YMMV wrote:
She is right about modern feminism and veganism being related. They are both mental illnesses.
I agree.
This is extremism for "equality".
She seems to want female cows and chickens to have "equal rights" with humans because she has "compassion" and "empathy" for other living beings.
Leftists believe "equality" is the answer for everything.
think it through more wrote:
Think it through wrote:
Can you see that believing in abstractions like morals, or chicken rights, or "rights" of any sort requires belief in something metaphysical? If not, the whole concept is absurd.
No, believing in morals does not require belief in a god. To think so is absurd.
Never mind gods. Morals are rules of behavior for people who don't behave well of their own accord. To think being one of those people is a virtue is absurd.
Bad Wigins wrote:
think it through more wrote:
No, believing in morals does not require belief in a god. To think so is absurd.
Never mind gods. Morals are rules of behavior for people who don't behave well of their own accord. To think being one of those people is a virtue is absurd.
Did you ever get any education in the humanities? Stop embarrassing yourself.
nknknk wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:
Morals are rules of behavior for people who don't behave well of their own accord. To think being one of those people is a virtue is absurd.
Did you ever get any education in the humanities? Stop embarrassing yourself.
Wigins is a bad dude. He's just using circular reasoning.
If "morals" are separate from "behave well", then what should the act of "behave well" itself be called? In modern English, people with common sense would call "behave well" the same as "morals".
Apparently he believes he is "virtuous" without any "morals".
facts and reason wrote:
nknknk wrote:
Did you ever get any education in the humanities? Stop embarrassing yourself.
Wigins is a bad dude. He's just using circular reasoning.
If "morals" are separate from "behave well", then what should the act of "behave well" itself be called? In modern English, people with common sense would call "behave well" the same as "morals".
Apparently he believes he is "virtuous" without any "morals".
Yup. Virtuous, morals... He's got no idea these words carry lots of complex meaning. Simpleton who has an access to the Internet.
Really? You post this crap...sheesh!
I don't think so... wrote:
Read Yuval Noah Harari's Sapiens and Homo Deus
The man is clearly an atheist and also became an ethical vegan after doing research for his books. I honestly think you would enjoy the books. They are very well written and search for truth and do not simply try to confirm pre conceived beliefs.
If we are all just a bag of rocks as you say, does that mean that your or my or any other people's suffering does not matter?
You don't have to be a vegan, but you do have to recognize that animals suffer in a way very similar to us. That is just a basic scientific fact. You are welcome to make your own value judgement after that.
Thank you kindly for the book recs--I will check them out.
"If we are all just a bag of rocks as you say, does that mean that your or my or any other people's suffering does not matter?"
Yes, that is what it means. Ultimately, our victories don't matter, our sufferings don't matter. Nothing matters, in the long run. The sufferings of animals, however similar to our own, also don't matter.
The end result of atheism must be depressing nihilism for anyone who thinks if through.
Being "nice" to each other (in whatever method is fashionable in the moral relativity of the day) in the time we have together might make us feel better, but is meaningless.
The final position is "yes, it's a cosmic joke, but let's not be jerks to each other."
Veganism is how the left eats itself..quite literally.
People who die in war and people in prison and people who are homeless are overwhelmingly male. We are the true victims here.
Harold Abrahams wrote:
1. The belief that animals may be deserving of our moral concern is strengthened by secular beliefs. Or at least, for example, by not believing in the Christian idea that human beings are special and distinct from other animals and that God gave us the right or duty to rule over them.
2. Science says that animals are very much like us in important moral ways, for example the ability to feel pain and pleasure, and that many mammals at least, have advanced social brains. Even the very classification of ourselves as distinct species is arbitrary, given that we are simply arrangements of molecules constantly in flux. Why should we give rights to a human child born blind, deaf, and dumb, and severely mentally handicapped, but not to a chimpanzee?
3. Secular morality might never be able to put ultimate values on concrete grounds (neither can religion - what difference does it make if 'God says such and such is wrong'? Where did he get his belief?). What moral reasoning can do is determine if beliefs are consistent with each other and ultimate values.
4. You make the mistake of thinking that because 'rights' and 'morality' are human ideas, that every moral belief, and every moral system, is as absurd as any other, and that the belief in 'animal rights' is as absurd as the 'belief in God'. There is no scientific evidence that God exists, so basing beliefs around what he supposedly said or thinks is clearly absurd. No secular thinker believes that animal rights is an intrinsic part of the universe, it's just that the construct of 'animal rights' fits in with our basic values of compassion and our scientific knowledge of animals and their similarities to us.
5. Whenever I read an argument like yours, I'd bett that the person making it must be a psychopath. If there is any ultimate moral ground we can begin from, it's the ability to feel compassion and sympathy for other minds and beings, giving one the ability to judge actions not from a purely psychopathic and selfish point of view.
6. "Because Christian morality leaves animals out of account, they are at once outlawed in philosophical morals; they are mere 'things,' mere means to any ends whatsoever. They can therefore be used for vivisection, hunting, coursing, bullfights, and horse racing, and can be whipped to death as they struggle along with heavy carts of stone. Shame on such a morality that is worthy of pariahs, and that fails to recognize the eternal essence that exists in every living thing, and shines forth with inscrutable significance from all eyes that see the sun!"
~ On the Basis of Morality (Schopenhauer)
Thank you for this thoughtful post, seriously. I have numbered your points so that I can reply.
1. Agreed, 100%. The concern over animal rights makes total sense in the secular viewpoint. As I replied to another poster, the thinking atheist must admit that AT BEST his moral conclusion is "yes, it's all a cosmic joke, but at least I won't be a jerk while I'm here." That can extend to animals if one is feeling generous.
2. Agreed, 100% that the "separation" of man only makes sense from non-atheist viewpoint.
3. I'd say the first sentence is a reach--IF one believes in a god and his word (I'm not saying I do) then his word is final. Where did he get his rules? He made the rules!
3a. "Ultimate values"--there are no ultimate values.
4. I disagree that the concept of"rights" are LESS absurd than the concept of "god". To paraphrase you, there is also no scientific evidence that right exist, so trying to argue over them is clearly absurd.
4a. "our basic values of compassion"--again, you keep coming back to "ultimate values " and "basic values." These don't exist. This is what I mean when I say atheists don't fully consider their own position. You can't have a cold, heartless,meaningless universe AND basic values--pick ONE.
5. Psychopathy--haha I agree that I am able to be especially dispassionate, but I find it's an advantage when thinking about things logically. It helps me avoid being an atheist while ALSO looking for "any ultimate moral ground we can begin from." There is no ultimate moral ground to be found.
6. With respect, you must recognize the irony of telling someone they haven't read enough philosophy, and then trot out the VIRULENT MISOGYNIST Schopenhauer, on a thread about women's issues no less! Haha!
Your boy Arthur:
"In the West, the woman, that is to say the “lady,” finds herself in a fausse position; for woman, rightly named by the ancients sexus sequior, is by no means fit to be the object of our honour and veneration, or to hold her head higher than man and to have the same rights as he. The consequences of this fausse position are sufficiently clear. Accordingly, it would be a very desirable thing if this Number Two of the human race in Europe were assigned her natural position, and the lady-grievance got rid of, which is not only ridiculed by the whole of Asia, but would have been equally ridiculed by Greece and Rome. The result of this would be that the condition of our social, civil, and political affairs would be incalculably improved. The Salic law would be unnecessary; it would be a superfluous truism. The European lady, strictly speaking, is a creature who should not exist at all; but there ought to be housekeepers, and young girls who hope to become such; and they should be brought up not to be arrogant, but to be domesticated and submissive. It is exactly because there are ladies in Europe that women of a lower standing, that is to say, the greater majority of the sex, are much more unhappy than they are in the East."
-OR-
"In our part of the world, where monogamy is in force, to marry means to halve one’s rights and to double one’s duties. When the laws granted woman the same rights as man, they should also have given her a masculine power of reason. On the contrary, just as the privileges and honours which the laws decree to women surpass what Nature has meted out to them, so is there a proportional decrease in the number of women who really share these privileges; therefore the remainder are deprived of their natural rights in so far as the others have been given more than Nature accords."
think it through more wrote:
Think it through wrote:
Did I say anything about religion?
Yes. You literally target "atheists" in your first sentence on this thread.
It does NOT follow that when one mentions atheists that one:
1. is "targeting" atheists
or
2. might not also be an atheist.
In the same way, I can criticize Americans while also being an American. Get it?
At NO point in any of my posts on this thread do I suggest that I am religious or that a religious perspective is correct.
I simply want atheists to see the absurdity of their position--arguing about rights and morals where there can be none.
facts and reason wrote:
Leftists believe "equality" is the answer for everything.
Thanks for supporting me!
Colin Sahlman runs 1:45 and Nico Young runs 1:47 in the 800m tonight at the Desert Heat Classic
Megan Keith (14:43) DESTROYS Parker Valby's 5000 PB in Shanghai
Molly Seidel Fails To Debut As An Ultra Runner After Running A Road Marathon The Week Before
Hallowed sub-16 barrier finally falls - 3 teams led by Villanova's 15:51.91 do it at Penn Relays!!!
Need female opinions: I’m dating a woman that is very sexual with me in public. Any tips/insight?
2024 Boston marathon - The first non-carbon assisted finisher ran..... 2:34