Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 78

Thread: If someone in your Family

  1. #51
    salmon bisque
    Saboteur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Seen
    02-20-13 @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,192

    Re: If someone in your Family

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    He did not get away with anything, he was challenged quite a few times.
    So then there is a double standard.
    “We must picture hell as a state where everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement, where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives with the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment.”
    ― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

  2. #52
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,368

    Re: If someone in your Family

    Quote Originally Posted by Saboteur View Post
    At least the victim has the opportunity to beg or bargan. I know that it wouldn't work and perhaps even highten the satifaction of the torturer but an animal can only scream.
    Seems to me that this makes it more cruel, not less. How is forcing someone to beg for their lives less cruel than making something scream (it's not like the human wouldn't scream as well, by the way)?

    Self-awareness is precisely the reason why torturing humans is far more cruel. No matter how much you dismiss the psychological aspects of torture, they exist. That's why it is used in those '24 scenarios'.

    Animals are not capable of understanding the true horror of psychological torture. Therefore, torturing an animal is less cruel because it only exists in teh realm of physical torture, not psychological torture.

    I realize we are talking about several different kinds of torture and as many mind sets that it would take for someone to commit the act. This is why I tried to avoid the '24 scenario' people have been throwing around lately in the OP. I figure if Ethreal can get away with the black and white hypothesis and explain it that way 4 pages later I can do it too. Or is that a double standard I can't bypass?
    But you haven't avoided the 24 scenario. You made it a perfectly reasonable response by having too vague of a hypothetical.

    Ethereal set up a very specific hypothetical with a very specific type of torture, that excluded all others. You have a more general one that is open to all interpretations of torture, including the "24 scenario".

    In fact, you expanded the scenarios to the point that it detracted form any "morality ground" point you could make.

    Comments like "Torturing animals is more cruel than torturing humans" completely erodes any moral credibility.

    It's like saying "eating animals is more cruel than eating humans". Clearly there is a moral divide that exists that places animals firmly, and undeniably, below the level of humans when it comes to morality questions.

    Including them in the hypothetical is akin to asking "Would you forgive your a family member or your dog if you learned that they viciously attacked a small child?" What purpose does it serve? It only detracts from the debate, and offers nothing improve it.

    Ethereal made no such mistakes in his hypothetical.

    So, although you may feel that you purposely avoided the 24 scenario, you in fact inadvertently made it the perfect response on why someone would not even feel it necessary to forgive the family member under certain conditions.

  3. #53
    salmon bisque
    Saboteur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Seen
    02-20-13 @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,192

    Re: If someone in your Family

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Why do you keep changing the goal posts? Fishing for an answer you want?

    PS The reason I ask is because his answer (at least to me) seems pretty obvious.
    Yes the answer is obvious and proves that torture isn't such a great way to get information that's all.
    “We must picture hell as a state where everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement, where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives with the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment.”
    ― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

  4. #54
    salmon bisque
    Saboteur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Seen
    02-20-13 @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,192

    Re: If someone in your Family

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Seems to me that this makes it more cruel, not less. How is forcing someone to beg for their lives less cruel than making something scream (it's not like the human wouldn't scream as well, by the way)?
    Okay good point, however since animals are less than human there is a certain amount of innocence that humans don't have. Not one single person has never done anything wrong. Unless you're one of those people that believe it's only wrong if you get caught doing it.

    Self-awareness is precisely the reason why torturing humans is far more cruel. No matter how much you dismiss the psychological aspects of torture, they exist. That's why it is used in those '24 scenarios'.
    Self awarness is actuated by the sensation of pain or pleasure. Self awarness defined by thought is something different.

    Animals are not capable of understanding the true horror of psychological torture. Therefore, torturing an animal is less cruel because it only exists in teh realm of physical torture, not psychological torture.
    But they can be affected by it just the same. Though they don't understand it their behavior will be changed to the effect that their drive for self presevation will be increased to the point of becomeing combative.

    But you haven't avoided the 24 scenario. You made it a perfectly reasonable response by having too vague of a hypothetical.
    Well I thought it was a simple question. I didn't bring any scenario into it because justification of the act is not part of wheather or not one would truely forgive a family member and not think of them differently because of what they told you they did or why.

    Ethereal set up a very specific hypothetical with a very specific type of torture, that excluded all others. You have a more general one that is open to all interpretations of torture, including the "24 scenario".
    Ethreal's scenario was totally based in hyperbolie in an attempt to force a 'yes' answer out of those that would otherwise argue against torture. Which would then in turn, make all those arguments null and void. He's not as clever as he or you may think.

    In fact, you expanded the scenarios to the point that it detracted form any "morality ground" point you could make.
    I did not, I've defended my position, it's everyone else that wants a scenario other than 'a family member admits to you that they tortured a person or animal'. But the reason why said family member did it doesn't matter in this debate. The debate is would you forgive them? Perhaps the question should be, would you think of them in the same way? Or are they the person you thought they were?

    Comments like "Torturing animals is more cruel than torturing humans" completely erodes any moral credibility.
    Really? As humans we posses the power of intellect. It is therefore our obligation to be the stewards of this world and all the life in it. It is not ours to plunder. And if you want to suggest that humans are benevolent then my argument is all the more valid.

    It's like saying "eating animals is more cruel than eating humans". Clearly there is a moral divide that exists that places animals firmly, and undeniably, below the level of humans when it comes to morality questions.
    I disagree because if a person harms an animal in an inhumane way evidence shows that that person is likely to do the same to a human being;

    http://www.animalsandsociety.org/ass...y/397_s725.pdf

    Animal Abuse in Childhood and Later Support for Interpersonal Violence in Families

    A survey of university students tested whether committing animal abuse during childhood was related to approval of interpersonal violence against children and women in families. Respondents who had abused an animal as children or adolescents were significantly more likely to support corporal punishment, even after controlling for frequency of childhood spanking, race, biblical literalism, and gender. Those who had perpetrated animal abuse were also more likely to approve of a husband slapping his wife. Engaging in childhood violence against less powerful beings, animals, may generalize to the acceptance of violence against less powerful members of families and society, women and children.


    Books on Domestic Violence

    Animal Abuse/Cruelty and the Link to Domestic Violence

    Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence: Readings in Research and Application

    Edited by Randall Lockwood and Frank Ascione, Purdue University Press

    Cruelty to animals is often a sign of a future of destructive interpersonal relationships. Research on this topic is providing new insights into the nature of violence. This book provides students, scholars, professions, and interested lay readers a comprehensive source to gain a complete picture of the varied issues and their implications.


    Including them in the hypothetical is akin to asking "Would you forgive your a family member or your dog if you learned that they viciously attacked a small child?" What purpose does it serve? It only detracts from the debate, and offers nothing improve it.
    Your dog in not a family member? So if you came home one day to find your dog had all it's legs broken, it's eyes poked out and was slit open from throat to groin with it's organs all over your living room you'd just want the police to find the person who did it so they could monitarily reimburse you for the dog and the blood stain clean up?

    Further I find it almost completely insane that if a dog bites a child it is usually destroyed. The dog doesn't know it did wrong, after all it was acting on instinct with no ability to reason. Yet a human who kills someone has all kinds of excuses despite being able to differentiate between right and wrong.

    Ethereal made no such mistakes in his hypothetical.
    As I said, Ethereal's post was an intentional ploy to force a yes answer out of people in order to moralize torture.

    So, although you may feel that you purposely avoided the 24 scenario, you in fact inadvertently made it the perfect response on why someone would not even feel it necessary to forgive the family member under certain conditions.
    The key words being "certain conditions". My post makes no 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts' about it. Would you forgive a family member if they came to you and said they tortured a person or an animal?

    You think you would? What if you asked them for those details you desperatly need? That would make it better to hear how they cut off a person's fingers or put out their eyes?

    You are overlooking the implyed feeling of guilt in the family member for admitting it in the first place.

    Seriously do I need to spell it out word for word for everybody?
    “We must picture hell as a state where everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement, where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives with the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment.”
    ― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

  5. #55
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,368

    Re: If someone in your Family

    Quote Originally Posted by Saboteur View Post
    Okay good point, however since animals are less than human there is a certain amount of innocence that humans don't have. Not one single person has never done anything wrong. Unless you're one of those people that believe it's only wrong if you get caught doing it.
    Who's justifying asinine morality now?


    Self awarness is actuated by the sensation of pain or pleasure. Self awarness defined by thought is something different.
    You are wrong. self-awareness - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

    " an awareness of one's own personality or individuality"

    That other stuff you just said? It's made up nonsense.



    But they can be affected by it just the same. Though they don't understand it their behavior will be changed to the effect that their drive for self presevation will be increased to the point of becomeing combative.
    Who gives a **** about an animal?


    Well I thought it was a simple question. I didn't bring any scenario into it because justification of the act is not part of wheather or not one would truely forgive a family member and not think of them differently because of what they told you they did or why.
    As with all things, it depends on the circumstances.



    Ethreal's scenario was totally based in hyperbolie in an attempt to force a 'yes' answer out of those that would otherwise argue against torture. Which would then in turn, make all those arguments null and void. He's not as clever as he or you may think.
    No, his argument was designed to show that the morality argument against torture is pointless. An intelligent argument can be made without emotional nonsense such as morality.

    He's much more clever than you give him credit for.


    I did not, I've defended my position, it's everyone else that wants a scenario other than 'a family member admits to you that they tortured a person or animal'. But the reason why said family member did it doesn't matter in this debate. The debate is would you forgive them? Perhaps the question should be, would you think of them in the same way? Or are they the person you thought they were?
    You are taking the insane position that all torture is morally the same and denying the possibility that there are indeed levels of immorality, regardless of all the evidence that suggests that morality is not set in stone.
    Your premise is flawed and not supported by reality.

    Ethereal's premise was that morality is dependent on circumstances. Yours is that morality is the same regardless of circumstances. It's like saying killing is always wrong, even in self-defense. It's a failure as a premise.


    Really? As humans we posses the power of intellect. It is therefore our obligation to be the stewards of this world and all the life in it. It is not ours to plunder. And if you want to suggest that humans are benevolent then my argument is all the more valid.
    First, I would never suggest that humans are benevolent. That would be retarded. We are malignant.

    Second, we have no duty as a species to do anything but **** and make more humans, and try to survive. That's the only "duty" that any species has.


    I disagree because if a person harms an animal in an inhumane way evidence shows that that person is likely to do the same to a human being;

    http://www.animalsandsociety.org/ass...y/397_s725.pdf

    Animal Abuse in Childhood and Later Support for Interpersonal Violence in Families

    A survey of university students tested whether committing animal abuse during childhood was related to approval of interpersonal violence against children and women in families. Respondents who had abused an animal as children or adolescents were significantly more likely to support corporal punishment, even after controlling for frequency of childhood spanking, race, biblical literalism, and gender. Those who had perpetrated animal abuse were also more likely to approve of a husband slapping his wife. Engaging in childhood violence against less powerful beings, animals, may generalize to the acceptance of violence against less powerful members of families and society, women and children.


    Books on Domestic Violence

    Animal Abuse/Cruelty and the Link to Domestic Violence

    Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence: Readings in Research and Application

    Edited by Randall Lockwood and Frank Ascione, Purdue University Press

    Cruelty to animals is often a sign of a future of destructive interpersonal relationships. Research on this topic is providing new insights into the nature of violence. This book provides students, scholars, professions, and interested lay readers a comprehensive source to gain a complete picture of the varied issues and their implications.

    Question. Would you consider shocking the hell out of an unsuspecting lab rat a form of torture? I would.

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber]Operant conditioning chamber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    Does that mean BF Skinner tortured people?


    Your dog in not a family member? So if you came home one day to find your dog had all it's legs broken, it's eyes poked out and was slit open from throat to groin with it's organs all over your living room you'd just want the police to find the person who did it so they could monitarily reimburse you for the dog and the blood stain clean up?
    Well, I'd like to see him go to jail for breaking and entering and destruction of property more than I would want the monetary reimbursment.

    If I came home and that was done to my wife, I'd hunt that mother ****er down and make him eat his own testicles. In fact, I have no doubt that I would torture that piece of ****.

    Are you saying that you would react the same way no matter if it was your dog or your wife?

    I mean, they are both 'family" right?

    Further I find it almost completely insane that if a dog bites a child it is usually destroyed. The dog doesn't know it did wrong, after all it was acting on instinct with no ability to reason. Yet a human who kills someone has all kinds of excuses despite being able to differentiate between right and wrong.
    And that's why you have no credibility in a morality debate.

    If a dog mauled my child, I would kill it with my bare hands. I'd make it suffer.

    If my dog mauled someone else's child, I would do the same.

    If I wouldn't, I would be ashamed to show my face in public ever again.

    As I said, Ethereal's post was an intentional ploy to force a yes answer out of people in order to moralize torture.
    Then he proved that torture can be moral, or at the very least, justified under certain extreme circumstances.

    What are you proving? That you have no moral compass and consider a dog more important than a human?


    The key words being "certain conditions". My post makes no 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts' about it. Would you forgive a family member if they came to you and said they tortured a person or an animal?
    Depends on the conditions. In some cases there would be nothing to forgive. In others it would be unforgivable.

    Would you "forgive" your wief for participating in a SKinner box study when she was going to school, or would you stick to your asinine "torrture is always immoral and it's even worse with animals" routine.

    I say it's asinine because in order to say that it's worse with animals, you automatically set up the undeniable FACT that there are levels.

    You think you would? What if you asked them for those details you desperatly need? That would make it better to hear how they cut off a person's fingers or put out their eyes?
    As I said before, it depends on the circumstances. Did they torture the person who raped and murdered their child but got acquitted on a technicality?

    Nothing to forgive, IMO. Good for them.

    Did they do it to get their jollies? Then I'm calling the cops and testifying against them.



    You are overlooking the implyed feeling of guilt in the family member for admitting it in the first place.
    How do you know it wasn't something they "admitted to" in a conversational manner? Your hypothetical doesn't state this was a guilty admission. There is no implied anything besides what you have yourself imagined your hypothetical to include.

    But reread it form the perspective of anyone else, and you'll see that there are no such implications.


    Seriously do I need to spell it out word for word for everybody?
    You need to frame the hypothetical better. It's not everyone else, it's you.

  6. #56
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 12:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: If someone in your Family

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Then he proved that torture can be moral, or at the very least, justified under certain extreme circumstances.
    Only in the minds of those who need justification for the barbaric acts they perform in response to the fear they feel. Why not just be honest and say "I advocate the beating/killing of anyone for any reason I come up with" and stop trying to defend torture?

  7. #57
    salmon bisque
    Saboteur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Seen
    02-20-13 @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,192

    Re: If someone in your Family

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Who's justifying asinine morality now?
    You are taking my statement out of context.

    You are wrong. self-awareness - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

    " an awareness of one's own personality or individuality"

    That other stuff you just said? It's made up nonsense.
    Self-awareness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Humans are not the only creatures who are self-aware. Thus far, there is evidence that bottlenose dolphins, some apes, [16] and elephants have the capacity to be self aware.[17] Recent studies from the Goethe University Frankfurt show that Magpies may also possess self-awareness. [18]

    Animal's Self Awareness

    Self awareness is proven by the many behavioral patterns which animals exhibit which suggest, without the shadow of a doubt, the possessions of certain mental stimuli; some of which are: status, pride, self esteem, territoriality, self punishment, self love, supremacy, and submission.

    Who gives a **** about an animal?
    I do, are you getting frustrated because I can refute your logic?

    As with all things, it depends on the circumstances.
    And not the consequences.

    No, his argument was designed to show that the morality argument against torture is pointless. An intelligent argument can be made without emotional nonsense such as morality.
    I don't agree, his whole post was emotionally charged and assumed that people would over look morality in favor of doing something that is universally immoral.

    He's much more clever than you give him credit for.
    I think maybe you and he are the same person.

    You are taking the insane position that all torture is morally the same and denying the possibility that there are indeed levels of immorality, regardless of all the evidence that suggests that morality is not set in stone.
    Your premise is flawed and not supported by reality.
    [U04] Absolutism vs contextualism

    Moral absolutism is the view that some actions are morally required or morally prohibited regardless of the situation and the potential consequences.

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism]Moral absolutism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    Moral absolutism is the meta-ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. Thus lying, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life). Moral absolutism stands in contrast to categories of ethical theories such as consequentialism and situational ethics, which holds that the morality of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.

    Ethical theories which place strong emphasis on rights, such as the deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant, are often forms of moral absolutism, as are many religious moral codes, particularly those of the Abrahamic religions
    .

    Yeah insane.

    Ethereal's premise was that morality is dependent on circumstances. Yours is that morality is the same regardless of circumstances. It's like saying killing is always wrong, even in self-defense. It's a failure as a premise.
    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics]Situational ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    Situational ethics is a teleological, or consequential theory, in that it is concerned with the outcome or consequences of an action; the end, as opposed to an action being intrinsically wrong such as in deontological theories. In the case of situational ethics, the ends can justify the means.

    Situational ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Situational ethics outlined

    There are four presuppositions that Fletcher makes before setting out the situational ethics theory:

    1. Pragmatism - This is that the course of action must be practical and work

    2. Relativism - All situations are always relative; situational ethicists try to avoid such words as "never" and "always"

    3. Positivism - The whole of situational ethics relies upon the fact that the person freely chooses to believe in agape love as described by Christianity.

    4. Personalism - Whereas the legalist thinks people should work to laws, the situational ethicist believes that laws are for the benefit of the people.


    With torture you cannot argue that the ends justufy the means therefore torture is absolutely morally wrong.

    First, I would never suggest that humans are benevolent. That would be retarded. We are malignant.
    That explains a lot.

    Second, we have no duty as a species to do anything but **** and make more humans, and try to survive. That's the only "duty" that any species has.
    That's all any animal's duty is right? To instinctually propigate the species?

    Question. Would you consider shocking the hell out of an unsuspecting lab rat a form of torture? I would.

    Operant conditioning chamber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Does that mean BF Skinner tortured people?
    Yes it is torture to do that to an animal. We don't know if he tortured people now do we? Perhaps he abused his kids.

    Well, I'd like to see him go to jail for breaking and entering and destruction of property more than I would want the monetary reimbursment.

    If I came home and that was done to my wife, I'd hunt that mother ****er down and make him eat his own testicles. In fact, I have no doubt that I would torture that piece of ****.

    Are you saying that you would react the same way no matter if it was your dog or your wife?

    I mean, they are both 'family" right?
    I have four cats and a wife, they are my family and yes if I came home and my cats had been brutally murdered my grief would be the same for them as that for my wife.

    And that's why you have no credibility in a morality debate.
    I think I've proven my credibility here.

    If a dog mauled my child, I would kill it with my bare hands. I'd make it suffer.
    Even worse behavior than an animal with no ability to reason.

    If my dog mauled someone else's child, I would do the same.

    If I wouldn't, I would be ashamed to show my face in public ever again.
    I'm sure you've already done something to be ashamed of.

    Then he proved that torture can be moral, or at the very least, justified under certain extreme circumstances.

    What are you proving? That you have no moral compass and consider a dog more important than a human?
    I didn't say an animal was more important than a human. Why are you so angery?

    Depends on the conditions. In some cases there would be nothing to forgive. In others it would be unforgivable.
    Not true with torture and you know it.

    Would you "forgive" your wief for participating in a SKinner box study when she was going to school, or would you stick to your asinine "torrture is always immoral and it's even worse with animals" routine.
    I would not forgive her and she wouldn't be my wife. Even when we were dating I made sure her cosmetic products weren't tested on animals.

    I say it's asinine because in order to say that it's worse with animals, you automatically set up the undeniable FACT that there are levels.
    Yes there are levels of morality and some are absolute.

    As I said before, it depends on the circumstances. Did they torture the person who raped and murdered their child but got acquitted on a technicality?
    My wife was attacked by a student when she was a teacher. We did not forgive the student but did not ask for anything except that he get the help he needed.

    Nothing to forgive, IMO. Good for them.

    Did they do it to get their jollies? Then I'm calling the cops and testifying against them.
    What if it was both? Sweet revenge.

    How do you know it wasn't something they "admitted to" in a conversational manner? Your hypothetical doesn't state this was a guilty admission. There is no implied anything besides what you have yourself imagined your hypothetical to include.

    But reread it form the perspective of anyone else, and you'll see that there are no such implications.
    Eh? Okay you've got that one just calm down now please?

    You need to frame the hypothetical better. It's not everyone else, it's you.
    This have anything to do with that double standard I was talking about? You know the one where Ethereal got away with not wanting to use the '24 scenario' but I can't not use it?
    Last edited by Saboteur; 05-12-09 at 03:12 PM.
    “We must picture hell as a state where everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement, where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives with the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment.”
    ― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

  8. #58
    activist professor Inferno's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tipping Velvet
    Last Seen
    07-01-09 @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,017

    Re: If someone in your Family

    I don't know the reasons why this would have happened.
    I don't know the motivation behind this act.

    What would there be not to forgive? Just because you forgive someone does not mean you do not pursue justice or seek help for that person. It would be wrong not to forgive. It would be wrong to sweep it under the carpet and pretend that it had not happened.
    Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx
    Life member NY city Fisting Club!
    I am Zoochie Purple Quivering Ghost Bear a Tiki Bar Tarte, you want some of my Panties.

  9. #59
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,368

    Re: If someone in your Family

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Only in the minds of those who need justification for the barbaric acts they perform in response to the fear they feel. Why not just be honest and say "I advocate the beating/killing of anyone for any reason I come up with" and stop trying to defend torture?
    Nice strawman, but that's nothing at all like anything I said.

    Why not be honest and say, "I can't rebutt any of the points you actually make, so I'll make up points and attribute them that I can play pretend and say that I won."

    For the record, I have consistently argued against the use of torture by the US government. I just refuse to fall into the irrational "it's immoral" arguments against it because they presuppose that your mortality is correct. Which is an unprovable premise.

    An unprovable premise may or may not be false, but it is assuredly illogical to use any premise of unknown veracity.

  10. #60
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,368

    Re: If someone in your Family

    Quote Originally Posted by Saboteur View Post
    You are taking my statement out of context.
    What? You said that torturing animals is "worse" because they are innocent,. you are justifying the immoral stance that torturing animals is more egregious than torturing humans because of what you perceive to be as a lack of innocence in humans.

    What context did I leave out?



    Self-awareness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Humans are not the only creatures who are self-aware. Thus far, there is evidence that bottlenose dolphins, some apes, [16] and elephants have the capacity to be self aware.[17] Recent studies from the Goethe University Frankfurt show that Magpies may also possess self-awareness. [18]

    Animal's Self Awareness

    Self awareness is proven by the many behavioral patterns which animals exhibit which suggest, without the shadow of a doubt, the possessions of certain mental stimuli; some of which are: status, pride, self esteem, territoriality, self punishment, self love, supremacy, and submission.
    So? You still gave a false definition. All you've shown now is that animals have a lesser degree of self-awareness than humans, but that they doe have some rudimentary awareness.

    Have you proven that psychologica torture is worse for them yet?

    I do, are you getting frustrated because I can refute your logic?
    When have you refuted my logic? You would need logic for that. You haven't given any thus far. Your entire argumetn is based on your opinion of what is moral.

    you have yet to show that your opinion is factual.


    And not the consequences.
    The consequences are dependent on the circumstances.

    I don't agree, his whole post was emotionally charged and assumed that people would over look morality in favor of doing something that is universally immoral.
    You have yet to prove that your view of morality is unequivocally correct. Beware: Now that you've gone the rout of moral absolutism, you cannot say that it is right for you, and you don;t need to prove it. That means you are promoting Moral relativism, and your entire argument will fall to pieces immediately.

    If you can prove that your view of morality is undeniably correct, I will concede the point. But I want a logical Aristotelian deduction for this proof with concise premises. Inductive reasoning can not work.



    I think maybe you and he are the same person.
    Thank you, but no. I am a different person entirely. I don't agree with him on many issues regarding torture. I'm against the use of torture on terrorists by the US government, for example.

    I just won't take the irrational "immorality" argument when I make fight against that brand of torture because that approach will always fail in it's asininity.



    [U04] Absolutism vs contextualism

    Moral absolutism is the view that some actions are morally required or morally prohibited regardless of the situation and the potential consequences.

    Moral absolutism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Moral absolutism is the meta-ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. Thus lying, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life). Moral absolutism stands in contrast to categories of ethical theories such as consequentialism and situational ethics, which holds that the morality of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.

    Ethical theories which place strong emphasis on rights, such as the deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant, are often forms of moral absolutism, as are many religious moral codes, particularly those of the Abrahamic religions
    .

    Yeah insane.
    Well done. Have you ever heard of the "Murderer at the door" scenario that basically bitch slaps Kantian ethics?

    Look it up. Anyone who buys that bull**** is too irrational for words.




    With torture you cannot argue that the ends justufy the means therefore torture is absolutely morally wrong.
    Really? I torture a guilty murderer to revenge the life of an innocent child and that doesn't justify my actions?

    Prove that you can't justify the actions using Aristotelian deductive logic. Please. You started bringing up ethicists, so I must assume you are well versed in philosophy. Lay out your deductions.


    That explains a lot.
    All teh problems in the world. do you have some sort of evidence besides happy thoughts and butterfly kisses that humans are innately benevolent?


    That's all any animal's duty is right? To instinctually propigate the species?
    Yep. No duty. A duty is morla obligation. Can you show me evidence of any moral obligations whatsoever that are species-wide?

    I just ask one one signle solid irrefutable peice of evidence that there is some form of species-wide moral obligation.

    Your opinion, which , thus far is all you've even tried to give, is not evidence.


    Yes it is torture to do that to an animal. We don't know if he tortured people now do we? Perhaps he abused his kids.
    Do you think that is an intelligent response? We don't know if you molest children while playing Mr Rogers, but we should probably wait for the slightest bit evidence before we make the accusation.

    When there is nothing at all that indicates the accusation is true, it is better to presume that it isn't the case.

    your arguemtn is that torturing animals means that you are willing to torture humans. When I show evidence of a legitimate reason to torture animals without feeling the compulsion to torture humans, you come up with somethignthat is totally and completely illogical as a response.

    I have four cats and a wife, they are my family and yes if I came home and my cats had been brutally murdered my grief would be the same for them as that for my wife.
    That's just disturbing to me.



    I think I've proven my credibility here.
    Where? when you said you would grieve for your cats as much as you would your wife?

    I think you lost it completely there.



    Even worse behavior than an animal with no ability to reason.
    How is killing a dog worse than mauling a child? You are the one that has stated that consequences are all that matter. Why is it the Dog's consequences matter all of a sudden?

    Oh, I know. Because even you can't stand the stench of bull**** your argument exudes.

    Remember, Mauling a child is always wrong right, Mr. Moral Absolutist?

    Circumstances don't MATTER, Mr. Moral Absolutist.

    Therefore, given the entire of your argument, your comment that what I would have done would be worse than what the dog would have done means: Killing a dog worse than mauling a child.

    That's why you have no moral credibility. You can't even keep in teh spirit of your own argument. You shift the morality dependin gon circumstances for the dog, but it is unshiftable for the human.

    It proves unequivocally that A. You don;t even understand your own argument fully

    Or

    B. You have no moral compass. You are making bull**** up as you go along because you feel that this is how it should be.


    I'm sure you've already done something to be ashamed of.
    Not really. I've been a fairly exemplary person my whole life. I have fought for people in need. I have sacrificed a higher income in order to take care of an infirm person. I donate loads of time to charity.

    I'm well liked in my community, and I always give money to the homeless, even if it's the last dime in my pocket.

    so know, I have no shame. I have some pride, though. It's a failing of mine.

    I didn't say an animal was more important than a human. Why are you so angery?
    You said torturing an animal is worse than torturing a person. That strongly implies that you feel an animal is more important than a person.

    They aren't even in the same ballpark. I'm not saying an animal is nothing but property. It is well above the level of a sofa, but it is far below a human.

    Torturing a human is usually worse than torturing an animal. It would depend on the circumstances, but there are very very few circumstances where I feel torturing people can be moral, so the times that torturing animals is worse than torturing people for me is limited to those circumstances where tortue can be moral.

    Not true with torture and you know it.
    It is very much true with torture. I've given the circustances where I would see nothing to forgive. The guy who tortured and killed Jeffery Dahmer? Yeah, I would forgive that guy.

    John Wayne Gacy? Hell no.


    I would not forgive her and she wouldn't be my wife. Even when we were dating I made sure her cosmetic products weren't tested on animals.
    That's peachy for you. I think you are free to feel that way. I wholeheartedly disagree with you, but since we are arguing morality, which is an unprovable argumetn, and thus emotional, I guess you are right for your little world.

    I find your morality somewhat disturbing, but hey, that's just me.

    Yes there are levels of morality and some are absolute.
    Prove that there are some absolutes without hyperbole or opinion statements.


    My wife was attacked by a student when she was a teacher. We did not forgive the student but did not ask for anything except that he get the help he needed.
    So what happens when he attacks soemone else in teh fuure. Will you feel guilty for not removing him from society?


    What if it was both? Sweet revenge.
    Situation one automatically means that situation two would not be the primary cause of the torture. It's just an added bonus.

    Eh? Okay you've got that one just calm down now please?
    How was that comment anything but calm?

    This have anything to do with that double standard I was talking about? You know the one where Ethereal got away with not wanting to use the '24 scenario' but I can't not use it?
    You missed my point. You are free to not use the 24 scenario, but it would require a more properly constructed hypothetical that excludes these scenarios.

    You can't post a hypothetical, dislike the responses that are caused by poor construction of the hypothetical and then move the goal posts so that you can slam perfectly valid responses to the constructed hypothetical.

    You must construct the hypothetical so that it excludes the scenario, not exclude responses that include the scenario.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •