When morons breed...

[Par]

So say clams and muscles have little that could be concidered a central nervious system and jellyfish have no brain.
No consciousness is not sentience but sapience, and then you are creating a catagory that few animals fit into.
You are not being all that clear as to what traits make something you are able to be cruel to.

I believe I am using the term “sentient” in a fairly standard way, but anyway, by it, I mean the subject of both senses and consciousness. I haven’t actually mentioned cruelty, but instead suffering. In order to be able to suffer, a being would need the biological apparatus necessary to feel pain (either physical or mental) or to experience fear, dread and so on.

With regards to clams, jellyfishes and suchlike, I’m not particularly familiar with their biology, but you’re very possibly correct that they’re either non-sentient or only very marginally sentient. Those animals ubiquitously farmed for meat, however, certainly possess the requisite apparatus.

 

[volatile]

What makes a living being suffiently aware of its enviroment to classify as something you can be cruel to?

Eh? That's a complete non-sequitor to my argument, and I duly note the lack of a substantive response to the pertinent and salient points.

Nevertheless, I'll take the bait. Like Par, I also don't mention cruelty, as, unlike some vegans, I don't think it's a clear-cut issue. For example, I don't think it's 100% morally unjustifiable to eat meat if there's no other alternative. if you're a subsistence farmer, for example. Killing animals for food is not automatically or inherently "cruel".

However, I do know that I wouldn't kick a dog for fun, because it demonstrably feels pain - and we have laws against animal cruelty for this reason. Therefore, if I can get my dietary requirements without causing pigs, cows, chickens and sheep similar pain, why should I? What good reason is there to eat meat?

 

[Darth Rotor]

This is a wonderful arugement as to why people who beat their kids to death also do not deserve punishment. They have the pain of losing their child as their punishment. So that no matter how you kill your children there should be no legal punishments for it.

Nope.

One is willful, the other is just plain stupid. A difference, which I am surprised you don't seem to get.

DR

 

[g4macdad]

Nope.

One is willful, the other is just plain stupid. A difference, which I am surprised you don't seem to get.

DR

Being an atheist and knowing you will never answer for any of your actions. Why would you care?

Animals are stupid ,and we are merely evolved animals. Where is the problem here?

 

[LostAngeles]

Being an atheist and knowing you will never answer for any of your actions. Why would you care?

Animals are stupid ,and we are merely evolved animals. Where is the problem here?

I'm an agnostic and I do answer for all of my actions in the here and now. I don't run about willy-nilly hurting folks just because I want to. I try to be a nice person and a good person because I believe it leads to a better world. If more folk tried to treat each other right and let people live their own life, I really think we might be in a better place.

Jesus suggested doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. I try to do unto others as I would have had them do unto me and as I would have them do unto me. He made a good suggestion. May not have divine, but his bits about love and tolerance are excellent.

Does this conflict with the idea of evolution? Not really. We're a social animal and as such, the concept of reciprocity is part of what holds us together. We act in certain ways and show kindness so that in the future, if we need help, those whom we have helped will help us.

If you're curious, I'd suggest reading Penn's submission to This I Believe.

Atheists and agnostics are not rewarded nor punished in the afterlife for our deeds. The rewards and punishments are meted out in life.

 

[g4macdad]

Jesus suggested doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. I try to do unto others as I would have had them do unto me and as I would have them do unto me. He made a good suggestion. May not have divine, but his bits about love and tolerance are excellent.

I think you will find that ALL of Jesus' suggestions are equally excellent.
That is one of the main reasons for people believing he is the saviour.

The hard one for non-believers is, "Love your enemies". This is the one that separates Christians from all other religions. Their are many "Christians" out there without enough faith to follow this. But I fail to see the point in one believing in the son of God, and dismissing his teachings as one sees fit.

People tend to judge Christianity on the worst examples of the followers. That is merely a convenience as I see it.

I could never judge parents harshly in the death of their own child. I believe the people who do, are worse off than the parents themselves.

And again I say, If these "morons" would not have bred, the baby would still not be alive.

 

[LostAngeles]

I think you will find that ALL of Jesus' suggestions are equally excellent.
That is one of the main reasons for people believing he is the saviour.

The hard one for non-believers is, "Love your enemies". This is the one that separates Christians from all other religions. Their are many "Christians" out there without enough faith to follow this. But I fail to see the point in one believing in the son of God, and dismissing his teachings as one sees fit.

People tend to judge Christianity on the worst examples of the followers. That is merely a convenience as I see it.

I could never judge parents harshly in the death of their own child. I believe the people who do, are worse off than the parents themselves.

Yeshua, the carpenter with nice ideas, may or may not have existed. Even if he did, he probably wasn't divine. Early Christianity was a doomsday cult.

A lot of prophets and holy men have extorted the virtues of love and kindness. Heck, even Jim Jones did it and we know how that turned out.

I don't judge Christianity. I judge people who are ********. The judgement is generally, "*******." Being a Christian or a Jew or Hindu or a Muslim or an atheist or a Zoroastrian or whatever does not preclude you from being an *******. I prefer to do my best to judge a person on their own merits.

These folks that we've been talking about here? They killed their kid. It may not have been as quick as Andrea Yates. The child may not have suffered numerous beatings before finally succumbing. None of that changes the fact that these people are responsible for the death of their child by their own inaction.

Starvation is not a pretty way to go. It is not peaceful. It is not merciful. It is a hideous death that these people condemned their child to.

Losing a child doesn't preclude one from being an ******* either, especially when the ******* is the one responsible for the child's death.

 

[g4macdad]

Yeshua, the carpenter with nice ideas, may or may not have existed. Even if he did, he probably wasn't divine. Early Christianity was a doomsday cult.

A lot of prophets and holy men have extorted the virtues of love and kindness. Heck, even Jim Jones did it and we know how that turned out.

I don't judge Christianity. I judge people who are ********. The judgement is generally, "*******." Being a Christian or a Jew or Hindu or a Muslim or an atheist or a Zoroastrian or whatever does not preclude you from being an *******. I prefer to do my best to judge a person on their own merits.

These folks that we've been talking about here? They killed their kid. It may not have been as quick as Andrea Yates. The child may not have suffered numerous beatings before finally succumbing. None of that changes the fact that these people are responsible for the death of their child by their own inaction.

Starvation is not a pretty way to go. It is not peaceful. It is not merciful. It is a hideous death that these people condemned their child to.

Losing a child doesn't preclude one from being an ******* either, especially when the ******* is the one responsible for the child's death.

So it is safe to say you believe in judgement, and hating your enemies. This I see as your main reason for rejecting Christ as King. All your other nonsense is just an excuse for you to have this right to judge and hate your enemies.

Things like these are easy for me to spiritually discern.

I will say it again, If you will answer for nothing you do here, there is no good reason for you to care If these people get punished or not.

You can foresee your own punishment and in my opinion this is your real motivation.

 

[LostAngeles]

So it is safe to say you believe in judgement, and hating your enemies. This I see as your main reason for rejecting Christ as King. All your other nonsense is just an excuse for you to have this right to judge and hate your enemies.

Things like these are easy for me to spiritually discern.

I will say it again, If you will answer for nothing you do here, there is no good reason for you to care If these people get punished or not.

You can foresee your own punishment and in my opinion this is your real motivation.

I never said I hated them. Just that I judged them to be ***holes.

You also seem to have ignored where I pointed out that I do answer for what I do here. If I hurt someone, I have to answer to them. I have to answer to having violated my own principles.

I don't care what happens after I die. I'm too busy with life to worry about such a thing. There're people and cats and things that I need to care for in the here and now.

 

[Darth Rotor]

we are merely

That is a key for me to dismiss an empty statement: reductionism does not become you.

DR

 

[g4macdad]

You also seem to have ignored where I pointed out that I do answer for what I do here. If I hurt someone, I have to answer to them.

This only applies to you and not these "morons"?

If it does, why the deep concern for punishment? And I doubt you call your mother an ***hole do you? This sounds like hate to me.

I don't intend to come across as an ***hole, But why do people not think these things through? Christian or not.

 

[LostAngeles]

This only applies to you and not these "morons"?

If it does, why the deep concern for punishment? And I doubt you call your mother an ***hole do you? This sounds like hate to me.

I don't intend to come across as an ***hole, But why do people not think these things through? Christian or not.

My error, I left out the law. The law tends to step in, in these cases, when the injured party is unable. That's why we have it.

And I do call my mom an ***hole. And she grins and says, "I know. And I raised you to be just like me!" Because we're teasing.

As to why people don't think these things through, if I knew I could fix the world in a single stroke. As it stands, I just have to do my best as best I can and hope that someday, enough people do the same to make a real change in this world.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I believe I am using the term “sentient” in a fairly standard way, but anyway, by it, I mean the subject of both senses and consciousness. I haven’t actually mentioned cruelty, but instead suffering. In order to be able to suffer, a being would need the biological apparatus necessary to feel pain (either physical or mental) or to experience fear, dread and so on.

With regards to clams, jellyfishes and suchlike, I’m not particularly familiar with their biology, but you’re very possibly correct that they’re either non-sentient or only very marginally sentient. Those animals ubiquitously farmed for meat, however, certainly possess the requisite apparatus.

Clams and muscles are farmed for meat. They are just not as easy to notice in many areas of the country. The point is that there are massive differences in the cognitive ability and sesory ability of various animals that are eaten by people. Lumping them all together is silly.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nope.

One is willful, the other is just plain stupid. A difference, which I am surprised you don't seem to get.

DR

So manslaughter should not be a crime as the person will have to live with the guilt of killing another human being throught their stupid actions?

There are laws that make it a crime to deny a child medical care if they die from it, so parents should be immune from legal consequences of killing their children by denying him medical care, because they want to pray over them?

Parents need to be responcible, and when they so totaly ignore that responcibility that the child dies they need accept legal responcibility for ending anothers life. That is called manslaughter.

 

[Lonewulf]

I could never judge parents harshly in the death of their own child. I believe the people who do, are worse off than the parents themselves.

Parents that kill their children should be prevented from harming anyone else.

And again I say, If these "morons" would not have bred, the baby would still not be alive.

The baby would also not have died a horrible, suffering death by starvation.

 

[Taffer]

Being an atheist and knowing you will never answer for any of your actions. Why would you care?

That is not what atheists believe.

Animals are stupid ,and we are merely evolved animals. Where is the problem here?

So your point is evolution is impossible because we are smart and animals are dumb?

 

[Lonewulf]

That is not what atheists believe.

So your point is evolution is impossible because we are smart and animals are dumb?

His point is that humans, in the "atheistic darwinism" view (I.E., evolution, that anyone with any sort of respectable degree accepts) are "nothing more than animals", and since there is no afterlife, there is no pragmatic reason to "do good", since we will not have to answer for our crimes. At least, that's what I'm getting out of it.

He doesn't mean by a human court of law, he means by religious court, with heaven above, hell below, and sometimes purgatory between.

As for "humans merely being animals", obviously, we can't be held for any of our actions for "just being animals". Or something. I dunno.

I find it curious that the only reason to "do good", in g4macdad's world, is out of fear of hell. He has to be convinced that he'll suffer for eternity in order to help an old lady. Intriguing.

 

[Taffer]

His point is that humans, in the "atheistic darwinism" view (I.E., evolution, that anyone with any sort of respectable degree accepts) are "nothing more than animals", and since there is no afterlife, there is no pragmatic reason to "do good", since we will not have to answer for our crimes. At least, that's what I'm getting out of it.

He doesn't mean by a human court of law, he means by religious court, with heaven above, hell below, and sometimes purgatory between.

Then his statement is meaningless. "If you don't believe in heaven, you won't get to go there"? Well, duh!

As for "humans merely being animals", obviously, we can't be held for any of our actions for "just being animals". Or something. I dunno.

I find it curious that the only reason to "do good", in g4macdad's world, is out of fear of hell. He has to be convinced that he'll suffer for eternity in order to help an old lady. Intriguing.

I'd like to hear his response to this as well.

 

[Lonewulf]

Then his statement is meaningless. "If you don't believe in heaven, you won't get to go there"? Well, duh!

Er... hold up.

More like:

"If you don't believe in heaven or hell, you have no reason to do good actions. As you will be rotting carcass without a soul, therefore, you have no reason to be moral or ethical."

The idea is that you need an afterlife to be ethical, in the pragmatic sense.

 

[Wheezebucket]

Glad they're in jail.