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: 7985

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Sorry about that, Mabel. I know you're a cat lover too.

you're a typical liberal thinking European. You have no REAL idea about your undeserved privilege. Do you live overseas in some brown people's country enjoying their reverence of your white skin? That's why you can rhetorically say, they (Chinese) won't let you force their morality on them, yet by trying to "open" my mind, your cultural arrogance is trying to force your opinion on me because for some deep historical reason, since I'm a non white "American", I can't have a different, yet valid opinion, it must be as close to the white one as possible.

And trust me, if you thought you could get away with forcing the Chinese to stop boiling cat, you'd sign PETA's or GREENPEACE, or any Western, we think that's wrong petition. That's your nature.

See how judgemental I am but how rational you are?

I'm through with you Shabaka but feel free to continue proving my point.


lol I was through with you a while back..


see u are still being judgemental..lol such cultural arrogance! 

@Exile - Ya, that's why I quit engaging him.  For a self-proclaimed atheist, he sure talks, thinks, jumps to conclusions, and is as intellectually devoid of logic as a theist.

Hey, maybe it is Wretched Saint in disguise, as someone else mentioned WS might come back as!  Notice that they don't engage each other........   Hmmmmm.

And trust me, if you thought you could get away with forcing the Chinese to stop boiling cat, you'd sign PETA's or GREENPEACE, or any Western, we think that's wrong petition. That's your nature.

Another touchy example might be female genital mutilation in a few African countries. Or heterosexual transmission of AIDS to women there. Because males dominate the sexual relationships. Yeah, I'd probably sign petitions against those practices, and against boiling cats in China. But it'd be meaningless to those sovereign states. And I wouldn't use human rights issues as an excuse to invade a country, unless the whole international community was behind it.

Meanwhile, about your comment (quoted, above)... you'd sign a petition or support laws against gay marriage, right? (Like Prop 8 in California, or a similar proposition where you live?)

Yes I would and when I lived in California I voted against legal medicinal marijuana .and I voted FOR raising the cigerette tax AND  WAS A PACK A DAY SMOKER AT THAT TIME.

The reason in all three was the effect on the children..

BTW, we don't have to go to Africa, one in ten young black men are in prison in America..is this a sociological problem or are they just born criminals? Who dominates the laws and economy here?

Yes, teaching children to be prejudice is a very important task and can't just be left to anyone.

Isn't it interesting that Shabaka claims to be black, and yet is more than happy to jump in and strip the civil rights away from someone that he doesn't "approve" of?  I think that's more proof that he is actually a white xian.  No rational black person would vote to strip the rights away from someone just because of their nature.  What an idiot!

@Shabaka, I don't think many here will disagree with you about the difference in opportunity between black and white. In fact, I thought the statistics about blacks in prison were even worse. I just remember there are more blacks in prison than in college. I could be wrong, but it doesn't matter, because I see it as a historic problem that still needs fixing and I lean toward reverse discrimination. That is, if a white and a black had nearly equal credentials and character credibility, I'd hire the black. Double that bet if he or she is also gay.

There's even a black man currently living with me in my house, and recently there were two. Believe me, I've heard the lectures, and I understand where you're coming from. But I've learned not to assume too much about people I don't know. For some people, it takes way too long to mature to that point, and a few of them never get over their anger, or ever learn who's really on there side.

I saw a TV show a while back where cooks were preparing fish.  I can't remember if the fish was cooked or not, but they would definitely cut it up and prepare it to be eaten and when it ended up on the plate ready to go, it was still trying to suck water through its gills.  I was so repulsed that I couldn't watch more than just a few minutes.

Personally, I wouldn't have been able to eat the crab, no matter how insulted the host was.  Eating an animal is one thing, I eat meat of all sorts; chicken, pork, cow, deer, elk, fish.  But I don't have the lack of conscience that it takes to torture the animal before eating it.  I do consider the way that some cooks (tend to be especially asian) and some people want a food that is so "fresh" that they are happy for the animal to die an excruciating, horrible death to provide them with a "delicacy".  Personally, I couldn't enjoy the food, no matter how delicious, knowing that the animal must suffer for my pleasure.  That's why I can't (read: won't) eat veal.

I'm not sure how much it adds to a dish's flavor to keep the animal alive as long as possible. I doubt it really does anything at all if we're just talking about a difference of a few minutes.

Fresh seafood of all kinds, at restaurants, are often held in aquarium-like holding tanks specifically to be cooked alive. Crab, shrimp, lobster, fish . . .

Judging by the popularity of these restaurants and their diverse clientele, most people have no problem with seafood being cooked alive. In fact, I would say that most people EXPECT their lobster to be cooked alive.

I will have to admit that I have no culinary problem with it, although, logically, I don't see why they can't be killed immediately before cooking. What's the difference in freshness, really? I just can't get too worked up over the pain and suffering of seafood -- mostly because, I suppose, I don't see them on the same level as cows or pigs -- as having brains sophisticated enough to really make much difference . . . if you eat them, they have to die one way or another.

I know, I know, I'm an awful person . . . shame on me, blah, blah, blah. I still don't care.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service