| » » » |
This thread is derived from "Your Political Profile". Consulting the mother-thread may be necessary to understand the subjects being discussed here. The reply below summarizes the matter at hand. |
Explain why it should. The default position is to allow things unless you can provide a detailed and specific reason why they shouldn't be allowed.
Nowadays's mentalities have made me stop trying to explain such things. They should be downright obvious, but yeah, if the argument is «it's allowed because there's no... apparent reason why it shouldn't be allowed», then anything goes.
I'm going to paraphrase Hakeem on this one: "Careful what you call obvious, you are in the presence of other people."
No murder is not arbitrary since it is directly counter-intuitive to survival among your peers and yourself.
They're questioning them. Clearly it's not an issue:
Because the same sick perverted human brain enacts the laws that doesn't condone sick perversions.
Having believed something in the past is not a justification to believe it. If you are going to assert that it is wrong then you have to provide a reason other than "it's obvious".
I can explain why they're considered wrong easily enough; the fundamental concept behind society is to improve the lives of the people within it, so society shuns things which involve harming another member for personal gain. Can you do the same for the subjects we're discussing?
No, anything does not go. "It's obvious" is a cop-out, not an explanation. It's interesting how easy it is to provoke peoples' cognitive defences in the face of having to question values they were raised upon.
See, now we're getting somewhere. If you decide that "animals should be treated as we would treat other humans (relative to their needs, anyhow)" then I can understand how you could derive "zoophilia is wrong", but that also comes with a host of other consequences (such as vegetarianism) that you have to be prepared to accept. Do you eat meat?
"God willed it" is not an answer. Destiny is also not an answer. Both of those are human constructs to get around having to answer difficult questions like these, because people don't like their beliefs to be challenged.
The majority of a population believing something has no bearing on its truth.
It doesn't? Looks like... well, a cop-out. There are no reasons not to do something, therefore that something should or can be done.
The eggs I eat come from a land my parents own, where obviously the conditions are at least a bit better, though I don't quite like how they are trapped anyway, no space ever seems large enough.
trolman said:
trolman said:
trolman said:
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of burden of proof. The default assumption is to make no assertions about something, and to deviate from that (to define it as wrong, in this case) the person who wishes to do so must provide the evidence. Proving a negative is often impossible and is pointless regardless. You might as well believe in unicorns and tell me that I'm copping out when I say it isn't my job to prove to you that they don't exist; the burden of proof would once again rest on you, not me.
And there is nothing rational about that. If you can accept that your beliefs are not based on logic then that's fine, but my entire goal here is to demonstrate to people like you and trolman that such things are far less straightforward than you'd like to think.
Hi Godwin.
Strangely enough, urbandictionary provides remarkably good definitions for many things.
It is also natural to do plenty of things that society considers wrong (the negatives associated with tribal behaviour, warfare, rape etc). "It's natural" is a terrible argument, especially to a nonreligious person who does not believe in any sort of determinism.
Plants and animals are quite different and can't really be equated. Animals have much more intelligence/nerves/etc. Agree or disagree with vegetarians, their decision to only eat non-meats is not arbitrary.
Do you agree with cannibalism? That's eating living things, which is necessary for survival.
Like saying it's okay because nobody's said it isn't. Or because of our life values therefore we're irrationally biased <.<
Neither is there anything rational about human dignity or even rights to some extent. Mainly the first because it's an abstract and relative thing. Of course that if you reply, in a question that invokes—and is almost entirely based on—feelings, you can lockdown anyone by saying «it's not logic».
Why does it matter whether most species are cannibals are not? Why is eating meat not completely useless animal abuse too?
How is accepting something until it's determined unacceptable not the default assumption? When you go to do anything do you first make sure that it was clarified somewhere that you are in fact allowed to do it? The entire principle of laws is built around the fact that you're allowed to do something unless it's specifically stated otherwise.
But you can't! For example, I demonstrated why murder, theft, rape etc are illegal in a very simple, logical manner. In addition, I recognize that not every cultural norm will be perfectly rational, but...
It may be superficially about zoophilia or necrophilia or one thing or another but what it's really about is peoples' approach towards the cultural norms of where they were born/raised. My goal is not for people to stop basing things on emotions (good luck with that), it's to have people recognize that morality is rarely as absolute as they'd like to think and many of their preconceived notions about what is right/obvious/etc are in fact rather arbitrary.
There, you said it! =P
No, I don't, but most of my (or anyone's) routine «anythings» are not in risk of being controversial or raise ethical problems. EDIT: However, there are a few situations in which something called a conscience will hold you back^^
I didn't keep up with your argument with trolman, but your logic doesn't have to go too far: it's written in a piece of paper that everyone has to obey to, As you wished to demonstrate. If you're referring to the part where society wants to make the lives of people better, well, what says that some people shouldn't be raped or robbed or murdered?-- The death penalty strikes again.
I'll restate it:
Sure, I don't mind going off on tangents if the topic is getting stiff and repetitive. So yeah, good call, I guess.
Bias is always a definite; if we can't debate under any circumstances where bias may occur we would experience a significant decline in debate and controversy. Quite simply since there can't be any opposing sides. Probably because that would be bias.
Everything we say runs the risk of being misconstrued. If it didn't, there probably wouldn't be any controversy.
I try to keep my tail of conscience between my legs. It usually gets in the way if I don't.
Law and constitution.
And if I may add: people don't usually have a problem with theft if it's government-mandated tax programs. Sure there's reciprocity but you can't be guaranteed to have your own interests supported if you're on the minority side and you can't choose not to contribute.
Aren't we appealing to majority here? Not to mention that even if zoophilia is strictly speaking a new concept for this someone I would still assume (s)he's been raised under circumstances that would tilt his/her views to non-favorable.
Aren't they two sides of the same coin? By imprisoning them you can uphold both interests. Quite frankly I think upholding both utilitarian and deontological interests is what society is for.
I think the justification usually rests on that an executioner is used as a tool of justice and is therefore not culpable.
I claim dogma and incite rebellion for the misunderstood.
Couldn't they both be stupid?
Fuck it Zombie, now you're just playing the straw man. I usually think you bring insightful enough ideas to the table but this is a pretty pissy take on anything anyone's brought up in this thread.
I like how you made an argument from emotion and tried to use it to show that we're stripping ourselves of rationality.
Well, the imprisonment part is a given; the question is how you treat them when they are imprisoned, their sentence lengths, and so forth.
What do we gain from **ing each other in the @@ with condoms?
I'm sure you did. When you petted that cute cottontail rabbit as a kid, that probably activated the same neural impulses that a couple of years later would've excited you in ways you wouldn't speak publicly of.
Why I know at least a dozen people who learnt to speak through imitation.
Cute, because here we're all coming up with theses and funny analogies, that you then subsequently reject with "NOT JUSTIFIABLE--" like the grand awesome judge supreme himself.
Then play the devil's advocate and see where you end up.
That's the most ass backwards shit I've seen anyone take in years.
That's not really what you're saying though. In subtext, you're saying: "If they cannot learn the difference between right and wrong they shouldn't exist; if they are willing to learn they are no longer retards."
And you do, have control over what you're doing? I mean, say, if you beat the crap out of someone who made you angry?
