Obama '08?

@okie,

Quote:

Please explain that if humans are not innately superior to animals, then how come we should have more rights?

We have more rights than animals by reason of our power over them, not because of some impartial judge who granted us that power. Our 'rights' are based in practicality, not some sort of god-given largess.

Quote:

I killed some moquitos yesterday, and a wasp or two. Am I now a criminal?

I would point out that those are insects, not animals. And what more, there is no law against killing insects, so no, you are not a criminal. It's silly to try and apply legalistic terminology to this debate.

Quote:

If those creatures were just as important as humans, then does that mean that you could just as soon kill a human as a wasp?

If it were determined that creatures were as important as humans, then you might do just that. However, we as humans have determined they are not - an entirely self-serving proposition on our part, invented for our own benefit. In short, we dominate the animal kingdom b/c we can, not because we innately should.

Quote:

I think you need to re-examine the basic beliefs that you claim to have, and examine the logic of it, cyclops.

Why do you think I need to do that? None of the objections you raised apply to my basic beliefs at all, which is that humans are nothing more than highly evolved animals with an over-inflated sense of their own self-importance.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Please explain that if humans are not innately superior to animals, then how come we should have more rights?

We have more rights than animals by reason of our power over them, not because of some impartial judge who granted us that power. Our 'rights' are based in practicality, not some sort of god-given largess.Cycloptichorn

Very bad, cyclops, pathetic reasoning. Power does not make right. Using that analogy, Hitler was okay for murdering 6 million or more Jews. After all, he had power over them.

I believe in the Declaration of Independence, and other documents like the Gettysburg Address, our rights are endowed by God, that is very basic to my belief, and I thought almost every American's belief.

3 Replies

@okie,

then why the separation of church and state, okie?

your god is YOUR business, not mine...

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I thought almost every American's belief.

Apparently you didn't think very hard.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Please explain that if humans are not innately superior to animals, then how come we should have more rights?

We have more rights than animals by reason of our power over them, not because of some impartial judge who granted us that power. Our 'rights' are based in practicality, not some sort of god-given largess.Cycloptichorn

Very bad, cyclops, pathetic reasoning. Power does not make right.

I agree, but that is the situation in which we find our selves vis-a-vis the Animal kingdom. There is no impartial judge who has 'granted' us dominion over them.

Quote:

Using that analogy, Hitler was okay for murdering 6 million or more Jews. After all, he had power over them.

This is a poor analogy, and I would really recommend that you stay away from analogies in the future which include Hitler, as you've already proven yourself to be rather unreliable on that topic.

Nevertheless; we 'murder' animals by the billions every year, in order to feed ourselves. If cows or chickens had a say in the matter, they probably would find the comparison apt.

Quote:

I believe in the Declaration of Independence, and other documents like the Gettysburg Address, our rights are endowed by God, that is very basic to my belief, and I thought almost every American's belief.

The Gettysburg address is a speech given by a president, not a 'document.' And it's neither here nor there to me what anyone else believes; it matters nothing to me if you wish to base your beliefs in Mythology. It does not make you any more correct, from a logical standpoint, to do so; in fact, it makes your argument all the shakier.

At the end of the day, my point stands unchallenged: our dominion over animals is based in our complete power over them, not in some nebulous right to dominate them, granted by an invisible dude living in the sky.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

okie wrote:

, but I think you are kidding yourself if you think you come to any issue without any preconceived foundational tendencies, based upon your overall mindset or attitudes toward life and other people, and toward the world in general.

I would never make such a claim.

Then how come you don't want to own up to what you are at your core.

And what would that be? Coming to an issue with "preconceived foundational tendencies" based on my attitudes, my respect for other humans, or how I was raised does not make me anything but human. How I come to an issue and how I leave it are not necessarily the same.

Quote:

Do you believe in socialism, communism, capitalism, free markets, rights of individuals over government or vice versa, or what do you believe?

What does it mean to believe in these things? Is it like a belief in god, having faith? I've already given you my foundational belief with regard to government, if you want more, you'll need to be more specific.

Quote:

For example, health care, do you staunchly believe that government can and will manage health care better than individuals.

My answer to that is that it is not now a choice between individuals and the government, it is a choice between government and insurance companies, or some combination of the two. I could answer your question, but it has no bearing on reality and so would be futile.

Quote:

Just how much should government do for us, and why?

Depends on which government.

Quote:

I think the confusion over some of these issues comes from a lack of clarity about basic principles, or a failure to appropriately apply those principles or uphold those principles in a consistent fashion from issue to issue.

That may be the source of your confusion. When others don't approach a problem with the same ideology as you do, it must be confusing. After all, yours is unassailable and applies to every problem and every situation. It is the One True Ideology, so how could it ever be wrong?

0 Replies

@okie,

How do you feel about Social Security, WIC, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps?

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

then why the separation of church and state, okie?

your god is YOUR business, not mine...

I think you mis-understand what this means. Actually, without a moral basis for laws, we would have no laws, Rockhead, I don't know if you have ever thought about this in depth. For example, we believe that murder is wrong. Where did that belief come from? We also believe stealing is wrong, that we can own property and that it is wrong for others to take it from us. I hope you also realize that laws in Islamic countries are somewhat different from those that we have here. You can separate religious denominations from the State, but it is a reality that the State enforces a general moral code that has spiritual, religious, or moral code foundations. That is why some of us believe our laws have a Judeo-Christian origination for much of it.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

okie wrote:
I thought almost every American's belief.

Apparently you didn't think very hard.

I think also that the current cultural war here in this country is due to a moral crisis of foundational beliefs.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

okie wrote:
I thought almost every American's belief.

Apparently you didn't think very hard.

I think also that the current cultural war here in this country is due to a moral crisis of foundational beliefs.

I think that the major problem is that the myths your beliefs are based upon are contradictory in many cases and provide a poor logical formation for our society to base it's actions on.

It has only become allowable, socially, to critically examine this fact in the last 100-200 years or so, and we have seen humanity steadily move away from Mythology as a basis for our systems, and steadily towards Logic.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Please explain that if humans are not innately superior to animals, then how come we should have more rights?

We have more rights than animals by reason of our power over them, not because of some impartial judge who granted us that power. Our 'rights' are based in practicality, not some sort of god-given largess.Cycloptichorn

Very bad, cyclops, pathetic reasoning. Power does not make right.

I agree, but that is the situation in which we find our selves vis-a-vis the Animal kingdom. There is no impartial judge who has 'granted' us dominion over them.

There is the difference between your philosphy and that of other traditional Americans. Some basic things are taken on simple faith, that being that God created it all, and that God granted man dominion over the earth and the animal kingdom. I also think common sense would tell us the same thing.

Quote:

Quote:

Using that analogy, Hitler was okay for murdering 6 million or more Jews. After all, he had power over them.

This is a poor analogy, and I would really recommend that you stay away from analogies in the future which include Hitler, as you've already proven yourself to be rather unreliable on that topic.

Nevertheless; we 'murder' animals by the billions every year, in order to feed ourselves. If cows or chickens had a say in the matter, they probably would find the comparison apt.

It is not a poor analogy. It is an analogy that demonstrates the logical fallacy of your argument when considering the obvious effects and results of the principle you have stated. It shows how woefully wrong and morally decadent your principle actually is.

Quote:

Quote:
I believe in the Declaration of Independence, and other documents like the Gettysburg Address, our rights are endowed by God, that is very basic to my belief, and I thought almost every American's belief.

The Gettysburg address is a speech given by a president, not a 'document.' And it's neither here nor there to me what anyone else believes; it matters nothing to me if you wish to base your beliefs in Mythology. It does not make you any more correct, from a logical standpoint, to do so; in fact, it makes your argument all the shakier.

At the end of the day, my point stands unchallenged: our dominion over animals is based in our complete power over them, not in some nebulous right to dominate them, granted by an invisible dude living in the sky.

Cycloptichorn

Calling something mythology that believes in the sanctity of human life vs animal life, is really a sad viewpoint, cyclops. Whether you believe in anything or not, believing in nothing is also a belief, which is founded upon faith, faith in the idea that humans are worth no more than a wasp, a rat, a worm, or any other animal. You also are essentially saying that you place more faith in a man, a government, over the supreme creator, to act benevolently when given power. That mindset has contributed to the numerous violent and unfortunate episodes in human history, wherein somebody had the power and therefore thought they were going to be more fair than the Creator, the God of all mankind and the entire creation. That is precisely why I try to counter the likes of your side's argument here and try to bring some respect for human life and decency, to uphold principles that we all should hold dear, life, liberty, and the freedom to live without the brutal and murderous rule of despots that think they are God instead of the one we have faith in.

2 Replies

@okie,

"and the freedom to live without the brutal and murderous rule of despots that think they are God instead of the one we have faith in."

george w bush?

and what about hindus and buddhists okie?

(and god forbid Islamics)

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

okie wrote:
I thought almost every American's belief.

Apparently you didn't think very hard.

I think also that the current cultural war here in this country is due to a moral crisis of foundational beliefs.

I think that the major problem is that the myths your beliefs are based upon are contradictory in many cases and provide a poor logical formation for our society to base it's actions on.

It has only become allowable, socially, to critically examine this fact in the last 100-200 years or so, and we have seen humanity steadily move away from Mythology as a basis for our systems, and steadily towards Logic.

Cycloptichorn

On what principle or being then do you base your law of what is right or wrong? If it ends at us, at men, then who determines which one of us has the better moral principle? I would submit to you that it is up to each one of us then. And if I decide murder is okay, what right do you have to tell me that I am not correct? See how silly your argument is? If it all comes down to which one of us has more power to institute our code of behavior, then it isn't going to be pretty, cyclops, and actually that is why so much mayhem does happen, some people think they can create their own law and their own code of behavior, that there is no higher authority beyond them.

2 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

"and the freedom to live without the brutal and murderous rule of despots that think they are God instead of the one we have faith in."

george w bush?

and what about hindus and buddhists okie?

(and god forbid Islamics)

No problem as long as they believe in and abide by common decency and respect of human life, etc. Islamics, same thing, but radicals that advocate killing innocent people, then theres a problem. Are you saying you don't have a problem with that?

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Calling something mythology that believes in the sanctity of human life vs animal life, is really a sad viewpoint, cyclops.

I think not. Your religion is no different from any other form of Mythology, and serves the same purpose for you as it did for cavemen. It is not a rational basis for the formation of morality or logic.

Quote:

Whether you believe in anything or not, believing in nothing is also a belief, which is founded upon faith, faith in the idea that humans are worth no more than a wasp, a rat, a worm, or any other animal.

You need to learn to be objective, Okie. I am no Nihilist; I don't believe in 'nothing.' I believe in that which science and logic can show to be true under experimental test. From an objective viewpoint, humanity dominates other species in the same way that any predator does: we have the ability to do so, and we choose to do so. There is no innate moral right granting us the ability to do so.

Quote:

You also are essentially saying that you place more faith in a man, a government, over the supreme creator, to act benevolently when given power.

I can prove that Man and Government exist, at least to the level that anything can be proven. You have no ability to prove that some 'supreme creator' exists, whatsoever, or at least this has not been proven at all to date. Therefore it is entirely illogical to believe that one exists.

Quote:

That mindset has contributed to the numerous violent and unfortunate episodes in human history, wherein somebody had the power and therefore thought they were going to be more fair than the Creator, the God of all mankind and the entire creation.

How laughable. I guarantee you, that belief in a 'creator' and arguments over whose myths about them are the correct ones, has lead to far more deaths and violence than any belief in logic or reason. Far more. Religion has been the greatest source of conflict in mankind's history and is responsible for more deaths than any logically based cause.

Quote:

That is precisely why I try to counter the likes of your side's argument here and try to bring some respect for human life and decency, to uphold principles that we all should hold dear, life, liberty, and the freedom to live without the brutal and murderous rule of despots that think they are God instead of the one we have faith in.

I'm sure everyone likes to think of themselves as the 'good guy,' Okie.

It's difficult to have a nuanced philosophical argument, with someone who insists on making everything into a black-and-white issue, and who insists that morality stems from an invisible dude in the sky, and no other place.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

On what principle or being then do you base your law of what is right or wrong?

Practicality, and two questions:

Who is affected by an action?
Who benefits from an action?

If you can solve those two questions, you have the answer to pretty much every moral question you can think of.

Quote:

If it ends at us, at men, then who determines which one of us has the better moral principle? I would submit to you that it is up to each one of us then.

You are correct, a moral code is one's personal choice.

Quote:

And if I decide murder is okay, what right do you have to tell me that I am not correct?

Our society has made a practical determination that Murder doesn't adequately answer one of the two questions I listed above, so we disallow it. The Social Contract gives society the right to punish you for breaking laws; you agree to this by remaining a citizen. Religion comes into the question at no point.

Quote:

See how silly your argument is?

I see how silly YOUR argument is, perhaps you meant to write that.

Quote:

If it all comes down to which one of us has more power to institute our code of behavior, then it isn't going to be pretty, cyclops, and actually that is why so much mayhem does happen, some people think they can create their own law and their own code of behavior, that there is no higher authority beyond them.

I'm surprised; you think things would be pretty under a society which imposed morality based on religious beliefs?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

How do you feel about Social Security, WIC, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps?

I think people should be left alone by the government as much as possible, but we can have programs for the very poor and the people that are unable to provide for themselves. I would change the food stamp program and go back to prividing the staples with no junk food. I would probably eliminate Medicare over time, it would take a long time, and expand Medicaid for those people that are unable to buy their own insurance. Most older people already have to buy supplemental insurance to cover what Medicare does not cover anyway, and I think Medicare has only increased the inflationary spiral in medical care over the years. Now that we have SS, I would deliver what has been promised, but I would try to privatize more of it and also I would force government employees to pay into it as well. What is good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. Some of these programs are almost impossible to eliminate once started, but sadly they are severely costing the economy in serious ways, and we are only beginning to see the most serious effects from them. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

On what principle or being then do you base your law of what is right or wrong? If it ends at us, at men, then who determines which one of us has the better moral principle? I would submit to you that it is up to each one of us then. And if I decide murder is okay, what right do you have to tell me that I am not correct? See how silly your argument is? If it all comes down to which one of us has more power to institute our code of behavior, then it isn't going to be pretty, cyclops, and actually that is why so much mayhem does happen, some people think they can create their own law and their own code of behavior, that there is no higher authority beyond them.

It's interesting to see how you argue all in favour of individualism and individual freedom to make decisions when it comes to economic issues, but that you're willing to cede those individual liberties and decision-making rights to a higher authority when it comes to moral issues.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

On what principle or being then do you base your law of what is right or wrong?

Practicality, and two questions:

Who is affected by an action?
Who benefits from an action?

If you can solve those two questions, you have the answer to pretty much every moral question you can think of.Cycloptichorn

According to who? You? Just who do you trust for your moral code? Who decides the answers to your questions and who decides what are the correct or best answers?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How laughable. I guarantee you, that belief in a 'creator' and arguments over whose myths about them are the correct ones, has lead to far more deaths and violence than any belief in logic or reason. Far more. Religion has been the greatest source of conflict in mankind's history and is responsible for more deaths than any logically based cause.

Oh, really ? Do you have any proofs of this rather bland and sweeping assertion? Was the 100 years war between Britaion & France about religion? The Napoleonioc wars? The colonial wars between Britain & Spain? The Seven Years War? WWI & II ?? The revolutionary and civil wars associated with the stread and subsequent collapse of Marxism ? Going farther back the wars between Greece & Persia; the Peloponnesian War; the Punic Wars; the wars for the continued expansion of the Roman Empire and their wars with the Goths? One could go on. Human greed and lust for power and domination are the real underlying causes here, and they are not eliminated by government reforms.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's difficult to have a nuanced philosophical argument, with someone who insists on making everything into a black-and-white issue, and who insists that morality stems from an invisible dude in the sky, and no other place.
Cycloptichorn

Nuanced indeed ! An interesting comment from one who is so given to black and white distinctions; his own "invisible" sources of moral judgements; and (usually empty) authoritarian bullying in his rhetoric.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know