You lost me this one. How is a doctor surgically removing and killing a small child "nature"? Maybe we're not even talking about the same thing...I don't know anymore...
marriage and government
- Thread starter Gordon Gekko
- Start date
You lost me this one. How is a doctor surgically removing and killing a small child "nature"? Maybe we're not even talking about the same thing...I don't know anymore...
Ideally it would be okay to murder anyone to strengthen your case. If it is a matter of capita reduction, then children would be an easy way to go. Again, it is not population control itself I am advocating, it is letting nature run what I advocate, and all the help and support to in this example countries where small kids are dying is going straight against that
I think you get my ideology by now, therefore I grant myself a good time out on the hunt for procreation partners, a good night to you!
Tiki
Don't quite get it...but have a good night.
Geezus, how quickly did this thread explode. Man, I hate having to read 30-pagers like that.
Tpoki, I was with you there for a while; you do make some soundly logical points.
I couldn't disagree more with the above, however. In fact, I have a hard time believing that you even feel this way yourself.
Still, let's assume you do hold this view, it's as Shoeshine has said: You (and others here) simply have a view of morality worlds away from my own. (And, make no mistake, the issues being discussed here are virtually entirely moral issues.)
I can't really see any way to avoid calling the above statement 'heartless'. I find it difficult too see how somebody holding such a belief could find anywhere to place 'value for human life' in their world view.
Also, I'm confused as to just how the 'laws of nature', as you call them, really apply here? What laws -- and I hope you don't just give me some vague "survival of the fittest" tripe -- are you referring to and how do they justify taking the life of anyone?
ps: you're Dutch huh? Is this what a generation of libertarian society has brought us? Gulp!
I hope sometime you'll let me know that you were just joking and that you weren't serious and were just trying to rile a theist on the other side of the planet!
Well, aren't people's feelings that such wanton killing is wrong also 'natural'?
Wouldn't 'nature running its course' then mean that humans who feel the same way -- which is the vast majority of mankind -- band together and formulate laws and standards to prevent such killing?
If not, why not?
Also, by "I disagree with me dying", did you mean that you 'wouldn't like' to die? Or that you dying is 'wrong'?
If the latter, if you dying is 'wrong', then how is anyone else dying 'right'?
And if I were to then view your further existance as a threat to me and to the world at large, would I be 'right', or 'justified', as you seem to like to put it, in killing you?
It is not heartless, it is pure animalistic.
We wouldn't expect a savage wild beast to have compassion, to have a heart as wild undomesticated animals function on pure instinct for survival, not reason.
Tiki apparently has nothing going on beyond animal instinct either.
Those who exist in pure animal consciousness, pure hedonistic consciousness, pure survival consciousness, and 100% self centeredness know nothing of the joys of freely giving, freely sharing, nor compassion or other virtues of the heart.
Since people like this lack these experiences, and are unwilling to take the necessary steps to experience them, how can an argument be made that they are wrong, that they are missing out on the higher pleasures of genuine humanity?
Simple, and Immanuel Kant has done so brilliantly without the need for a moral authority apart from one's own developed sense of reason.
We wouldn't expect a savage wild beast to have compassion, to have a heart as wild undomesticated animals function on pure instinct for survival, not reason.
Tiki apparently has nothing going on beyond animal instinct either.
Those who exist in pure animal consciousness, pure hedonistic consciousness, pure survival consciousness, and 100% self centeredness know nothing of the joys of freely giving, freely sharing, nor compassion or other virtues of the heart.
Since people like this lack these experiences, and are unwilling to take the necessary steps to experience them, how can an argument be made that they are wrong, that they are missing out on the higher pleasures of genuine humanity?
Simple, and Immanuel Kant has done so brilliantly without the need for a moral authority apart from one's own developed sense of reason.
Quote from alfonso:
Geezus, how quickly did this thread explode. Man, I hate having to read 30-pagers like that.
Tpoki, I was with you there for a while; you do make some soundly logical points.
I couldn't disagree more with the above, however. In fact, I have a hard time believing that you even feel this way yourself.
Still, let's assume you do hold this view, it's as Shoeshine has said: You (and others here) simply have a view of morality worlds away from my own. (And, make no mistake, the issues being discussed here are virtually entirely moral issues.)
I can't really see any way to avoid calling the above statement 'heartless'. I find it difficult too see how somebody holding such a belief could find anywhere to place 'value for human life' in their world view.
Also, I'm confused as to just how the 'laws of nature', as you call them, really apply here? What laws -- and I hope you don't just give me some vague "survival of the fittest" tripe -- are you referring to and how do they justify taking the life of anyone?
ps: you're Dutch huh? Is this what a generation of libertarian society has brought us? Gulp!
Quote from alfonso:
Geezus, how quickly did this thread explode. Man, I hate having to read 30-pagers like that.
Tpoki, I was with you there for a while; you do make some soundly logical points.
I couldn't disagree more with the above, however. In fact, I have a hard time believing that you even feel this way yourself.
Still, let's assume you do hold this view, it's as Shoeshine has said: You (and others here) simply have a view of morality worlds away from my own. (And, make no mistake, the issues being discussed here are virtually entirely moral issues.)
I can't really see any way to avoid calling the above statement 'heartless'. I find it difficult too see how somebody holding such a belief could find anywhere to place 'value for human life' in their world view.
Also, I'm confused as to just how the 'laws of nature', as you call them, really apply here? What laws -- and I hope you don't just give me some vague "survival of the fittest" tripe -- are you referring to and how do they justify taking the life of anyone?
ps: you're Dutch huh? Is this what a generation of libertarian society has brought us? Gulp!
Damn I cant resist!
First of all I want to thank you guys anyway for having this sharing of world views and ideologies, it is really interesting for me, now, on to the questions!
I agree, these are ALL moral issues, and the 'problem' that makes our views so radically different is that I think morals are bullshit.
The statement above IS very heartless, but so is nature, it doesnt care how you feel about it, it cares about who wins the ever-going race.
The laws of nature, I am sorry because this is going to sound vague but I will try to give it as clear as possible. The laws of nature are, to me, the way other animals go through their life.
Their #1 priority is to SURVIVE. no altruism at all ever seen with animals. If there is a threat to their survival, they will either RUN (like a mouse will run from a cat; it can impossibly beat it) or try to DESTROY it (like 2 snakes fighting).
Their #2 priority is to Procreate.. well thats simply that. we are more discussion the survival part here.
then, the most important of all. NO altruism. they will ONLY help another animal if it is in their direct interest (like a group of wolves have to stay strong, and if they dont help each other the group will be dead in no time).
Those are the laws I refer to.
And yes, im dutch, goedenavond!
Tiki
The problem is that the feeling that killing is wrong is not in your instincts, it is nurtured in by society. Yes a big group forming together to prevent such a thing is normal because together they can realize their cause more easily, but the cause in this case (we are talking about keeping weaks alive) is one that doesnt benefit the group in their survival task.
I disagree with ME dying because it runs straight against the number one rule of survival. Again, everyone for his own.
And last, if you would see me being alive as a direct threat to you, you could either make sure you never have to deal with me OR deal with the problem once and kill me, that would be totally logical, woudlnt it?
Tiki
ps. I hope you dont see me as a direct threat to your life
