes! Like I mentioned the threat of using outweighs the advantages. Why have we suddenly given up on good ol' fashion cigarette?

But cigarettes are not illegal in the privacy of your home, anywhere. Cigarettes actively harm others, one can become mortally ill just by being around smokers, a direct consequence of the cigarettes smoke. Like loud music, they disturb neighbors etc, actively as well. Except of course, as a bonus, unlike loud music they could actually kill said neighbors. They are not a trivial concern. Yet cigarettes remain legal (at least privately) but marijuana and a host of others which don't have such deadly consequences remain illegal, even privately. That doesn't make sense at all.

striktlymi:
Sorry but I read everything up there Though I agree with a lot of ish you raised up there but I don't think countries should have the right to make their own nuclear weapons. All the world need is another 'mad man' to become the president of God know where with the ability of making nuclear weapons.

Hmmm. Hmmm. I still disagree, perhaps superficially. We can try all sorts of social pressures and what not, but not outright war or something similar. Not until the nation or the people involved cross the line.

striktlymi:
C'mon wiegraf, are you seriously comparing alcohol with narcotics?

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/01/alcohol.harm/index.html
It is well know that alcohol is more harmful than most narcotics actually.

striktlymi:
Wiegraf let's play a game! Mention one verifiable individual who used narcotics 'reasonably' and I will mention 10 who didn't. Okay, go...

Narcotics are illegal, you're not going to find many who people openly admit to using them. But I've already listed scenarios where narcotics are useful. Add carl sagan to your list, and steve jobs was heavily influenced by an lsd trip he had when he was younger (lots of other people as well actually, it's often described as a religious experience of sorts). The many artists who work with some drug or the other, etc etc.

However, yes, for the most part you're not going to find many einsteins that frequently indulge in LSD (though they do know how party, contrary to popular opinion, they just regulate much better I suppose), but that's their choice. Others not interested in becoming einsteins shouldn't be forced to live their lifestyle.

striktlymi:
The potential for harm is great for those who are seemingly harmless while those who are already reckless will definitely have a swell time harming people under the influence.

Nah, again, use alcohol as a template. Alcohol is dangerous, true, but we cannot force others to follow our morals if they aren't infringing on our rights.


Thanks!!!!! heh


so sleepy, might have to come back and edit it

wiegraf:


Well, no. Narcotic use shouldn't be a factor really. Same way someone who drinks shouldn't be barred from owning a car. If irresponsible of course you could take away his license. But not if he's minding his business, paying taxes, harming no one else etc etc




Well, society's needs are important, but not at the expense of personal freedom. Profit per say need not be a factor, at all. You can't force someone to make a profit if they're not interested in doing so. Also, what one considers as profit need not necessarily amount to what you consider profit. It seems most muslims would consider your becoming a muslim profitable, I'm sure you don't think of it that way. With all this subjectivity involve everywhere, and note that individuals do make the society, you have to look for the common denominator. Solutions that would at least represent all the individuals that make up the society. For the most part, that would be some version of the golden rule.

Consider slavery. It was beneficial in a sense to the powers that be. In fact in many cases it would be ostensibly beneficial to the economy as a whole as well, which would involve trickle down benefits to some slaves as well. More money means their masters could take better care of them, something some slaves could potentially not do as well on their own. Or consider the effects of cheap labor on certain economies during certain periods, eg, present day china. In many ways, quite a few slaves were better off as slaves, yet that does not mean people should have been forced into slavery, does it?

A population doesn't eat cows as they're revered. There's a food crises, do you now make it law that they eat the cows? Certain people living in abject poverty pray 5x a day. A considerable amount of time is taken out of the day, time that could be used doing more productive things (rather than losing potential clients). Do you now force them to not pray? They leave in abject poverty, yet give a bulk of their salary to a presumed charlatan. Do you force them not to pay tithes? etc etc etc

So the common denominator usually is; individual rights.

You definitely could discourage 'unprofitable' endeavors. Communities in particular can be effective in curbing excesses. We're a social species, measures discouraging potentially dangerous habits can be rather effective. But forcing your morality on others by law is a no no.




Heh heh, no, they use rat poison to kill people or commit suicide, along with many other things of course.

See above. But note something, so long as one is paying bills/taxes and not actively harming others then s/he owes society nothing.




But cigarettes are not illegal in the privacy of your home, anywhere. Cigarettes actively harm others, one can become mortally ill just by being around smokers, a direct consequence of the cigarettes smoke. Like loud music, they disturb neighbors etc, actively as well. Except of course, as a bonus, unlike loud music they could actually kill said neighbors. They are not a trivial concern. Yet cigarettes remain legal (at least privately) but marijuana and a host of others which don't have such deadly consequences remain illegal, even privately. That doesn't make sense at all.



Hmmm. Hmmm. I still disagree, perhaps superficially. We can try all sorts of social pressures and what not, but not outright war or something similar. Not until the nation or the people involved cross the line.



http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/01/alcohol.harm/index.html
It is well know that alcohol is more harmful than most narcotics actually.



Narcotics are illegal, you're not going to find many who people openly admit to using them. But I've already listed scenarios where narcotics are useful. Add carl sagan to your list, and steve jobs was heavily influenced by an lsd trip he had when he was younger (lots of other people as well actually, it's often described as a religious experience of sorts). The many artists who work with some drug or the other, etc etc.

However, yes, for the most part you're not going to find many einsteins that frequently indulge in LSD (though they do know how party, contrary to popular opinion, they just regulate much better I suppose), but that's their choice. Others not interested in becoming einsteins shouldn't be forced to live their lifestyle.




Nah, again, use alcohol as a template. Alcohol is dangerous, true, but we cannot force others to follow our morals if they aren't infringing on our rights.


Thanks!!!!! heh


so sleepy, might have to come back and edit it

Good morning wiegraf,

In the spirit of fair play, I will delay my response till after you are done with your post.

striktlymi:


Good morning wiegraf,

In the spirit of fair play, I will delay my response till after you are done with your post.

Ty! Just reread it and it seems good enough. Whenever you're ready brah

Ubenedictus: wen i talk of secularism, i mean
www.newadvent.org/cathen/13676a.htm
the devolopment of man on nothing more that "natural morality" away from theism or atheism. Problem no 1 natural morality is a mirage, on its own very problematic, very subjective and prone to relativism. There is hardly a thing called "natural morality". It is purely according to individual perspective. With such "morality" i wont be suprise if involuntary euthanasia is done on a drone sydrom patient 10yrs from now. Becos d so called natural morality is ever changing.

That response wasn't for you, but I suppose it's relevant.

From my pov all morality is 'natural'. You could claim yours is trandenscendant but of course to me it wouldn't be so, it would be man made. And even if genuinely transcendant, it looks to me like still blindly following the god(s). Good acts aren't good because they are intrinsically good but because god says they are.

Just about the whole OT has atrocity after atrocity which xtians would call good simply because god said so. If the name god was substituted with satan in those passages xtians would no doubt find these stories even more fitting. Or what's the difference between giving eve apples and hardening the phaeroes heart then punishing him and myriad innocents? Yet god of OT is still heralded as good, it's the same thing as calling hitler good.

Consider that your trandenscendal morality is not absolute, it changes, whimsically even. Even by your own admission the nt, which addresses some of the excesses of the ot (thankfully imo), changed the moral code. So even if your god existed it seems to be changing its mind as well, its will is not absolute. There is the danger of it declaring rather suspect acts as good, just like humans. Unlike human made morality where questioning is more readily encouraged, with god his word is supposedly final (yet it still finds a way to change as time passes by), so it's even more difficult to change if it is found to be flawed with time. And of course it is more easily abused by 'charlatans', etc, who can bend and twist even the 'good' parts as they see fit with less supervision, checks etc. All they need do is have a sweet tongue and claim is they're mandated by god, then watch sheeple fall in line

In essence, it looks a lot worse than regular morality to a non believer. Actually, it looks like regular morality, except with needless disadvantages. Inflexibility and a patent lack of accountability. The more advanced muslims on these boards still think stoning, spousal abuse, finger cutting, heck even jihad are acceptable in this day and age because allah says so. Do you honestly agree with that?

No moral code can be perfect. Perfect to who? What purpose? But addressing that fact and coming up a fluid yet balanced system, with checks and balances, is easily the best way to go. Secularism is the best system at (or at least attempting to) providing that. Theocracies? No

Very weak, lb. Bordering on pathetic actually...

Logicboy03:
Fail....epic fail.

1) I never said/implied that animals have the same rights as humans
2) I was talking about human interaction with animals
3) I never talked about animal interaction to humans. So, you are putting words in my mouth because that would mean that I support animals have the right to eat humans to survive? See how you assumed nonsense?
4) Consent only applies to se.x in defining ra.pe.
5) Killing/murder are different.


Stop embarrassing yourself. You made a lie that I claimed that animals have the same rights as humans. I never implied or said that. There is no way you can get that from my comment without assuming that I engaged in the first sentence in number 2. Remember what we said about assumptions? hmm?

Errm, logic. Read my post again...s-l-o-w-l-y. You've clearly assigned human rights to animals, arbitrarily. Cherry picking style. When it fits your goals they're consent becomes an issue, when not it doesn't. Just like xtians that choose to discriminate against gheys yet eat shell fish with relish. Do you see your folly now?

Logicboy03:
My exact statement was that no court will put me in jail. Any blundering fool could tell that since I mentioned "court", there could be a trial.

And no, I wouldnt go to jail. my choices were either suicide or killing the other man.

How you can tell such a bold faced lie...che...

You would unquestionably go to jail for murder if both of you were fit and healthy. If your victim was mortally ill, dying, then you might get away with it. You would get away with cannibalism if the other party died of natural causes, no problem. But murder? What you smoking? I suppose you think you would deserve a medal as well?

And by the way, you do know things other than trials tale place in courts, yes? Perhaps that's why you used the word 'could', my dishonest one.

Logicboy03:
Dogs can survive without meat. What is your point? That we arent omnivorous or what?

No. In case you missed the obvious, it's that we do not need meat in order to survive. At all.

Do note also that omnivores like dogs are not capable or reason. They cannot build farms and such, yes?

Logicboy03:
I expected basic reasoning skills from you.



Fail. Wolves and dogs are different but related species.

Dogs are a different subspecies.

Dogs are wolves. Wth is this? Dogs are domesticated wolves. In your words, gaddem?! I guess you're not an ape as well. And this is not even the same as comparing chimps and humans, as dogs are a subspecies of wolves. They're wolves through and through, just a subset.

Logicboy03:
They mostly avoid humans as stated by your article. Stop the Anonyism

Majority of them avoid rap.ing us humans, just like majority of us avoid rap.ing animals. Your point is moot. Gaddem....

Read all those bits again. Perhaps work on your comprehension skills first

Logicboy03:
1) My exact statement was that winter was in other countries.....not all countries. What is wrong with you?
2) Your skin would be as dry as wood, no matter the amount of cream you use. Too much sunlight is bad. one year without shelter and you'd be dealing with some serious complications not limited to skin cancer.





1) Plants are conscious by even your own definition- they are aware of their surroundings. They react to it.
2) Plants hibernate also.
3) You cant be a vegetarian without killing- you'd have to avoid tubers, roots and bulbs. Thats 3/4 of vegetarian diet.
4) Every seeded fruit you eat without planting is a killed potential plant.
5) Killing a plant is still killing a living thing.
6) We must kill to survive

Plants are not aware of their environment in any conscious sense whatsoever. They can detect light but don't think to themselves 'oh yeah, lemme go that way then'. They don't think, at all. And they don't feel pain, in any way. If they can do either of the above, show how or shut up.

Anyhoo, we clearly, and this is the most salient point of all my good hypocrite, DO NOT have to kill in order to survive (except inadvertently, eg bacteria and whatnot).

Do you even try to regulate your meat intake? You can survive without having to kill animals, or even plants, yet you seat here after chowing some good meat, premeditated murder mind you, and somehow think you have the moral high ground over people who shag animals. Said people probably don't eat meat as well, due to their ehh, needs. *Now, ra.pe victims look away pls*. What choice do you think most beings capable of consent would take, ra.pe or death?




That's about as much time as I can spare probably. Gaddem what a waste

Adding to the list


6. Gambling

7. Assisted suicide (hmmm)

Good evening wiegraf,

First of all, let's see how we have progressed so far:

1. Narcotics - Still under dispute

2. Bestiality - We agreed that this is a 'crime' with victims.

3. Blasphemy - Not sure of the conclusion here.

4. Polygamy (both ways) - Not sure of this too.

Since the bone of contention for now is (1) so I will focus on just that.

wiegraf:


Well, no. Narcotic use shouldn't be a factor really. Same way someone who drinks shouldn't be barred from owning a car. If irresponsible of course you could take away his license. But not if he's minding his business, paying taxes, harming no one else etc etc

The comparison you made above is really not appropriate. Owning a car and owning a gun are rather different but I won't dwell on this considering that it has little bearing on the discuss at hand.

wiegraf:
Well, society's needs are important, but not at the expense of personal freedom. Profit per say need not be a factor, at all. You can't force someone to make a profit if they're not interested in doing so. Also, what one considers as profit need not necessarily amount to what you consider profit. It seems most muslims would consider your becoming a muslim profitable, I'm sure you don't think of it that way. With all this subjectivity involve everywhere, and note that individuals do make the society, you have to look for the common denominator. Solutions that would at least represent all the individuals that make up the society. For the most part, that would be some version of the golden rule.

Well wiegraf, there is no way a law enacted will satisfy the needs of everyone. Some trade-off is expected irrespective of the law. The bottom line for a society is the greater good and in determining this greater good it is expedient that a cost/benefit analysis be carried out. Now, a proper cost/benefit analysis need not be subjective as you suggested. An objective cost/benefit analysis is very possible. The point is, the disadvantages of allowing narcotics far outweighs the advantages for the society at large.

Let's take France as an example. The use of the burqa was banned for very good reasons though it impedes on some individual rights. However, in the overall analysis the benefits of using the burqa cannot measure with the disadvantages, hence the need for the ban. We really can't make everyone happy! Some individual rights MUST be sacrificed in some cases.

wiegraf:
Consider slavery. It was beneficial in a sense to the powers that be. In fact in many cases it would be ostensibly beneficial to the economy as a whole as well, which would involve trickle down benefits to some slaves as well. More money means their masters could take better care of them, something some slaves could potentially not do as well on their own. Or consider the effects of cheap labor on certain economies during certain periods, eg, present day china. In many ways, quite a few slaves were better off as slaves, yet that does not mean people should have been forced into slavery, does it?

Hmmmm...though same analysis as above but I am tempted to say my bit on slavery and some of it's perceived benefits...but I will pass

wiegraf:
A population doesn't eat cows as they're revered. There's a food crises, do you now make it law that they eat the cows? Certain people living in abject poverty pray 5x a day. A considerable amount of time is taken out of the day, time that could be used doing more productive things (rather than losing potential clients). Do you now force them to not pray? They leave in abject poverty, yet give a bulk of their salary to a presumed charlatan. Do you force them not to pay tithes? etc etc etc

So the common denominator usually is; individual rights.

If there is real food crisis then there won't be need to make the law cause the owners would beat the government to it. Prayer is a private matter and really has little bearing with the society at large. One who prays is not harming anyone else and therefore no potential for harm. But if an individual, say a doctor, prefers to go for prayers at a time he is told that a patient is having a crisis which might lead to death, then the individual can be held liable. I believe this should be treated on a case by case basis.

Now, narcotics can hardly be categorized as a private matter because of its potential for harm. You maintain that one can use it without harming anyone but I will show that this is just wishful thinking with an evidence you provided yourself see below...

wiegraf:
You definitely could discourage 'unprofitable' endeavors. Communities in particular can be effective in curbing excesses. We're a social species, measures discouraging potentially dangerous habits can be rather effective. But forcing your morality on others by law is a no no.

I agree totally that one should not force his personal morality on others. I believe it's immoral to have pre-marital sex but I am not asking anyone to make this against the law. There is a need to draw a distinction between public morals and private morals. I can't force my personal morals on anyone but public morals like say: indecent public conduct can be forced on everyone. However, the use of narcotics hardly qualifies as private morals. Even if one decides to use it privately, there is a potential for that individual to cause harm to both himself and the society. See below for the evidence...

wiegraf:
But cigarettes are not illegal in the privacy of your home, anywhere. Cigarettes actively harm others, one can become mortally ill just by being around smokers, a direct consequence of the cigarettes smoke. Like loud music, they disturb neighbors etc, actively as well. Except of course, as a bonus, unlike loud music they could actually kill said neighbors. They are not a trivial concern. Yet cigarettes remain legal (at least privately) but marijuana and a host of others which don't have such deadly consequences remain illegal, even privately. That doesn't make sense at all.

Though I don't smoke but I really do not have any beef against one who does. Note that smoking cigarettes is quite different from using narcotics like say cocaine. The use of cigarettes won't really affect an individual such that the individual would be moved to cause harm on another but cocaine on the other hand can lead one to harm others. We are actually talking about the person here and not the 'tool'.

Well wiegraf if you feel strongly about it then I will join you on the campaign to ban the use of cigarettes but using the legality of cigarettes to push for narcotics is really not it for me.

wiegraf:
Hmmm. Hmmm. I still disagree, perhaps superficially. We can try all sorts of social pressures and what not, but not outright war or something similar. Not until the nation or the people involved cross the line.

wiegraf do you really want every country to have the right to build and own nuclear weapons? I hope you are pulling my legs. What do you think Ahmadinejad would do if he has a nuclear weapon?...precisely! Israel would be off the face of the Earth! Somethings are better imagined than experienced. If the potential for harm is perceived as great then a preventive measure is best rather than the 'detective' option as you suggested. Waiting for something to happen before reacting is sometimes not the best.

wiegraf:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/01/alcohol.harm/index.html
It is well know that alcohol is more harmful than most narcotics actually.

Um...Oga wiegraf you just brought out the link that proves my case. From the article, I got the following:

Nutt later apologized to to anyone offended by the article and to those who have lost loved ones to ecstasy. He said he had no intention of trivializing the dangers of the drug and that he only wanted to compare the risks.

With the above, do you still maintain that this is a "Victimless crime"? I hope you see the potential for harm?

I don't see any need to comment on the rest considering that we set out to show whether or not the use of narcotics is victimless or not.


Thank you!

wiegraf: Very weak, lb. Bordering on pathetic actually...




Errm, logic. Read my post again...s-l-o-w-l-y. You've clearly assigned human rights to animals, arbitrarily. Cherry picking style. When it fits your goals they're consent becomes an issue, when not it doesn't. Just like xtians that choose to discriminate against gheys yet eat shell fish with relish. Do you see your folly now?




How you can tell such a bold faced lie...che...

You would unquestionably go to jail for murder if both of you were fit and healthy. If your victim was mortally ill, dying, then you might get away with it. You would get away with cannibalism if the other party died of natural causes, no problem. But murder? What you smoking? I suppose you think you would deserve a medal as well?

And by the way, you do know things other than trials tale place in courts, yes? Perhaps that's why you used the word 'could', my dishonest one.



No. In case you missed the obvious, it's that we do not need meat in order to survive. At all.

Do note also that omnivores like dogs are not capable or reason. They cannot build farms and such, yes?



Dogs are wolves. Wth is this? Dogs are domesticated wolves. In your words, gaddem?! I guess you're not an ape as well. And this is not even the same as comparing chimps and humans, as dogs are a subspecies of wolves. They're wolves through and through, just a subset.







Majority of them avoid rap.ing us humans, just like majority of us avoid rap.ing animals. Your point is moot. Gaddem....

Read all those bits again. Perhaps work on your comprehension skills first






Plants are not aware of their environment in any conscious sense whatsoever. They can detect light but don't think to themselves 'oh yeah, lemme go that way then'. They don't think, at all. And they don't feel pain, in any way. If they can do either of the above, show how or shut up.

Anyhoo, we clearly, and this is the most salient point of all my good hypocrite, DO NOT have to kill in order to survive (except inadvertently, eg bacteria and whatnot).

Do you even try to regulate your meat intake? You can survive without having to kill animals, or even plants, yet you seat here after chowing some good meat, premeditated murder mind you, and somehow think you have the moral high ground over people who shag animals. Said people probably don't eat meat as well, due to their ehh, needs. *Now, ra.pe victims look away pls*. What choice do you think most beings capable of consent would take, ra.pe or death?




That's about as much time as I can spare probably. Gaddem what a waste

Two words ;


F4ck you!




However, you are still my guy. I prefer that we keep bashing Anony and co. It's more productive.

Logicboy03:



Two words ;


F4ck you!




However, you are still my guy. I prefer that we keep bashing Anony and co. It's more productive.

Heheheheheheheheheheh

Where you go sef? I was expecting a reply like 5 mins after I posted it. How is the real world? Is cameroon playing live now or is this an old match?

wiegraf:

Heheheheheheheheheheh

Where you go sef? I was expecting a reply like 5 mins after I posted it. How is the real world? Is cameroon playing live now or is this an old match?

I travelled to Wales. Was on some business.


Didnt have time to watch the match but England brazil is on

wiegraf:

That response wasn't for you, but I suppose it's relevant.

From my pov all morality is 'natural'. You could claim yours is trandenscendant but of course to me it wouldn't be so, it would be man made. And even if genuinely trandenscendant, it looks to me like still blindly following the god(s). Good acts aren't good because they are intrinsically good but because god says they are.

Just about the whole OT has atrocity after atrocity which xtians would call good simply because god said so. If the name god was substituted with satan in those passages xtians would no doubt find these stories even more fitting. Or what's the difference between giving eve apples and hardening the phaeroes heart then punishing him and myriad innocents? Yet god of OT is still heralded as good, it's the same thing as calling hitler good.

Consider that your trandenscendal morality is not absolute, it changes, whimsically even. Even by your own admission the nt, which addresses some of the excesses of the ot (thankfully imo), changed the moral code. So even if your god existed it seems to be changing its mind as well, its will is not absolute. There is the danger of it declaring rather suspect acts as good, just like humans. Unlike human made morality where questioning is more readily encouraged, with god his word is supposedly final (yet it still finds a way to change as time passes by), so it's even more difficult to change if it is found to be flawed with time. And of course it is more easily abused by 'charlatans', etc, who can bend and twist even the 'good' parts as they see fit with less supervision, checks etc. All they need do is have a sweet tongue and claim is they're mandated by god, then watch sheeple fall in line

In essence, it looks a lot worse than regular morality to a non believer. Actually, it looks like regular morality, except with needless disadvantages. Inflexibility and a patent lack of accountability. The more advanced muslims on these boards still think stoning, spousal abuse, finger cutting, heck even jihad are acceptable in this day and age because allah says so. Do you honestly agree with that?

No moral code can be perfect. Perfect to who? What purpose? But addressing that fact and coming up a fluid yet balanced system, with checks and balances, is easily the best way to go. Secularism is the best system at (or at least attempting to) providing that. Theocracies? No

this is an interesting attack on any percieved "GOD", one i would rather not answer so i dont end up turning this thread into atheist vs theist, that notwithstanding, i never remembered talking about theocracy, or did u see d word theocracy in my post? I know u have interesting problems with God as portrayed in d OT and while dat remains a ref for every xtian, d ot remained and unfinished work, only d bging of changing d morality of a people who leave like sheep without shepherd. The definitive face of God is revealed in d Nt.
The above aside, i wasnt advocating a theocracy instead my point remains laws based on "natural morality" is too relative to be law. Too subjective and religion is still more certain.

Ubenedictus: this is an interesting attack on any percieved "GOD", one i would rather not answer so i dont end up turning this thread into atheist vs theist, that notwithstanding, i never remembered talking about theocracy, or did u see d word theocracy in my post? I know u have interesting problems with God as portrayed in d OT and while dat remains a ref for every xtian, d ot remained and unfinished work, only d bging of changing d morality of a people who leave like sheep without shepherd. The definitive face of God is revealed in d Nt.
The above aside, i wasnt advocating a theocracy instead my point remains laws based on "natural morality" is too relative to be law. Too subjective and religion is still more certain.

Does certain mean right?

Religion is certain on many wrong positions. The catholic church has embarrased itself on condoms, evolution and abortionso many times that it had to change its rigid point of view on these moral issues

wiegraf: Adding to the list


6. Gambling

7. Assisted suicide (hmmm)

Good morning wiegraf,

Saw the latest inclusion to your list. I will focus on the first and share my view on the second in a separate post.

For the purpose of our discuss, let's take gambling as the act of playing a game of chance which involves either a gain or loss of some form of economic resources to include money or property of which the outcome is uncertain. I know gambling can have other meanings which includes risk-taking in one's business endeavour but I will appreciate it if we can go with the definition I have provided in other to avoid complexities in our analysis.

I order to arrive at a logical conclusion on whether or not gambling is a 'victim-less crime', it is important to consider the various scenarios but for simplicity sake, I will limit these scenarios to just two with the hope that I will be able to cover the various aspects that will help us determine whether gambling is a 'victim-less crime' or not.

Scenario 1:

An individual gambler who is calculative in his approach to risk-taken in terms of the extent to which he is willing to commit an economic resource to each act of gambling. He is aware of the need to limit his losses and maximize his gains and no matter how much he stands to gain he treats gambling like a limited liability company i.e he limits the maximum exposure to the amount he has decided to 'invest' in gambling. For this individual he knows that there is a need to keep the chunk of his economic resource for himself and his family such that whatever he gains or loses should not have a material impact on the life style of himself and his family.

The above individual is a rational decision taker and he knows the extent to which he can gamble. In this scenario, the individual gambler is not hurting anyone by his actions and even if he loses all, his ability to take care of his family is not impaired in anyway. This I consider NOT to be a crime talk-less of it
having a victim.

Scenario 2:

This gambler is the direct opposite of his counterpart above. He acts irrationally when committing economic resources to each act of gambling. For him there is nothing like a maximum exposure. He believes in a 'sure deal' and is willing to give up all in order to take advantage of this 'sure deal'. He is oblivious to the fact that gambling derives its name and meaning because there is nothing like a 'sure deal'. He is willing to even bet his house, children's school fees, his wife etc for the sake of gambling.

Considering the second scenario, I will say that gambling is not so victim-less after all. But in the overall analysis, gambling in itself is not a crime and whether or not it becomes a crime has to do with the individual gambler. If you ask me whether it should be outlawed, I will say NO but there should be some form of regulation to protect the interest of the likely victims of the excesses of the irrational gambler.

This regulation is also important for the gambler himself because some persons do not play fair. There are cases where the outcome of an event only favours the owner and no matter what the gambler does, he possibly cannot win cause his chances of losing is always 1, instead of it being 0.5 for winning and 0.5 for losing.


Thank you!

Interesting thread. However every single one of the "victimless crimes mentioned" have clear negative impacts on self and others. I should mention that bestiality has often been cited as the origin of many a queer and oft incurable disease amongst humans. Aside from the fact that it amounts to r.ape in most instances.

Polygamy, without much ado, is a recipe for disaster as humans are naturally jealous beings in matters of love and marriage - even animals are. Narcotics are dangerous primarily for the altered state of mind that they induce - wherein all may seem well and dandy to the user; but reality is fast slipping away. Further on, said narcotics destroy lives in a way that is incomparable to anything else. You don't need to argue this one. Just do down to the dark alleys around pubs in Soho and other such spots in cities around the world. End of, for that.

Gambling, cannot be intrinsically wrong in any respect except that respect in which the OP probably means - namely the addicted and compulsive gambler. Even if not wrong this is foolish, and foolishness can oft be immoral as it destroys lives as well.

As to prostitution, I would say this - it is a very dangerous lifestyle that people get hooked on (ah, no pun intended, lol) and has terrible consequences in multiple directions and also at a societal level. This is however to be differentiated from promiscuity - which I can see no wrong in, so long as the promiscuous person is single, honest and practices safe se.x. But how many promiscuous people do this? How possible is it to be promiscuous and honest? MANY lies must go down the drain to keep up the game. And many broken hearts and broken lives too.

There have been many arguments on this thread but I dont think there need to be arguments. Every thing I have written above are not arguments, they are things I have experienced first hand and personally witnessed the terrible destructive results on innocent lives occassioned by such. . . except bestiality.

The fact thus remains that regardless of whether or not one wants to argue for the morality or immorality of any of these acts - one cannot argue that they are victimless.

The only victimless crime that interests me is carrying out a huge bank robbery from a giant bank that is very well insured for the loss by an even more giant insurance company which has already gorged itself for decades on the insurance premiums of the public and can absorb the claim without lifting any sweat or sacking anybody.

That one, if I fit do am, I go do am instanta.

striktlymi: Good evening wiegraf,

First of all, let's see how we have progressed so far:

1. Narcotics - Still under dispute

2. Bestiality - We agreed that this is a 'crime' with victims.

3. Blasphemy - Not sure of the conclusion here.

4. Polygamy (both ways) - Not sure of this too.

Since the bone of contention for now is (1) so I will focus on just that.

Agreed, I think that's how it stands atm.

Now, to the crux. We've done this already but let me expantiate. Who qualify as 'victims'? Friends and family do not imho.

Your mother wants you to be a doctor, you want to be an artist. So, does her wish override yours simply because she's family? It's your life, not hers. It's your decision, you are not mandated indulge peoples desires when you owe them nothing. They do not have that right. If it were so, I might as well say I'm disappointed you're an xtian, does that now make me a victim? That's my problem, certainly not yours. This applies to any sort of relationship, family, friends, enemies, etc. A rival at work gets a promotion thereby hurting my feelings, does that now make me a victim? Perhaps he should quit and recommend me for the position.

Now when your actions directly harm another or his rights, then we're talking. We now have a victim. There are probably other scenarios with victims but I think I'll leave it like this, for now...

striktlymi:
Well wiegraf, there is no way a law enacted will satisfy the needs of everyone. Some trade-off is expected irrespective of the law. The bottom line for a society is the greater good and in determining this greater good it is expedient that a cost/benefit analysis be carried out. Now, a proper cost/benefit analysis need not be subjective as you suggested. An objective cost/benefit analysis is very possible. The point is, the disadvantages of allowing narcotics far outweighs the advantages for the society at large.

Let's take France as an example. The use of the burqa was banned for very good reasons though it impedes on some individual rights. However, in the overall analysis the benefits of using the burqa cannot measure with the disadvantages, hence the need for the ban. We really can't make everyone happy! Some individual rights MUST be sacrificed in some cases.

There is some truth here, but figuring out those cases cannot be done whimsically.

The burka is a complicated case, very much like polygamy actually. In fact in most ways, it's the same thing. Here's the thing with both cases; there are victims. Quite a few women don't have a say on whether they should wear it or not, they're forced to even if by just societal pressure (in some countries by law, of course). Same with polygamy.

Now if we were mature enough, both these situations should be legal, no problems (well, except security concerns as far as burkas in some places is concerned). But they've been abused so much so their illegal status in some countries is justified. They do lead to a sort of modern day slavery, robbing people of their rights, thus creating victims.

striktlymi:


Though I don't smoke but I really do not have any beef against one who does. Note that smoking cigarettes is quite different from using narcotics like say cocaine. The use of cigarettes won't really affect an individual such that the individual would be moved to cause harm on another but cocaine on the other hand can lead one to harm others. We are actually talking about the person here and not the 'tool'.

But smoking actively harms non smokers minding their own business. In fact, it kills quite a few. If I went around knowingly giving people cancer with my cancer-ray-gun, like say some nuclear reactor, I'm sure society will make me pay one way or another. That is more or else what cigarette smokers in public do. I would say smoking isn't victimless as well

striktlymi:
Um...Oga wiegraf you just brought out the link that proves my case. From the article, I got the following:

Nutt later apologized to to anyone offended by the article and to those who have lost loved ones to ecstasy. He said he had no intention of trivializing the dangers of the drug and that he only wanted to compare the risks.

With the above, do you still maintain that this is a "Victimless crime"? I hope you see the potential for harm?

For the reasons I noted above, yes.

Also, do note he's apologizing for his perceived insensitivity. He's not suggesting his statement was wrong, just that it was tactless to put it that way.

I believe he said something like there's more of a chance of one dying from horse back riding than from ecstasy. He still stands by that claim but acknowledges its insensitivity. No matter how few, loved ones still died, and his statement could come across as trivializing the issue to some.



Oh, yeah, thanks! I'll be back for the gambling post as well your response to this soon. It looks juicy at first glance