insane
Members-
Posts
3510 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Everything posted by insane
-
Your argument would be sound if vegetarians were malnourished people, but they aren't. They are quite healthy. Right, but then according to such logic, beastility is on the same moral standards as eating meat. EXACTLY. That is Kant's point. It is inconsistent to believe that bestiality is immoral and not be a vegetarian. It sounds outlandish to you because it's contrary to what you've grown up believing, but it is logical. Both eating meat and bestiality harms an animal without their consent. Both provide pleasure and benefits to living but both are unnecessary acts. The difference between the two is that the animal can go on living after it is "bestialized".
-
Your argument would be sound if vegetarians were malnourished people, but they aren't. They are quite healthy.
-
I wasn't trying to crop out my name haha :) that was just a coincidence. You wouldn't have a link to that thread/picture would you? I think it was on the HYT topic in general discussion but it must've been cleaned off the topic a while ago :boohoo: so no...i don't know your name but i think it might be insane0 if i remember Insane o ;)
-
The embryo does not regard itself as an individual. That is the key difference between destroying it and MPC's idea of "stabbing your neighbor." What if the neighbour you are stabbing is unconscious and thus does not regard themself as an individual?
-
I'm not arguing a POV here, just dialoguing on some thoughts I had: We aren't just animals? Are we "super-animal"? We also take commitment and future consequences into account. Like having children in spite of contraception. At least I hope we would take that into account. Also, people have created other reasons to have sex, like torture and humiliation. Even if you are only having sex to have kids, the pleasure is unavoidable. Just like if you are only having sex for pleasure, the children are unavoidable. I'm not really concluding anything, just throwing some thoughts out there, that may or may not make any sense.
-
Did you NOT read the murder example? I know what you're probably going to say, but I have to say this anyway. There's a difference between having a homosexual urge and acting on it, and having a murder urge and acting on it (although I genuinely can't think of any reason why people would be born genetically pre-disposed to murder, I would imagine that's far more likely to be nurtured, as it were). Acting on one urge causes obvious harm (murder), but to act on a homosexual urge does not cause any harm. I know that they are roughly equated in Christianity through sin, but you can't equate them ethically. I wasn't dialoguing on the morality of acting on the urges. I was merely stating that acting on them was in fact, choice. I was just pointing out the difference between being disposed towards an action and actually acting.
-
Did you NOT read the murder example?
-
There's a difference between having an unchosen, natural inclination towards something and actually acting on it. At this point in my life, I have a natural inclination towards fornication with members of the opposite sex. Does that make me a bad person, sinful? No. Not even from a Christian point of view. This is just like homosexuality; they have natural inclinations towards fornication with members of the same sex, which isn't wrong from a Christian perspective. Just like someone who has a ridiculously short temper and is aggressive by nature has a natural inclination towards murder and revenge. Having these feelings by themselves is okay, we can't choose or change that. Acting on them is what, from a Christian perspective, is seen as wrong. Me acting on my natural inclinations is wrong, just like the others in the above list is seen as wrong. We all struggle with things, so I don't see why a homosexual having feelings towards what Christianity calls "wrong" is any worse than me having feelings towards something wrong; the only difference is that when I get married, I can legally (from a Christian perspective) act on them with my wife. But at the moment, I am no different than a homosexual, from a Christian perspective. I have natural inclinations towards sin; I just choose not to act on them.
-
Yeah, I believe in a soul. But I also believe it is non-physical.
-
Calling someone "close minded" is just an appeal to emotion. Calling someone close minded is a cheap, easy way to get ahead in an argument but when you look at it logically it actually has no power associated with it. It's just as powerful as calling someone brown haired and expecting it to actually provide some sort of argumentative advantage.
-
Yea, but I was responding to assassin's post where he said that suffering children were better off aborted. I thought you were defending that.
-
Go tell a suffering child that they would have been better off aborted, then. Less emotion. Developed children would obviously be upset if you did that but a conglomeration of undifferentiated cells will not. I'm sure if the conglomeration of undifferentiated cells knew what you were telling it, it would be pretty pissed off. The entire point I'm trying to make is that if assassin truly believes what he is saying then he won't care if the child is upset. Maybe I'll rephrase it. Do you think a suffering child wishes that they were aborted? Why not ask them?
-
Go tell a suffering child that they would have been better off aborted, then.
-
Don't even get me started on Nature Vs Nurture. It wouldn't be possible to change because you learn to identify with your same sex parent a year before you develop a conscience in your childhood. Therefore, if you fail to identify with your same sex parent and become gay, you are gay before you develop a conscience. Hence why many gays believe "they were born gay" They were gay before they developed the conscience to know so. No it is possible to become gender CONFUSED after the phallic stage of childhood development. Could you cite your sources? I cited wikipedia claiming that environment and culture play a part (in my last post). You have not cited anything. I understand you may be a psychology student but it by no means gives you the right to tell people that they are merely sexually "confused". Psychology is an extremely subjective science, if it is science at all, and cannot be applied objectively to every person. Until there is some sort of biological proof that people are born with an inherent sexuality, I won't be taking a psychologists view on this as objectively true. Is it possible for you to *prove* that they are merely "sexually confused"? Or is it just regurgitated Freudian theory? I'd rather argue with a biologist where things are factual in theory and practice. Psychology might be theoretically enticing but it is completely sporadic in practice.
-
If it's genetic then it would be impossible to change sexuality. If environment and culture factor into it then it would be possible to change. (yes warrior, I read your post, but it doesn't change the fact that it remains possible to change and that people have done it).
-
Wikipedia it, not all homosexuals are born that way, a lot of them develop through upbringing and psychological experiences. But there are theories that some people are simply born that way as well. Note environmental/cultural as a combining factor.
-
By the way, my post stands unquoted. Prove to me that animals should take priority over humans.
-
Animal activism is okay as long as it doesn't replace human activism. Why waste time and resources protesting the killing of animals when there are humans being killed, hungry to feed, poor to clothe, etc? Get your priorities straight, please.
-
You're missing the point. I'm not trying to draw similarities between the severity of the law broken; the point is, is that they are both laws, and breaking one law forfeits your so-called "freedoms", regardless of what law is being broken. Arguing that it is a dumb law, that's fine. Arguing that the cop was dumb for arresting them; that's illogical.
-
Since when does defiling a flag constitute as "speech". Your right to free speech ends when you use it to break another law. The person in question here broke a Law; in doing so they forfeit their right to free speech. Why do you think people can sue for libel and slander? Because free speech doesn't mean you can say and express whatever the hell you want; there are conditions attached. You are angry at a police officer for upholding a law; I don't see how you can expect the officer to uphold two contradictory laws (free speech and defiling a flag) simultaneously; it's impossible. It's freedom of expression, and their rights were violated. You don't understand; freedom of expression only holds as long as other laws aren't being broken. I can't say "oh, don't arrest me for murder officer, it's just how I express my views!", because I am breaking another law; do not murder. Just like you cannot say "don't arrest me for defiling a flag officer, it's just how I express my views!", because I am breaking another law.
-
Since when does defiling a flag constitute as "speech". Your right to free speech ends when you use it to break another law. The person in question here broke a Law; in doing so they forfeit their right to free speech. Why do you think people can sue for libel and slander? Because free speech doesn't mean you can say and express whatever the hell you want; there are conditions attached. You are angry at a police officer for upholding a law; I don't see how you can expect the officer to uphold two contradictory laws (free speech and defiling a flag) simultaneously; it's impossible.
-
Well, I think it is quite relevant. What's the point of giving a punishment that can't be enforced? If it isn't enforced, the man would practically escape without punishment. Lol yeah. Bit of a silly point there insane. He is being thrown into a sex offender's program. The restriction on talking to women is in addition to that. He is being punished. I wouldn't consider the restriction of talking to women a punishment since it can't be enforced very well but you are right about the program. Though, is just a program and some silly restriction that is hard to enforce enough? It's hard to judge, it's a fairly petty crime. Although the crime comes from a disgusting inner view of women, the outer actions weren't incredibly serious.