₦airaland Forum

OpenYourEyes1:
1. Maggots evolved from non-life.
They thought maggots appearing from rotten stuff was proof that life can spring up from non-life.
A scientist called Louis Pasteur eventually proved them wrong with his experiment on rotten food.

Here is a popular quote by the scientist:

"Little science takes you away from God, but more of it takes you to him." — Louis Pasteur
(The Founder of microbiology and immunology)


2. Coming soon.

There is no scientist or proponent of evolution in the world that believe maggots comes from non-life ingredients.

This is a rather idiotic statememt on your part.

The idea that maggots came from non-life is the theory of spontaneous generation, an ancient theory proposed by Aristotle himself.

Evolution makes no such claim.

And be fully aware that spontaneous generation is an entirely different idea from abiogenesis.

Tone down on this nonsense

People can be terribly idiotic �

ABCthings:
So,why is killing anyone wrong to you?

Lol

budaatum:
You've been touting that word "intersubjective" now for so long that one can possibly call you it's prophet, yet your sermons on it have not exactly flown, have they? Might that be the source of your frustration perhaps, that's made you the uncivil being you seem to be becoming? You could just educate us you know instead of insulting us for being not so wise as you!

Anyway, my morality is subject to me. I choose the morals I adopt and do not need any external objective basis on which to choose them. I don't kill people because I don't like being killed and assume other's might not like me killing them either. An objective reason could be, if I kill I could go to jail. But that not why I don't kill. I don't kill people because I don't like killing people, simple. Same goes for being uncivil. Uncivility makes people sound stupid and ignorant to me. It's a thing ignorant people resort to when they haven't really got anything worthwhile to say so they cover up their inadequacies with even more inadequacies. I'm however stupid and ignorant enough as I am so why shroud my self in even more stupidity and ignorance!? But thats me, with my subjective opinion subject to me. I can't exactly say its objective and it doesn't need to be since I'm not claiming some external source for my opinion and stance nor asking anyone else to adopt it. If I don't like uncivil people I can very easily ignore them. And if I don't like killers I can run away or die. Se la vie.

Can I just use my own mind to subjectively decide my morals for myself johnydon22?


"Like you said", Prophet johnydon22, Lol! Or is it God johnydon22?

Please note that I am stupid, ignorant, naive, wrong, puerile, illogical, very human buda. Maybe if you educate me please, I too can become Prophet or God johnydon22 too. Though, if it includes uncivility, you, can, keep it, thank you.

Oh God.

#sighs

Shelumiel:
I said provable , not probable sir

Oh that was a mistake, so i ask again, which of them isn't provable; mutation or natural selection?

budaatum:
Morality is in the eye of the beholder unless you want to impose some heavenly godly morals on everyone.

Nope, morality is practically intersubjective like every other imagined order such as money, government, corporations etc..

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.

ok

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 do believe now there is a similarity between being frank and being uncivil, apparently.

Like i said, there is something inherently wrong with a moral conclusion that do not have a derivative basis, it is as illogical as a "God did it" answer from a theist.

If i can tell a theist, your answer is naive, i can as well tell someone who makes such logical blunders - hey your ideas on morality are puerile, it is called being frank or call it bluntness.

You may look further than my bluntness and try thinking deeper into the point

Shelumiel:
...but all these have not be provable . So where is the authenticity in this answer.

which of them isn't probable? Natural selection or mutation?

budaatum:
Unfortunately, morality is precisely like that.

Actually, it isn't.

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.

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

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.

Oh i think your arguments on morality is peurile alright.

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?

Shelumiel:
Question : how come you don't have one species of dogs or cats or any other creature walking on this earth ?

If you are asking for a secular answer; Simple, natural selection, mutation - evolution.

If you are asking to a religious answer: be my guest.

Let's wait for people who believe in the Adam and Eve tale shall we? This will be fun!

TVSA:
but god chose Jacob. God works in mysterious ways

God isn't that much of a good guy in the story anyway, so, is that a surprise that he chose the douchbag? Not at all.

TVSA:
asalimpo, only Esau can contend with Samson in your list. how can you be betrayed multiple times by the same person?

Esau was simplg a good guy. I think Jacob was a horrible person, betraying his brother's trust every chance he gets. Very horrible person

budaatum:
It's wrong because you find it wrong! Just as I might find you calling my conceptualisation puerile, wrong. After all, I may be offended. But of what concern should my hurt ego be of yours?

I think the issue here might be that you might be one of those objective moralists while I'm not. I might not find an act wrong but you might. And that's perfectly okay with me especially if its an act with consequences that affect you and if my morals happen to include not ignoring how my action affects you..

Take for instance, slapping you. I may find great pleasure in the act of lifting up my arm, directing my palm towards you, and at a high velocity hitting it against your face. But I might accept the fact that you might not like being slapped. If you do however, not mind, I've met a soul mate who would enjoy being slapped by me all day long which I highly enjoy. And if you do mind, well, who cares what you think as long as I have my fun?

I'm stating how I feel about a thing, johnydon22, and what I find moral or immoral for me to do, and not establishing some moral code that everyone has to subscribe to. After all, I'm only buda, and not some god who gets to dictate to others what they must or can or can't or mustn't do.

Let me know if I may slap you please.

Lol. The dilemma of secular morality, moral conclusions without basis.

This thing is wrong to me
It is not wrong to mr B

Therefore it is not even wrong at all.

Something like morality cannot be personal or it's simply meaningless.

And even if it is personal, you still must have a derivative basis to it which you seem not have.

Killing is wrong
Why?
Because it is to me.

Lmao that's funny! You people are funny!

ABCthings:
Right.
So since clones are humans they should be treated as so.

Fair enough.

budaatum:
I presented my argument. I brought it into your home for you to decide. I used your preferences as my criteria to determine whether it's right or wrong. I've arranged with my people to visit you. All you have to do is tell me you are happy and I will agree with you. My position is that morality is in the eye of whom it affects, you, in this instance.
Where's your address please?

Again, i ask; if i find it wrong, why is it wrong?

You got to keep up dude. Even if i entertain this obviously peurile conceptualization of morality, it will still come back to the same moral problem. Lol

ABCthings:
How do I say it so you understand BELIEVES!, BELIVES!! it all about BELIEVES!!!
if i go to a place where they think chickens are demi-gods and kill a chick I'll be sure they will roast me alive.
So once again it's BELIEVES

Ok, you are saying the fundamental bit of morality is the belief in a value for the subject and not the action.

E.g: the reason why someone would say killing a human is wrong is that they somehow believe human life is somewhat special (sacred if you will) and that is what makes killing it different from any other.

Same applies for people who think killing a cow or a chicken is wrong.

Right?

budaatum:
So, when I come to your home and clear it out and deprive you of all you've worked really hard to accumulate, you would not mind?

Me minding doesn't make anything right or wrong. I need you guys to really catch up on moral arguments i don't even know how else to explain it.

You said killing is wrong
Why?
Because it deprives someone of something that belongs to them.

Then, why is depriving someone of his stuff wrong?

This is the next question.

I guess we should just put it to the test shall we? Send me your address please.

It is a simple question Budaatum; Not liking something isn't same as right or wrong, is it?

ABCthings:
Both

So, if i kill a chicken i am as morally wrong as killing a human?

budaatum:
No! There's more to it than that, surely. To start with, unless the killed desires to be killed, you'd be depriving someone of something that belongs to that person.

That is to first assume depriving someone of what belongs to them is wrong. Lol

Also, if killing weren't wrong you would not mind me killing you, which I'm sure you would! I'm reckoning you'd defend yourself if I tried to kill you, and that's evidence you don't like being killed.

Not liking something isn't same thing as that thing being wrong, is it?

ABCthings:
And I said killing is wrong just because we believe it's wrong.

Killing or killing a human?

ABCthings:
Jesus! see question :O

Ask yourself what is wrong if I decided to finish you

Seriously what's wrong?
-It's illegal

why is it illegal?
-Morality

If I see nothing wrong in killing you I might still do it ~secretly

But if I believe something is wrong even if it legal I won't do it.

So killing humans itself is not wrong unless you faith tells you something else.

You didn't really answer my question. You just said it's wrong without telling me why and how?

I repeat; what makes killing humans wrong?

I need you to think deeper here.

Martinez39:
Yes.

Ok. Fair enough

Hermes019:
Johnny u might want to explain the above

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.

Clear now?

Martinez39:
Well, they were created to have their organs harvested and save our dying ones. We can ignore our dying ones and the purpose of creating these clones just cater for the clones. We just can't. On a second thought, I were to put myself in the shoes of these clones, I would definitely want to live :'-( but we just have to carry on with why they were created.

But you agree that what you as the clone think or feel has absolutely no binding effect on the people that made you, correct?

Hermes019:
Does this clone have a brain ?
If it does what functioning level is the brain,is it more than that of a fowl

I can think of two instances

1. Yes it does

2. No it doesn't.

What will your answer be for each instance

ABCthings:
'cause the clones or whatever will still be humans.

And what is wrong in killing humans?

Hermes019:
If this is what you truly believe than why did u create that thread on clones ?

Gee, i wonder why? Hmmm let me think, eeeeehm to see what others think? Could that be it? Uuuuhm ok, let me think some more, i will be right back

Martinez39:
It's difficult to say. Clones are still humans and they will the desire to live and form their "destinies." Nevertheless, creating clones to save lives won't be immoral except we attach moral sentiments after all, they were created to have their organs harvested.

So, you are saying; even though they are humans of some sort, we still have absolute moral permissibility to do with them whatever we please since they are our creations and we have specific purposes for them?

LordReed:
What do you mean by "instills moral value"?

Give moral value

rottennaija:
I don't know if you understand what I mean. You have a clone in vegetative state and when the real is old and probably no longer functional, you transfer consciousness to the clone and activate it.

The clone now becomes the main, with full conscientious, experience and knowledge of the old

Is that similar to just also harvesting its organs and transferring it to the original body?

budaatum:
If my clone can make choices, it may choose to tell me to fuq off when I need the heart I created in it! What do I do then? Say, "I created you and can therefore do to you as I wish"?

Actually, it has no more say than a chicken telling you to fuq off. You own the power, think an absolute authority more suited than ones wielded by slave masters. It can think, but what exactly can it do?

Assume there is a God, it comes to you and go like " Dude, i want to kill you now" and you are like "fuq off, i am my own boss"

Isn't that laughable?

I guess if the law allows that (and I'm talking we go court so I can tell my clone it's my pot and I can smash it if I wanted despite all it's resistance), then hey, I got me a heart and would take it if only because I don't want to die yet. But what exactly do I do when I need a kidney two years later? Take it out of my heartless very likely dead rotten clone? And that's just the practical problem. Currently, the law (depending on where one is of course), does not allow one to take out the heart of a dog so I can't see how they'd allow me to take out a vital organ from my living clone. But if I go to India or some other poor nation, I can at least buy someone's kidney I suppose.

So, moral or not? The question really should be 'legal or not' because if I create and own a clone and can legally do to it as I wish, then I'm certain that if I need a heart I'd harvest me a heart. However, I might see my clone as my child and nurture it as such. If I convince myself I created my child and can do to it as I wish, would I rip out my child's heart and put it in me if I were legally allowed to? I wouldn't, but let me say I hope I wouldn't, especially if I could go to India to buy someone else's child and rip their heart out and put it in me instead.

But. Education! That's the bee in this ointment. If I have been educated that, say, a god thing created all human beings, or all human have an equal right to life, and I should love my neighbours, and must not kill humans and covet them and such like, and if I have taken this education on board, then the only issue with my harvesting my clone would be whether it thinks like me and poos like me, and if it does, then I just might see it as human like me, then it does become a case of killing another human being to prolong my life and whether I think its moral or not to do so.

The law, thankfully, does not permit me to kill another human being for my own selfish needs regardless of my moral stance or need, is my opinion.

We are not talking about legality dude, the premise remains on its morality

rottennaija:
Left for me, I say, clone them and transfer consciousness when the original is old and can no longer function

And if they are also conscious? Isn't that same as death?