marriage and government

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

You lost me on this argument. The ancient Romans used to leave unwanted babies on the wall to die. Christians were known for rescuing them and raising them.

Are we supposed to model our culture after the ancient Romans - allow messed-up Moms to leave their unwanted children to die in some predeterminded location? I hope your answer is 'no'.

Again, you can justify any heinous act using this argument (if I understand what you're saying).
More...

Hmm this might be shocking but I feel there is nothing wrong with leaving unwanted babies to die. If that is what nature tells someone to do, it is something that nature has made a possibility and thus a valid option.

Imagine there would be no wars
Imagine there would be no poverty
Imagine there would be no AIDS
Imagine all babies were healthy and get nurtured well
Imagine old people were all taken care of very well and would live 100 years
Imagine there would be no genocide
Imagine there would be no natural disasters
Imagine there would be no murder
Imagine there would be no abortion

all the things listed above are nasty things huh? we dont like war, we fight against poverty, send money and help to poor and hungry people in africa, try to prevent AIDS from spreading, take in the unwanted babies, prevent mass destruction and genocide and tell the murderers: You are bad and go to jail.

soooo lets say help was perfect and no more diseases came up and we all were good friends and there would be no war.

the planet would be fucking overloaded with people!! As long as we create life (people fuck and have kids) we NEED to destroy life too, or, nature needs to. South Africa is pover and half of its inhabitants are AIDS infected. Everybody says: lets send food and help, I say: lets let it go for 10 years, the population will be a fifth of what is is now, people remaining are healthy and they all have enough food.

if people live 100 years but they get kids before they reach 30, the world fills up too much! Let nature rip through the world and dont stop the inevitable process of destruction which cannot exsist and exsists only because of the process of creation.

That is my view on things, I hope you understand my opinions on previously discussed items when you understand my point of view, and I am interested in what your idea about my worldview is.

cheers,

Tiki
 
Quote from tikipoki:

Hmm this might be shocking but I feel there is nothing wrong with leaving unwanted babies to die. If that is what nature tells someone to do, it is something that nature has made a possibility and thus a valid option.

.......

the planet would be fucking overloaded with people!! As long as we create life (people fuck and have kids) we NEED to destroy life too, or, nature needs to. South Africa is pover and half of its inhabitants are AIDS infected. Everybody says: lets send food and help, I say: lets let it go for 10 years, the population will be a fifth of what is is now, people remaining are healthy and they all have enough food.

.....

That is my view on things, I hope you understand my opinions on previously discussed items when you understand my point of view, and I am interested in what your idea about my worldview is.

cheers,

Tiki
More...

Your basic argument is, I think, that it is morally acceptable to "sacrifice the few for the good of the many" . What you've essentially done is turn the earth into the old lifeboat story, "There's four people on a boat. You have no food. You know you're all gonna die. Is it okay for three people to kill one and eat the other to survive?"

Here's my response:
1. The earth is not in a lifeboat situation. We're in a lifestyle situation. The earth could support a 100 billion people maybe a trillion. But we don't want our lifestyle to suffer.
2. If I was on the boat, I'd starve and die before I killed another human being.
3. If I justify murdering "the few for the needs of the many" - you can justify anything.

Because this line of thinking is widely accepted in humanist philosophy, it has become accepted through a significant percentage of western civilization. But does that make it right?

How would you feel if all your European neighbors came to Holland and said, "We're tired of killing babies to save the world's population. We've decided to murder everyone in Holland."

To me it is more than a little scary that you are willing to sacrifice someone else's life. Why not your own? You've at least had the chance to live 18 years.
 
Your world view is unnatural.

Quote from tikipoki:

Hmm this might be shocking but I feel there is nothing wrong with leaving unwanted babies to die. If that is what nature tells someone to do, it is something that nature has made a possibility and thus a valid option.

Imagine there would be no wars
Imagine there would be no poverty
Imagine there would be no AIDS
Imagine all babies were healthy and get nurtured well
Imagine old people were all taken care of very well and would live 100 years
Imagine there would be no genocide
Imagine there would be no natural disasters
Imagine there would be no murder
Imagine there would be no abortion

all the things listed above are nasty things huh? we dont like war, we fight against poverty, send money and help to poor and hungry people in africa, try to prevent AIDS from spreading, take in the unwanted babies, prevent mass destruction and genocide and tell the murderers: You are bad and go to jail.

soooo lets say help was perfect and no more diseases came up and we all were good friends and there would be no war.

the planet would be fucking overloaded with people!! As long as we create life (people fuck and have kids) we NEED to destroy life too, or, nature needs to. South Africa is pover and half of its inhabitants are AIDS infected. Everybody says: lets send food and help, I say: lets let it go for 10 years, the population will be a fifth of what is is now, people remaining are healthy and they all have enough food.

if people live 100 years but they get kids before they reach 30, the world fills up too much! Let nature rip through the world and dont stop the inevitable process of destruction which cannot exsist and exsists only because of the process of creation.

That is my view on things, I hope you understand my opinions on previously discussed items when you understand my point of view, and I am interested in what your idea about my worldview is.

cheers,

Tiki
More...
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Your basic argument is, I think, that it is morally acceptable to "sacrifice the few for the good of the many" . What you've essentially done is turn the earth into the old lifeboat story, "There's four people on a boat. You have no food. You know you're all gonna die. Is it okay for three people to kill one and eat the other to survive?"

Here's my response:
1. The earth is not in a lifeboat situation. We're in a lifestyle situation. The earth could support a 100 billion people maybe a trillion. But we don't want our lifestyle to suffer.
2. If I was on the boat, I'd starve and die before I killed another human being.
3. If I justify murdering "the few for the needs of the many" - you can justify anything.

Because this line of thinking is widely accepted in humanist philosophy, it has become accepted through a significant percentage of western civilization. But does that make it right?

How would you feel if all your European neighbors came to Holland and said, "We're tired of killing babies to save the world's population. We've decided to murder everyone in Holland."

To me it is more than a little scary that you are willing to sacrifice someone else's life. Why not your own? You've at least had the chance to live 18 years.
More...

I would sacrifice another man's life before my own because I have the urge to stay alive. I expect others to have this same urge and to sacrifice me before they sacrifice themselves. The trick is to be the one coming out of the situation alive.

The lifeboat analogy is interesting but it isnt even what I meant. If people are starving and suffering under terrible diseases, that means that they are not fit to survive in this world, at this time, under these circumstances, they practically arent any good to the survival of the human race. So instead of going "lets keep the weaks alive while we dont need them", I say "lets let nature run and do how it guides us". That may be saving people, but it also may be dropping your baby in the river.

If I was on the boat i'd kill someone before starving to death, but you would probably end up killing all except one because the descision to make who will die will rip the group apart and set out 4 enemies that cant sleep before the other 3 are dead.

For point three i'd turn it around, it is not sacrificing few for the good of many, it is sacrificing many for the good of few that keeps the world going.

Last, IF people decided to clean out holland, I would feel fucked, and would either flee, join the killers, or fight, depending on how the survival chances of each of these options are.

Tiki
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

Your world view is unnatural.
More...

What is unnatural about it? That is doesnt match a fairytale world? Dont forget that man may be the dominant specie on the planet now, but there is NO right or even a Guarantee that we will stay that way. Dont be arrogant and dont give mankind so much credit to claim the earth of its own. We are a part of nature, nothing more, nothing less.

Tiki
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:



But, again, this shows the lack of moral backbone that extreme moral relativism has. Everything HAS to be okay and NO community standards can be tolerated.
More...

Yes, and the most intolerable person is one with standards
 
There is nothing arrogant about it.

Unlike animals, who are governed by instinct alone, it is natural for man to use his intelligence and emotional capacity not to act like an animal.

From all that I have read thus far, you live in primarily animal consciousness.


Quote from tikipoki:

What is unnatural about it? That is doesnt match a fairytale world? Dont forget that man may be the dominant specie on the planet now, but there is NO right or even a Guarantee that we will stay that way. Dont be arrogant and dont give mankind so much credit to claim the earth of its own. We are a part of nature, nothing more, nothing less.

Tiki
More...
 
Emotions are the messengers from your instict, dear ART. Further on to intelligence, are you driven by intelligence or are you driven by your urges and needs, and use your intelligence to accomplish them?

If only man could use his intelligence well, we all wouldnt buy so much crap, a lot of kids woudlnt be so fucking fat, etc. etc.

Yeah hooray for our advanced intelligence, lol!

For my animal consciousness, yeah, I have the urge to survive and procreate. For survival I came to the conclusion that a lot of money should be able to settle that, and for procreation I go out and pick up chicks.

simple hm? getting dough and chicks.. basically, what everyone does. this is my strife for happiness, and my criteria are (very primal, indeed) survival (money) and procreation (chicks).

lucky for us (NOT!) with our 'intelligence' man is sooo easy to fool and made to beleive shit, so some people beleive that feeding the poor is a road to happiness, so they do that. Some people beleive that keeping your car shiny is the road to happiness, so they do that. I beleive that eating steaks, sleeping warm, being safe and having sex are the points to happiness, so I do that.

Aside from that, being a creature that uses emotion and intelligence to go through life, we STILL are only a part of nature, and the only way to stay dominant on this planet is to keep the human race FIT, or at least the top part of it. It is arrogant to assume the earth ours.

Tiki
 
Quote from tikipoki:

What is unnatural about it? That is doesnt match a fairytale world? Dont forget that man may be the dominant specie on the planet now, but there is NO right or even a Guarantee that we will stay that way. Dont be arrogant and dont give mankind so much credit to claim the earth of its own. We are a part of nature, nothing more, nothing less.

Tiki
More...

Are you using Darwinism to justify taking the life of a small child?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top