I read posts here that call different things, "harmful to humanity." Others call something, "good" or "bad" or "evil."
A very simple question, who gets to decide the definition of "harmful to humanity" and what is there critieria? The same for "good," "bad," and "evil?" These are not material terms. If everything is material isn't there just "is" and not these moral declarations if one is being thoroughly atheist?
Help me understand your position so I am fair and honest about the views. Thanks.
@Exile - Somehow I don't think Shabaka will ever get it, or at least admit to getting it.
It's a good point that we can only ever evolve and become a better species through change. But fundies don't believe in evolution, so they can't conceive of us ever improving. That might be why they fight it so much.
By the way, I am a "conservative" and I'm all for progress and evolution. I just don't think the government can be trusted with being in charge of it. ;-)
Ahhh the ideal..but you know what, the ideal has very little to do with the reality..and you can dodge reality with your ideals..
show me, don't just insinuate..Some atheist love to sound like they got their stuff together as a means of intimidation..so please show me the slope if you have the guts..now you are on another level, let's see how you handle it..
@Shabaka - If you know how to use Google, you can look up the term "slippery slope fallacy" and it will explain just exactly where you went off the rails of logical connection. Several of us have tried to explain to you were you lost validity. If you look up the term, maybe that will give you some insight.
Knowing the meaning doesn't help, I can't google this particular example. Show me.
@Shabaka - Okay, try this one more time. A Slipper Slope Fallacy is defined as "a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom"
As an example: You argue that if we protect animals from abuse, that will lead to giving them the same rights as intelligent beings, which they are not. There are an extraordinary number of mitigating factors to giving a being equal rights as humans, but only compassion is required to want to avoid having a sentient being harmed. Then, that will lead to people entering into legally binding agreements with those same animals, despite the fact that the definition of a legal binding argument is that both parties must understand the agreement, which animals cannot. And then that will lead to people marrying their dogs, even though the dog doesn't have the capacity to understand such an agreement. Which will lead to chickens and wooden posts getting married, which will lead to the wind and courage going to court to win their ability to unite in holy matrimony. Before you know it, we have dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.
That is not only an example of a slippery slope argument, but it completely explains YOUR slipper slope argument. If you can't understand this progression, then there is no hope for you. If you ask for more clarification, I will ignore you because you are either far to stupid for me to deal with or you are just arguing for the sake of argument.
"As an example: You argue that if we protect animals from abuse, that will lead to giving them the same rights as intelligent beings, which they are not"- Keith
I don't think I argued anything of the sort..go back and take another look and try to figure out way I associated Michael Vick in the dialog.
"Damn two years in prison and millions of dollars and George Zimmerman gets out of jail after the entire U.S. population demands his arrest for a 15 thousand dollar bail..What was your question again?"
I believe I was trying to make the point that in the future dogs will have as much rights as humans..what has that to do with torture? Meaning that Vick get two years and millions of dollars in lost revenue and Zimmerman doesn't get arrested and when he does he gets 15 thousand dollars bail for killing a black teen.
..go back and take another look and try to figure out way I associated Michael Vick in the dialog.
@ Shabaka - You obviously brought up Michael Vick because you thought his punishment was too harsh. I cannot fathom how anyone with any capacity at all for empathy would treat dogs in such a way.
If that is not what you meant then perhaps you should rephrase what you said in an attempt to help me and everybody else understand the point you wanted to make. Why should we try to figure out what you mean? Just state it clearly, please.
yes I think Vicks punishment was too harsh but that's not relevant in THIS conversation..context...
dog get abused..abuser gets 2 years in prison and millions in lost revenue..
Human teens gets killed and "killer" takes a nation to even get arrested and when he does he gets 15 thousand dollars bail..
which of the two has more privileges (rights) the dog or the human teen?
does that help?
And I think Vick's punishment wasn't harsh enough. If someone is willing to do that sort of thing to other sentient beings, you have to wonder the extent of lack of compassion someone like Vick holds for humans. I, personally, think that he is a heartly, uncaring bastard that would sooner let you die in a pool of your own blood than to spend the 50 cents and 30 seconds it would take to call for help. He is a disgrace to athletes worldwide and should not be upheld as a role model for our youth. But, as you say Shabaka, that is not relevant.
Shabaka, if you understand that it is irrelevant, one has to wonder why you brought it up in the first place.
Zimmerman hasn't stood trial yet. You can't compare his case to one where someone has been convicted.
If Zimmerman is convicted I am sure he will serve more than two years.
@SteveInCO - Yes, that was the point I was trying to make with Shabaka comparing Vick's fines vs Zimmerman's bail. You made that point clearer for me. Thanks.