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.

Views: 7414

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Steven made the point that Zimmerman isn't even convicted..my point was it took a nation to even get him arrested and if the outcry hadn't taken place, he'd still be walking around freely and Trayvon would be cold.

Yet Michael Vick spent two years in prison and lost millions because of dog fighting. I mean the moment they found out about the dogs Vick was hounded until he went to jail.  For dog fighting, not murder

Speaking of Zimmerman, I don't understand. He was a neighborhood watch person and was told he didn't have police powers and he should not carry a gun. When he saw Trayvon he called the dispatch and was told not to follow him.  However Zimmerman continue to follow until he confronted Trayvon.  At that point did Trayvon have the right to stand his ground?  After all he had a very legitmate reason for being in the area.

Even if a scuffle happened, Zimmerman had no right to shot him based on the above because if he had followed any of those directives, he's have no reason to fear for his life or have the means to kill Trayvon.

Let's watch what happens....

 

and I still think so...Remember in non white cultures, people eat dogs..so is this a "moral" issue or what? I think he shouldn't have done what he did, but the punishment was too harsh.  Maybe a stiff fine and threat of disbarrment from the nfl..

And therein lies the issue.  This statement "I believe I was trying to make the point that in the future dogs will have as much rights as humans" is exactly the slippery slope fallacy that we are talking about.  "what has that to do with torture?" Vick tortured dogs and was punished for it.  You are using the defense of the dogs as a springboard to come to the conclusion that dogs will some day have the same rights as humans.  That leap is fallacious. Just because we defend an animal from torture does not mean we will give that animal all the rights that humans get. There is NO CONNECTION there.

As for Zimmerman, although I don't support the death penalty for anything except extreme cases, from the information that I have seen and heard (and I do admit that we might not have a clear picture of the whole incident, so my judgment is only dependent of what we know), Zimmerman should spend a LOT of time sitting in a jail cell and going through a LOT of therapy to make sure he understands exactly how devastating his prejudice and actions are to both the specific people involved and society as a whole.  But you also can't compare fine for fine or jail time for jail time.  It is obvious that Vick barely suffered from his sentence, let's just hope that Zimmerman suffers substantially more.  Even 6 months in jail is devastating to an average person, financially and socially speaking, whereas 2 years in jail for a millionaire, only to get released and continue making millions doesn't mean the 2 years was a "harsher punishment".  You have to compare the impact on the person, not just the numbers. You are also comparing Vicks FINES with Zimmerman's BAIL.  That doesn't make any sense at all.  The two things are completely different.

There is no logical connection between the Vick / Zimmerman punishment debate and the slippery slope fallacy that if we defend an animals rights to not be tortured, that will lead to them getting all the same rights as humans.  Once again, if you can't understand and admit that, I think there is no hope to get you to look at something in a logical manner.

sim·i·le

[sim-uh-lee] Show IPA
noun
1.
a figure of speech in which two unlike things are explicitly compared, as in “she is like a rose.” Compare metaphor.

Keith I'm sure you know Koreans eat dogs.. you feel the same way about them?

@Shabaka - In other words, you are going to just keep pushing forward, no matter how wrong you are proved to be.  We're done.  You obviously refuse to look at anything through anyone else's eyes but your own.  Trying to have a conversation with you is an exercise in futility.

Steven dog fighting vs. murder?  why did you say such a thing?  And u know what, Zimmerman may not be convicted..this is the United States of America..

I think he shouldn't have done what he did, but the punishment was too harsh.  Maybe a stiff fine and threat of disbarrment from the nfl..

@ Shabaka - I cannot understand how people can systematically torture dogs for any reason. I feel dogs are  more beautiful and noble than humans. He should have been put in a mental institution for intense treatment. So should people in Asia or wherever it is socially accepted for dogs to be baked alive and cats to be boiled cats alive!

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?

@ Shabaka - They both have been afforded certain rights by law. Affording rights to animals is something civilized societies do and is a sign of moral progress. Dogs have a legal right not to be abused when the abuse is being perpetrated by individuals that are involved in dog fighting organizations. Human teens have a right not to be murdered.

You seem to be saying the authorities that be, and perhaps society at large, are more interested in dogs' rights not to be abused than black human teens' rights not to be murdered because of racism; as if society is losing perspective. That may be the case sometimes (and may or may not be the case in your Vick/Zimmerman comparison), but to stay on topic, I don't believe allowing gays to marry and having society accept homosexuality is going to be a bad thing.

If you are concerned allowing gay marriage will be a detriment to society, trying to support your view with comparing Michael Vick to Zimmerman is not the way to do it. It is a stretch so far as to be in another dimension.

When Vick was convicted and sentenced to 23 months in federal prison, dog-fighting was not a felony in all 50 states.. Just thought I"d throw this in the ring.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also Mabel I think a lot of Koreans would find your civilized society comment a little offensive.  To keep the argument to a low level, I don't care one way or the other about dogs..I don't think they should be made to fight.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only partly because of racism as I think played a part in the Vick case..but that as it may, the bigger reason I believe is that this culture's essence or energy needs dogs for various reasons to relieve some of the stress.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

again i could have used greed..it's how the culture sees the world that I think affects gay marrige and a lot of other things. Do you believe gay marriage would be even a serious thought in African cultures, First People's culture or maybe Asian cultures if the European culture had spearheaded it?  Truthfully if you can..

Sorry to interrupt - don't mind me, just wanted to interrupt  your argument briefly to make a statement that is actually on point with the purpose of this thread, then you can go back to whatever it is you think you're accomplishing.

RE: "Koreans eat dogs"

I don't know that's true, I had always heard it was Vietnamese, but it could well be both or neither. Point is, that there ARE some societies that eat dogs, others that eat cats, and some that eat horses, although Americans, as far as I know, don't.

Which brings me to my point, one that so far hasn't been mentioned on this thread - mores. There is nothing essentially wrong with eating a dog, cat or horse, but we Americans have chosen these animals as pets, and would find it personally offensive - as long as other choices were available - to eat them. A more (mo-ray) is something that a society finds unacceptable. In general, it is not considered immoral, but against our personal, societal mores.

In any discussion of morals, it's important to separate morals from mores.

That's all - as you were --

(It's probably too late to say pax vobiscum --)

archaeopteryx
www.in-His-own-image.com

I have been to Vietnam. They have dog meat on skewers like gyros meat. Tit cho.

RSS

Forum

Sunday Disassembly

Started by Reg The Fronkey Farmer in Society. Last reply by Simon Paynton 19 minutes ago. 2 Replies

The Shinto Flower among the Weeds of Religion

Started by Cato Rigas in Advice. Last reply by Cato Rigas 1 hour ago. 5 Replies

Genesis 3 - Quality Propaganda

Started by Aiken Drums Sister in Politics 4 hours ago. 0 Replies

In Defense of ‘Islamophobia’

Started by Brian Daurelle in Society. Last reply by Erock68la 4 hours ago. 43 Replies

Blog Posts

Life Condensed

Posted by Cato Rigas on October 19, 2014 at 8:30pm 1 Comment

Cool Vehicle Inspection!

Posted by Ed on October 18, 2014 at 9:03am 2 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service