₦airaland Forum

Mr anony: And I state that you stated that I was asking him to, where?
As I implied in my response an objective formula must exist or else we have no basis for valuation. It is not "my formula" if it is objective.

Che. You assumed I assumed you were asking him to subscribe to your opinion, no?

Criteria you make up on the go is fiat everywhere?

Mr anony: In case you didn't notice, I am not asking him to subscribe to my opinion. I have only asked him to give an objective standard by which we can make judgments.

wiegraf: Will your formula will somehow be more objective than his by default?

And I state you're asking him to, where? It's a simple question, and for a good reason I might add.

Mr anony: And I asked you if the inability to feeling pain is justification for killing?

You did not. And I answered both your questions, no and no.

Mr anony: How did you come to this conclusion? Why do you think the foetus is not human?

Let's take wiki

wiki: Humans (Homo sapiens) are primates of the family Hominidae, and the only extant species of the genus Homo.[2][3] Humans are characterized by having a large brain relative to body size, with a particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, making them capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning. This mental capability, combined with an adaptation to bipedal locomotion that frees the hands for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Humans are the only extant species known to build fires and cook their food, as well as the only known species to clothe themselves and create and use numerous other technologies and arts. The scientific study of humans is the discipline of anthropology.

This definition I'm fine with. Fetuses are incapable of any of that, they've not developed any (or most) of the tools.

wiki: Is a woman allowed to kill here one month old baby too? Because at one month it will still be totally dependent on the mother.

No, baby can eat, piss, shit, breathe, etc on its own. They have the capability to do the above listed. All the tools are there, even if they're just fresh and new, learning, etc. At that point it's a full human being. In fact, somewhere along the late term I would say it becomes 'human'.

wiki: It is funny how you can call an entirely different person an organ just to justify killing him/her. What does this "organ" do?

What's this, some sort of emotional blackmail?

It's funny how you can call an 'organ' a person just to trample over people's rights, while ingratiating yourself with god so you could continue slaving in heaven. See how stoopidly simplistic that sounds?

I hope you're not calling me a murderer because of your silly religious whargarbl?

Chris†Kid:
they may have their shortcomings in scientific field. It still doesnt negate the progress they've made in that area given the amount of energy and resources invested.

Read the article when you have time. It's more complicated than that.

Chris†Kid:
And somehow you think they control the actions of minority extremist among them right?
Just like saying atheists wouldnt be against stalin even though they're victims of his terrorists acts.

I say that where? My point there is that that is a silly reason to be against terrorism. So it's only when it occurs to you that it matters? If it weren't, you wouldn't care?

Chris†Kid:
dont make right. Yes. Just that condemnation for the west is not just as loud.

It is, from within even, you simply haven't noticed because it is ubiquitous so it does not come across as out of the ordinary. Simply sit down and listen to their political debates and you'll hear it loud and clear. You'll also note quite a few people trying to do something about it. For instance, this silly article could pass (in some contexts) as an attempt to criticize the west. Many liberals share these views.

And don't ignore my main points

Ah, xtian with fight? Where have you been?

Chris†Kid:
Everything is trollish to you. Coming from someone makes lenghty posts all the time i don't know why you are complaining.

The bold is wrong. Most of what I see here is illogical or downright stoopid. I hate illogical. I really, really do. I have little problem with trolling, I find it amusing most times. Foolishness though, genetically, I cannot stand.

As for the rest, thanks for making my point. I spend a lot of time here when I really should be doing other things. Solution? Cut down the time spent here. See?

Endeavor to limit the foolishness if you can please, it irks me.

Chris†Kid:
The article didnt mention anything about religion being a factor in making laws in a secular society. If anything it's trying to prove otherwise.

And what exactly is your understanding of shariah? Last I checked it was a legal code, is it not? The concern is about implementing shariah in the west, no?

You seem to be lost. To be clear, he is trying to prove it is not an issue (from this particular crowd, ie muslims) in the west - as of now. This isn't the problem most critics (myself included) have. The concern from critics is that it will (inevitably) become a problem in the future. Understand?

It's about preventing cancer, more or else. Both short term and long term. Consider all I've stated so far in this context.

I would have imagined this would be fairly obvious to just about anyone, this is why I consider this article flimsy and shallow. But it seems both you and the author have completely missed it. .

Chris†Kid:
As clearly stated in the article all rumors of forcing shariah down westerners throat are just what it is _ rumors when majority muslim countries themselves dont even practice it themselves how much more them?

And as he says, they still practice a watered down version, yes? I repeat, religion has NO place in government. Watered down, unadulterated, it matters not. The thought of even considering marrying religion and government should NOT be entertained, however ostensibly benign.

The bolded is for the most part true, again, - as of now. Again, the fear is they gain enough power to force it down peoples throats.

Chris†Kid:
And yes its a good thing they support marriage of church and state. Nobody is forcing shariah down westerners throat except of course occasional rants from few fanatics. Thats all there is to it.
'two wrongs dont make a right' doesnt even apply here.

If you don't have a problem with their support of combining church and state, why do you go through the trouble of stating they aren't forcing it down anyone's throats, that it's only "occasional rants from few fanatics"? If church and state were acceptable, what would be fanatical about insisting on it? Wouldn't it be a reasonable goal in such a scenario?

Anyways, please do take your family and make your way to Saudi. Where women can't drive, dress as they wish or take a walk alone because? Well, mostly because a book of fairy tales thinks poorly of them.

Or visit the Iran you seem to be a fan of and do try making out with another man consensually.

Supposing you think it's disgusting and unnatural, you'd never do that and you condone their stance on homosexuality. Cool. You would probably believe you have the right to make out with a female should you wish to as well, yes? If so, I would then ask you who the $%^# are you? Denying people rights you yourself enjoy because of your illogical, unsubstantiated claims (from said fairy-tale book)?

Simple situations which illustrate why we do not even entertain the idea of church and state, see?

Let's see who this 'occasional, ranting fanatics' are. Observe the title below, it says 40% in the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

This site has a less than favorable view of muslims, but do feel free to look up their sources and spin it as you wish. Or simply take a look at Arab Spring countries. What exactly are they doing now with their new found freedoms?

Two wrongs clearly make a right here. If xtians want to mix church and state, that does not justify muslims wanting to do the same. Mixing church and state is wrong, period. We have to deal with xtians in the first place, don't need no cave dwellers exacerbating issues.

Obviously you can disagree about mixing church and state, that's your prerogative. You can enjoy your 'good thing' by marrying the two. But from the perspective of those calling for caution when dealing with Muslim immigration and their potential proliferation, the church and state combination is patently wrong. They are therefore right to be weary of groups like muslims who insist on doing just that. Note, many muslims would probably believe that they are mandated to whenever they can (depending on how they translate the laws), ie, if they find themselves in a condition where they are able to achieve that (even peacefully gained ones, like immigration).

If they want sharia they should stay in their countries, who forced them out? I'm sure all they're problems are West's fault, yes? (please note the sarcasm)

Chris†Kid:
The point made here is quite clear, honor killings carried out by both christians, muslims even hindus have no basis in their religious texts.
Its clearly a cultural problem that needs to be addressed and put an end to. So when it comes to honor killings its not an islamic problem.

So?

You completely avoided my point. Muslims coming in bring their culture as well. Like he states, even in the west honor killings occur. Who's it done by? People from these regions, yes? They usually happen to be from islamic oriented cultures, no?

Whether it's islamic or not is up for debate. Moderate muslims would say no, and indeed they are likely right. But it's certainly an arabic (among others) thing, and these same 'moderate' muslims will conveniently pick up any arab cultural memes whenever they can in their bid to appear 'islamic'. These practices are tied to the islamic way of life so deeply they are often indistinguishable, interchangeable, synonymous. They would adopt them and pass them off as good and islamic. Islam can never be wrong.

The fear is that when people from these cultures (note: need not be arabs or muslims) come in they do not bring these heinous practices along. Just as muslims keep picking up memes like arabic naming conventions (which I'm assuming is not strictly an islamic thing, but an arab thing), the fear is that they don't do the same for practices like honor killing. For instance, if marrying young teens (or even 'ripe' preteens) is unislamic (as some very dubiously claim) that doesn't stop many, many people in Islamic countries practicing it, does it? In fact, proudly doing so, while pointing at uncle moh as the perfect role model. If he did it, why shouldn't I?

The fear is "arab slave masters do it, so why shouldn't I" is a danger, get it? Especially when respectable members of their societies, role models, engage in these acts.

Chris†Kid:
going from unbelievable thin to unbelievable fat is all in your mind. Just as we've cases of those that embraced burka we've had those that dropped it as well. Its all in your head.

Interesting, are you saying it isn't possible? That populations do not....increase? Via whatever means?

Chris†Kid:
it does have an anti gay stance as all religions (at least abrahamic ones) do. But you have to be highly tolerant to facilate sex change for transeexuals, given full rights and be home to world's biggest gay pride event.

What happened to the "two wrongs don't make a right" I mentioned? The other abrahamics support it therefore it's fine?

What's so special about Iran's record anyways? The fact they actually hang them

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iran-blog/2013/mar/14/iran-official-homosexuality-illness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iran

I'll give them credit for allowing the sex change operations though. At least a ray of hope



Oh boy, see time wastage..

Mr anony: ...and here we come back again to the question of what you mean by an objectively better society and by what universal standard you arrived at that conclusion.

Will your formula will somehow be more objective than his by default?

Mr anony: Question: Is the foetus human? Is being human based on capacity to feel?

No and no.

I choose physical feeling because at that point the organism is at least able to feel pain.

Mr anony: Does a lack of consciousness justify killing a human being?

Depends. Then again, fetuses aren't human.

Mr anony: Neither is it the mother's body

It very, very clearly is. Even if it were a living, breathing, conscious human, it would still be a human using her own body. Her own resources. Do you understand? So what right have you to tell her what she does with it?

However, the fetus remains part of her body. When it separates (or can at least live independently), it stops being part of her. Else, no, it remains (more or else) an organ.

Really, what right do you have to tell her what she does with a potential human? Like I state in the other thread, bringing a will into this world is a huge gamble not to be taken likely. If she is not ready or it is harmful, etc, she should not be forced into turning that potential into an actual human. If she is, then please take responsibility for the child and of course any other potentially lethal consequences of the pregnancy.

op: Science

We’re used to hearing that Islam is backward, intellectually-broken and about as open to science as David Icke. Never mind all the scientific, legal and mathematical advances made under the Islamic Golden Age—that was hundreds of years ago. Modern Islam and reason are incompatible, right?

Try telling that to Pakistan. Despite being an absolute basket-case, India’s belligerent neighbor churns out some of the best minds in Physics, Mathematics and Engineering anywhere in the world. In December, the minister for science and technology even pledged to allocate two percent of GDP to research and development by 2020. For comparison, the UK currently allocates around 1.7. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg: Turkey and Malaysia both have active space programs, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar are pouring billions into research universities. Even backward Iran invests hard enough in computer science to launch crippling cyber-attacks on US companies, despite being incapable of using Photoshop. It’s not Islam itself that hates science, just a handful of Idiõts who happen to be Islamic.

By a Pakistani Physicist

http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_8/49_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1

pakistani physicist: Scientific output

A useful, if imperfect, indicator of scientific output is the number of published scientific research papers, together with the citations to them. Table 1 shows the output of the seven most scientifically productive Muslim countries for physics papers, over the period from 1 January 1997 to 28 February 2007, together with the total number of publications in all scientific fields. A comparison with Brazil, India, China, and the US reveals significantly smaller numbers. A study by academics at the International Islamic University Malaysia2 showed that OIC countries have 8.5 scientists, engineers, and technicians per 1000 population, compared with a world average of 40.7, and 139.3 for countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (For more on the OECD, see http://www.oecd.org.) Forty-six Muslim countries contributed 1.17% of the world's science literature, whereas 1.66% came from India alone and 1.48% from Spain. Twenty Arab countries contributed 0.55%, compared with 0.89% by Israel alone. The US NSF records that of the 28 lowest producers of scientific articles in 2003, half belong to the OIC.

Malaysia—a rather atypical Muslim country with a 40% non-Muslim minority—is much smaller than neighboring Indonesia but is nevertheless more productive. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and other states that have many foreign scientists are scientifically far ahead of other Arab states.

Why? Lots more in that article. Read when you have the time then make up your mind.

Spain translates more books into Spanish yearly than the Arabic world has through time. Discussed here

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-368796.html

op: 5
Women’s Rights

Let’s be blunt: growing up poor and female in Afghanistan or Pakistan is a bad situation to be in. However, things are no better in Christian D.R. Congo and only slightly in secular India. According to this report commissioned in 2011, only three of the top five worst countries in the world for women were Islamic—with two of those being open war zones. Similar polls regularly list non-Islamic Chad, Nepal, Guatemala and Russia right at the bottom, alongside places like Yemen and Saudi Arabia. And while Pakistan may have little respect for women’s rights, it still found time to elect a female leader—as did Indonesia, Bangladesh, Kyrgyzstan and Turkey. But what about the Burka, symbol of female oppression? Again, a handful of crappy countries do require it by law, but they’re vastly outnumbered by those that don’t—Turkey, Bangladesh, Tunisia and Syria even banned it from public places.

As above, culture. Two wrongs don't make a right. He rather amazingly breezes through their legal rights as well. Incredible. 2 women = 1 man in court?!

op: 4
Integration

On the subject of the burka, most of you have probably heard about Europe’s recent infatuation with banning it. Given that people are so riled up about the issue, it stands to reason there must be a problem with Muslim integration, right?

Not exactly. Know how many people the Netherlands burka ban affected? Less than 100. That’s about 0.0006 percent of the population. In France, the number was 367—a percentage so small you’d be better off simply writing ‘zero’. Additionally, half of those who wore the burka were found to be young white converts—suggesting it’s less a failure of integration than the latest phase of adolescent rebellion. As for Muslim immigrants refusing to adopt their new home’s values and traditions; a British study found that eighty three percent of Muslims were proud to be British, compared to seventy nine percent of the general public. Even crazier, while eighty two percent of Muslims wanted to live in diverse, integrated neighborhoods, only sixty three percent of Brits did. Turns out the myth of Muslim non-integration is exactly that: a myth.

Again, the fear is of them suddenly gaining the numbers to be able to dictate policy and ultimately, infringe on rights.

op: 3
Media Image

We all know by now that you can’t trust the media. When they’re not busy hounding innocent people to suicide, they’re making up stories or just generally being Joysticks. But we still kind of expect their reports to have at least some basis in fact. So it may come as a shock to discover they objectively don’t.

According to a report commissioned for a UK government inquiry into press ethics, stories on British Muslims were “unsatisfactory… sloppy and sometimes stereotypical” and often “false and racist”. The study found nine out of ten stories mentioning Muslims were negative, while an overview of eight years’ worth of papers concluded two thirds of them reported Islam as a threat, with references to ‘radical Muslims’ outnumbering any other kind by seventeen to one. A further study from the University of Ottawa added that British news outlets go out of their way to associate Islam with terrorism. America fared little better, with bad and stereotypical coverage of terrorism being largely blamed for a rise on racist attacks against Sikhs.

This, at least, is a somewhat valid criticism. Also, obviously, they're not all bad. But do note, these 'moderates' seem to conveniently not like making their voices heard. (Until they do that, they don't deserve to be taken seriously, but that's another issue)

op: 2
Anti-Semitism

One of the most damaging beliefs about Islam is that it’s inherently anti-Semitic. Do a random sample of a group of Iranians or Palestinians and you’ll almost certainly find an undercurrent of racism so thick it has to be measured in Mel Gibsons. But, equally, guess what you’ll find if you do a survey of the Israeli army? That’s right: Muslims.

According to this BBC report, there are thousands of Muslims who serve in the IDF—literally giving their lives for the Jewish State. And it’s not something forced on them either: Israeli Muslims aren’t required to do military service. Some do it to get access to benefits, some to improve their employment prospects, and some— like this guy—simply do it for a love of Israel. Because the Koran includes the story of Moses, Islamic scholars since the ninth century have argued that God gave Israel to the Jewish people, a bit of history we missed here in the West. Even in the present a minority of Muslims still identify as Zionists. Since this includes the former president of Indonesia, whose voting public consists of around 200 million Muslims, anti-Semitism is apparently nowhere near as rife as we think.

Yes, two wrongs make a right, excellent. And you have noticed the fair amount of criticism Israel garners as well, yes?

op: 1
Terrorism

A 2006 study found people in Nigeria were more supportive of terrorism than anywhere else in the world. shocked Want to guess who ranked second? Iraqis? Saudis? Maybe Pakistanis?

Nope, it was Americans. When asked whether “bombings and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” were ever justifiable, only forty six percent of US residents said no. To put that in perspective, eighty six percent of Pakistani’s responded that hurting civilians was “never justifiable”. Even weirder, of the remaining Pakistani’s who did support terrorism; seventy nine percent of them also supported American humanitarian intervention. While it seems counterintuitive at first, you gotta remember that most terrorist attacks take place in Muslim countries and kill mostly Muslims. When researchers crunched the figures for 2006-08, they found non-Westerners were thirty eight times more likely to be killed in a terrorist attack than Westerners. When active combat zones were removed from the statistics, the share of non-Westerns killed by Al-Qaida was ninety-nine percent. That’s not a typo—all but a handful of people blown up by Bin Laden’s goons last decade were Muslims themselves. So while, yes, there are Muslims who think being a terrorist is a noble goal, they’re vastly outnumbered by those who think being a terrorist is kind of a dickish thing to do.

So, they're against terrorism because they are victims? They had to bomb themselves before they could figure out it was somehow wrong? This author is a joke, how does this help the muslim's plight?

Anyways, like he notes here, regardless of people's opinions or what they may actually say to your face, they happen to be the ones who actually perpetuate most acts of terrorism. That's why they are (apparently) against it even. And this is why they have the reputation they have.

This is not to say the west is sinless, mind you. But again, two wrongs....

Chris†Kid:
^ Pastor troll you have anything reasonable to add to the topic?

Though I agree the article flimsy with him probably for different reasons, be fair, it's poorly written and lenghty therefore it's trollish. Only one or two valid points in there. I might not be able to go through them all, time.

10)

Sharia Law

As a legal system, Sharia Law is the very definition of ‘insanity’. Instead of things like fines or imprisonment, it advocates whipping, amputations, blinding and the death penalty for crimes as dumb as wearing pants.[/b] And, according to our TV pundits, it’s as Islamic as flowing beards and going to Mecca.

Except of course it isn’t. Out of the fifty or so majority-Muslim countries, guess how many implement full Sharia? Ten. But they’re probably the big ones, right? Nope—only Pakistan has both Sharia Law and a population of over 100 million. Four of the five most populous Muslim nations on Earth (Indonesia, India, Bangladeshand Egypt) either use a watered-down version or don’t use Sharia atall. Globally, more than 50 percent of Muslim-majority legal systems have no basis in Sharia whatsoever. Oh, and those rumors about Sharia Law being forced on Western cities? Well, a 2009 Britishpoll found 79 percent of Muslims thought Christianity should dictate UK law . That’s a higher percentage than Christians themselves.

And why is religion even a factor when making laws in a secular society? Watered down shariah? Why is shariah even being mentioned? How is it a good thing that muslims support a marriage of church and state even more so than xtians?

Marriage of church and state is the problem. This point could bear (very little) weight only if all the people complaining were xtians with an agenda to mix church and state, and they're not.

Two wrongs don't make a right as well, something we'll encounter time and again with these 'points'

9)
Honor Killings

Make no mistake, honor killings area real problem. Because some idiots have a warped sense of priority, anywhere between five thousand and twenty thousand women are killed each year by relatives. But, despite what you hear, the problem is far from an Islamic one. In Turkey and Pakistan , cases of Christian honor killings are frequently reported, while India has seen a stratospheric rise among the Hindu population. According to some women’s rights groups, Jordan’s Christian community is even responsible for more killings per capita than the Muslim majority. Yet the perceptionstill somehow remains that this is something only Muslims do, despite there being no mention of honor killings in either the Koran or Hadith.

And the fear is of this people bringing their culture along with them, not just religion. Xtians bringing such a culture would rightly be condemned as well, no?

The above alone is enough, but there's the issue of cherry picking which cultural bits are islamic and which ones are not. Like noted, islam is a complete 'way of life', even bringing along with it a legal code; shariah. Now, the koran/hadiths surely couldn't cover all legal conditions, can they? (Especially as they were made 1400 years ago, no?) So, where do they look to then when the lines are blurry and there's no clear cut solution in core islamic text? That's right, the culture.

We now have people marrying 13 year olds, some say it's islamic, others no. We ourselves have tossed various bits of our own culture to slavishly subscribe to our arabic slave master's ones. I don't think the west is foolish enough to let that happen to themselves, especially of ones as egregious as honor killings, they want to be/were/are slave masters themselves.

8.)
Population

To be fair, not everyone voicing concerns about Islam is expecting violent takeover and Sharia Law. Some are simply worried about thelevel of immigration, which would be fair enough if it weren’t so unbelievably tiny. Thanks to historic links with Morocco and Algeria, France is likely the country with the biggest Muslim population in Western Europe. Know the percentage of French citizens who identify as Muslim? Seven. That’s less than the number of Americans who think they’ve seen a flying saucer . Even our most pessimistic estimates put the likely number of European Muslims by 2030 at eightpercent of the population—and even then only if you include the Balkan states that already have Islamic majorities. For comparison, the populations of traditionally-Islamic Egypt, Syria and Indonesia are all over ten percent Christian.

Yes, they are afraid of it going from unbelievably thin to unbelievably fat. With good reason, seeing as how shariah robs one of rights, mixes church and state, etc. Or that various bits of their cultures are questionable. etc.

7)
Intolerance
Thanks to its association with Sharia Law, Islam is seen by most as a pretty intolerant religion. I mean, the Koran hates gay people and advocates persecuting Christians. Who’d want to be a minority in a Muslim country?

Well, it depends on the country. See, despite its track record of homophobia, the Iranian government—for example—not only recognizes transsexuals, it facilitates more sex-change operations than any other country bar Thailand. Post-op trans-people are given all the rights of their new gender and even allowed to marry, making Iran more progressive with trans-rights than Illinois, Texas or Ohio. As for religious persecution, it’s true that passages of the Koran are pretty anti-Christian—just as other passages warn against forcibly converting people. Like the Bible, it’s down to interpretation—which is why you get stories like that of the militia-targeted Iraqi Christian who was saved by his Muslim neighbors. And while we’re on the subject of acceptance, Indonesia is home to one of the world’s biggest gay pride events and Turkey is taking steps toward legally recognizing gay couples. Basically, assuming all Muslims are intolerant based on literal readings of the Koran is like claiming all Christians stone their neighbors for picking up sticks on Saturday.

Depends on the country? What is shariah's general stance on homosexuality? What of kaffirs?

Has Iran hanged people for the so terrible crime of being gay in recent times or not? Again, why is this even an issue in which religion has a say?

Two wrongs, again, don't make a right.

Those are not babies, not until when they're at least capable of feeling, let alone surviving on their own without the mothers lifeline. Not until they are fully formed.

Do show how they have consciousness.

But most importantly, it's not your body. Frankly, not your business as well.

Mr anony: No it is not. It is only your subjective opinion.

Your own logic condemns you my friend

So long as you cannot even put a dent on anything I (and others) have already pointed out, this post remains as valid as my harem. For the nth time, do show this objective morality, even conceptually, and how it has any basis in reality

Things aren't true just because they give you a warm, fuzzy feeling. In bohr's words, 'stop telling god what to do'.

Mr anony: Permit me to not follow through on this as I am convinced it will lead us on an unnecessary tangent. I don't see any sense in a subjective morality as it leaves us with no direction where there is no such thing as good and evil. I'll talk about objective morality at length sometime however this is not that time.

Cool. But note, this isn't about what you think is sensible or whatever comforts you, it's about what objectively is. And this is an objective truth; morality is subjective.

nnofaith: what point is allah trying to make by creating jews and sending an arabic phrophet to behead them?

nnofaith: you guys should stop yabbing the "the people of the cave" na.

Why?

Mr anony: Perhaps the word I should have used was "chaotic" instead of "unintelligible".

When we say something is nuanced, we mean that there is an actual right and wrong existing objectively and if only we had enough information and could weigh everyone's purposes and intentions, we would know the truth about who is really right and who is really wrong.

Unintelligible/chaotic on the other hand is what you get if everyone's purposes and intentions were equally valid. in which case the truth of the situation will be impossible to find as everyone will be both actually right and actually wrong at the same time. This creates a situation of meaninglessness and utter chaos.

Look around you, this is how the world operates. We manage fine.

There is no magical/hypothetical formula that can determine if an action is ultimately good or bad, non. It is more complicated, or nuanced, than that.

And note the importance of free will and uncertainty, as I mentioned earlier. But even in a deterministic universe, the above still holds.

Mr anony: There is no difference.

There is a clear difference.

Mr anony: Justice for instance is always good everywhere.

But what is good isn't universal.

Mr anony: I hope you noticed that your dictionary definition that "good is that which is morally right" is basically a tautology. I reject your idea of good define merely as your desire because there are such things as good desires and evil desires. . . .That something is desired doesn't automatically make it a good desire.

And you ignore that what "is morally right" is completely subjective.

There are no universal good desires and bad desires. They are "x's", variables, for everyone to come fill as they see fit. And these variable do not even necessarily lead to similar conclusions per say, let alone the same conclusions. Think of it as similar to chaos theory, small variations can lead to astoundingly different results. This is why so many groups are hawkish about advocating whatever morals they espouse.

You could say it is about your values, what do you value most? Values are completely subjective, no universal values anywhere.

Do show me this universally good desire. Again, note how this thread shows that even death cannot be universally good/bad. A naive mind might have thought otherwise, no?

Mr anony: I'll treat relativist situations like these at some point in another thread. For now, I'm focussing on the issue of death.

Which is fine, but like I say, the situation is more complex. Good and bad are based around morality, morality is subjective, emotions are subjective, etc. So while we may search for a compromise, the situations is actually more nuanced. Nothing you do here would be final, at all. It may suit your purposes but it will NOT be objectively true.

Only constants are, again, that morality would exist, good and bad placeholders will exist, etc, but they will be completely variable, subject to individual desires, needs emotional or otherwise, etc, and thereby, subjective.

Mr anony: even the idea of rights itself presupposes an objective morality

They presuppose a MORALITY, not an objective one.

Mr anony: Same applies to everything else that can be apprehended by consciousness, it doesn't therefore mean that they don't exist objectively.

Again, do please show me this universal 'good' which does not hinge on personal and/or emotional needs.

Mr anony: Why then should it be binding on anyone if it was arbitarily defined?

Because it's in our best interest. Out of chaos we need to define order. Simple. It's not absolutely necessary to consciously define one, but for most of us it surely is very desirable. Note again, a moral code must exist so long as two different (competing/interacting) wills exist, even if the do not realize it, it's an unavoidable effect.

Mr anony: And what does that leave us with if not chaos since they are not bound by any objective moral law?

Bound by a moral law, but not objective.

Needless to say, handle your death thread as you wish, but like I've said, your assumptions are clearly flawed so your conclusions would probably be so as well. With the nature of the subject, death, most (and ultimately everything, save bare bones "there is good and bad" ) of what you conclude here will not be objective.

edits

Area_boy: You see the problem here? you do not understand evolution but still you want to have a say on it?

why would he bother to respond?

Actually, I'm rather surprised you were able to decipher that. Was that in english abeg?

double post

Mr anony: Nah, there is a difference between a nuanced and an unintelligible situation.

I'm confused as to what does this has to do with anything? What does unintelligible have to do with anything I've posted?

Mr anony: Nice try but not really I'm heading in another direction entirely. An objective moral law giver is a basic presupposition it requires no proof in just the same way in 2X2=4 the laws of mathemics are a basic presupposition. No one needs to validate mathematics before attempting multiplication. It requires no proof.
I've only decided to exclude God (in name) so that we don't get into an unnecessary distraction from those who like to deny the same logic they attempt to use.

Mathematics requires no proof? Not sure what you are on about. I can only translate that as you stating they are universal truths, yes? Objective, self-evident universal truths that cannot be altered, yes? Spot the difference with morality?

One is one everywhere, not so with what is good. You may or may not have noticed that you've spent a lot of this thread just trying to defy what is 'good'

Lets see [url=https://www.google.com.ng/search?num=30&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=Pzs&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=good+definition&oq=good+definition&gs_l=serp.3..0l10.5765.9833.0.10129.13.8.1.4.5.1.567.1913.4j3-2j1j1.8.0...0.0...1c.1.12.serp.ymIHYG1sRMc]googles[/url] definition of the word, even if not of what is good

good
/go͝od/
Adjective
To be desired or approved of.
Noun
That which is morally right; righteousness.
Adverb
Well: "my mother could never cook this good".

Let's see, how do we ascertain what is good?

-I desire all men (especially me) be granted harems by rights, mine should feature young jolie, young jenna jameson, what's that mexican godesses name (fantastic four), etc. I have 'good', honest reasons for this desire mind you, but I very highly doubt they share even a watered down monogamous version of this desire with me, yes?

-I recently met an old acquaintance who showed me a picture of his beautiful 1 year old baby girl. He then proudly declares he got married roughly a year ago, and his wife is 13. I can only hope he at least meant when he married her. Obviously what is morally right where he comes from won't sit well with most of the west.

Mr anony: I think you are very wrong here. At the core of morality is the principle of truth and justice and love and they are as universal as 2+2=4

The only constant is that morality exists so long as separate consciousnesses or wills, sentients etc exist. Truth (in this context), justice, love, etc, all subjective. We'd all define our terms, then negotiate.

Mr anony: without an objective moral standard, what is wrong with confrontation and wars? what are rights? None of these things can exist without objective morality. Objective morals are not made up, they are universal.

They very clearly are not.

I've already showed you how most of the world's societies goes about forging their code (I can only hope they respect individual rights). It is a subtle process, over simplifying will not do. It is not black or white.

So long as we're separate individuals with separate emotions, goals, etc, morality will exist, and it will be subjectively defined.

Mr anony: It appears you have now realized that for your argument to even begin to be coherent at all, you must presuppose objective morals. Now let's move on....

Which argument to hold? It isn't even that complex. Let me be clear just once more, we can define a moral code to follow, but it will be subjective.

Mr anony: I will concede that some rights have been infringed upon no doubt but I'll still argue that since a state of death is neither better nor worse than a state of living, no harm has been done to his family by killing them. Also by making him king against his will, I don't see any reason why the will of one should be any more important than the will of many. If it his legal duty to rule his people, I would think that the law of the land ought to take pre-emminence over and above his will.

And here we are defining, negotiating a code. You believe the consensus could take precedence, yes? If they collectively agree on that, for whatever reason, then they've described their 'good'. However, by the standards I proposed earlier, this is a blatant infringement of their rights, so it would not hold. The act would be clearly 'bad' by those terms, no?

edits; grammar corrected, I think

Mr anony: Without assuming an objective morality of sorts, I can't see how we can logically have a discussion over right and wrong at all. Even if we looked at the wills involved, we must have an objective way of determining which wills are doing the right thing and which are doing the wrong thing. If all morality is subject to individual will then all wills remain right in their own eyes and hence moral evaluation becomes impossible.

Which is why I say the situation isn't black or white, it's nuanced.

Mr anony: I've purposely decided not to presuppose God in this discussion

That's my point. After the furore we all can then conclude that we need a "moral law giver". I'll wait and see

Mr anony: Poor you.

Indeed. You've met your new foot soldiers about? Like emusan, profdada and onyfrank? They've got interesting ideas about concepts like SOFTWARE, SPIRIT and the water cycle. And your apprentice.. isn't as skilled as you are with the dark side. Frankly, I think you need an army of anony-clones (or better yet, davidylans) to turn the tide. Have you been amassing such a force perchance?

Mr anony: You see, the problem you have here is that without granting an objective standard for morality, we cannot honestly declare which case is better or worse for Mr X. It is not wrong to make him king even if his whole family dies as the price. Where he hates it, it is only his will ditto if he likes it. There's also the will of the people which is neither right or wrong. The water gets murkier and murkier.

Without an objective moral standard, it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion.

No such thing as an objective moral standard. Aliens cross the galaxy and meet us, I doubt they'd arrive with an objective moral code they just happened to have discovered, one we ourselves would have discovered as well. 1+1=2 everywhere, no such thing with morality. Different civilizations on this rock alone that never contacted one another all agreed on math, at best with moral codes perhaps we have the golden rule?

We can dress them up to make them look objective though. On this planet, we tend to focus on impinging on the rights of others as a starting point. Basically, how far can you go without infringing on your neighbors rights? This certainly leads to less confrontation. Less confrontation is beneficial to all, visit war zones to witness proof. From there, we more or else operate on consensus and other factors. Either ways, it's complicated.

So using the standard I describe here, which is perhaps similar to the one you've been using, all that I posted stands methinks. He and his family certainly had their rights infringed on, and they did not infringe on the rights of others to boot.

2nedo: Why did u edit my post?so when u realise ur theories are not tangible enough to convince me u help me conclude abi?O ti shii.Ape can look like human in structure but can never be a man.They are two different things

You opened this thread, not me. You are seeking to convince us people with actual brains, not the other way round. Yet I've addressed your points, yes? Have you addressed any of mine?

I've shown you why I think your reasoning is shallow and you have basically come back with "I am right BECAUSE I SAY SO!!". The, as is usual, pompous sense of entitlement of religious sheeple. It seems you think yourself the local beauty every villager in town wants to ban.g. If I were kind, I'd say you're more of local champion, mind you.

And if you're too dense to decipher what the edits imply, well. Then again...

2nedo: If the creationism is genuine.Why one mud?and how did mud come into existense?there are still many mud in the ground,the creationism suppose to continue all these craps are fiction

Fixed

2nedo: If this abiogenesis is true a least we must experience some in our time or is there explanation for the halt

You know for sure we don't?
You missed the low odds?

But more importantly, you realize that any other sort of nascent life that evolves via abiogenesis is going to end up in the tummies of the already myriad other established lifeforms? In other words, interference. It would require a lot of luck for any species to evolve via abiogenesis in this environment, as sophisticated competitors (already well hardened by natural selection) are very readily available.

And different conditions. Even if we did confirm it taking place recently, conditions then were different from now. What would work today would not necessarily have worked then, and what worked then would not necessarily work now, freely in nature ie. Conditions could possibly replicated in labs, and that's what most try to do.

In case it hasn't been mentioned before your assumption that morality is objective puts a wrench into the actual situation. It shouldn't be black or white.

Generally speaking though, even if you used something like humanism as objective morality, it would remain impossible to say all deaths are good or bad. On a case by case basis, it would depend on the 'wills' involved, their interpretations of laws (which allow for ambiguity), various criteria that cannot be controlled by any conscious agent, etc etc.

EDIT: After reading a bit of this.. well... This is about your case for objective morality..
heh heh
Yes, only GOD can decide if it's good or not!!! He needs to define us a PURPOSE!!!

At least you're creative. Insidious, but at least more challenging. Then again, considering your foot soldiers.. You should see what I've had to put up with.. It simply was not enough.. I've had to bash 'freethinking agnostics' to satisfy my blood lust..


EDIT 2; If someone made mr x a king in absentia, without his knowledge, he might later come about and be extremely grateful, indifferent, or downright displeased. Most would just assume he'd be over the moon with joy, but that's optimistic. What if he in no way wanted that responsibility, or had other dreams he can now no longer pursue, etc? Now, assuming becoming king brought untold riches but came at an ever steeper price, like say the life of your family (old skool maya-ish style), the situation becomes even murkier, no? Bringing someone into existence is always a gamble. This is, assuming free will or uncertainty.

Maybe another edit with time..

Mr anony: lolololol...how far?

I was fine, I was even almost having a good day, then you showed up. Why?

hisblud: stop being blinded by what is said on papers. SMH! Where do you think linda ikeja is posting from and where do you think am posting from? Stop been a blinded ignorant soul? Let me allow you to weigh this, before the incidence, boko haram attacked bama with sophisticated weapons, 55souls lost, fast forward to tuesday, 95souls lost with just matchete and knife and you call that peddling lies? Am sorry for you, your blindness is so pathetic. Why would you as a scientist seat behind your laptop to just believe what one side spews out by the media, come and do your verification as a scientist, or are you not one?

..

Mr anony: lol, I'm not so sure about that. from the comments on this thread, it seems you lot have entered into full time bullying mode. That's very low

I did notice a disturbance in the force. It seems the sith still live..

2nedo: If the evolution is genuine.Why one ape?and how did apes come into existense?there are still many apes in the bush,the evolution suppose to continue all these craps are fiction

If god created us from mud, why is there still mud?

frank3.16:
@boliano i think you owe weigraf an apology for seeing that he was on the right track yet u insult his intelligence

then u have to openly accept that u made a fool out of urself for opening this thread in the first pls.


personally i am a bit disappointing in you after reading thru all ur posts on this thread... it was uncalled for and u have no argument. i think it is better we think before opening new threads.

No, no, It's cool brah, thanks! Just some merry mischief making..

But oh yes, I would suggest he takes the bolded seriously, even if not just for us..

2nedo: If cars,houses,computers even cloths can have a maker then Human being can never be an accident as proclaimed by some groups. Like begets like,accident can only beget accidents,only the programmed can programme.There is surely a maker you may call HIM whatever name u like all i believe is HUMANS are too programmed to be an accident.I dont know about some animals who believe they evolved from apes.For me im specially and wonderfully made.So called atheist think now HABA!!!

The bold, humans, were 'programmed' by evolution, so your problem is with evolution, do you get it? Evolution explains the genesis of homo sapiens. Like you note, the theory is man evolved from apes, see?

Life as a whole is generated via abiogenesis. The universe by the BB + xx.x. All our unique traits and whatnot, our brains, hands etc that make us "specially and wonderfully made" humans, are explained via the processes of evolution, not say abiogenesis or BB.

2nedo: No no no u are missing the point,i'm talking about origin(the first man)not adapting to your enviroment and the changes thereof

Again, first man came about via evolution. He 'adapted' from an ancestor to eventually homo sapiens. Life as a whole on the other hand came about via abiogenesis.

Anyways, assuming your issue is with life as a whole, good, so you have no problems with evolution? You understand how evolution works, how it explains speciation, yes? Assuming you understand how evolution works, why do you have problems with abiogenesis?

Now note, I'm no biologist and there are many different theories out there, but from how I understand (which should be well known to anyone interested in the subject, except of course our foolish troll) most of the candidates are similar to evolution. They evolve with time. It is not an immediate process, the 'mud' doesn't just become alive. Chance combinations occur until eventually nature shapes a self replicating molecule, just as natural selection weeds out genetic mutations and produces more successful lifeforms. If you have no problem with natural selection, I can't see why you would have a problem with abiogenesis.

Now note, the chances of these combinations are likely extremely low, just as say the chances of jumping from single cell to multicell are low as well, but given that these combinations take place at any given time, simultaneously, trillions of times, and the availability of a few hundred million years, well, do the math. Despite all this though, they still remain unlikely, and thus we have explanations for things like shared ancestry and the apparent paucity (so far, and it's extremely early days) of other (especially intelligent) life in the cosmos.

Verify with a biologist or something, but I think that's the gist of it, obviously without any specifics.

Where we may have problems proper may be (especially) with the physical constants and some areas of the BB. Basically the genesis of the whole system itself, ie the universe. This is a beast of a fairly different nature though, as it's foundational. For instance, evolution and abiogenesis build on an environment engendered BB, while BB as far as we know is the base. We also simply do not have enough data (yet) to explain a few things.

Anyways, for humans and life, problems? No, not really. Natural explanations are available, even if details require some work.

bolaino: hmmmm, no wonder, I got that radical fundamentalist vibe from u, u were once a muslim, I'm sorry to hear that, it must have really been hard growing up, for u, I don't need your details mann, I was just trying to make a point, since u were the one who came out saying u were not scared and all, btw I'm too big for this ish, if I offended u in any way my apologies, let's just let this go, I've gat better tins to do dan fighting on a faceless forum.

I want you to admit to your rank stoopidity, not take (not so subtle) digs. You've made me very sad, but yes, I really should be doing other things.

Kudos

5cassava sticks: Olodo, did natural selection program the dna of the first living things?

Errm, yes, very likely something similar to natural selection programmed the first dna. That should be obvious, no?

Btw, from prophecy to advocate to anslkjfeulzad. What's the point of this id? This one is rather childish and moronic, and it achieves nothing of value. For instance, the eediot bolaino is probably taking a cue from you, 'criticizing' atheists with foolish logic. He now thinks himself some crusader I suppose.

When you start pulling your shenanigans, (the silly aim I think to make yourself seem superior to all parties, atheist, theist, etc, my good alfa) what do you gain? Your eediotic BB thread for instance, what was the purpose? Surely you can't be this bored?