Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
Basically, how can you denouce war as wrong when there is nothing in the universe to make it so. Why is sleeping with anyone ok(a very selfish desire)
yet when it comes to war(not very selfish(and i mean that because a family who's son dies in iraq isn't going to be caring about oil prices more
than their sons death)).
So... Sleeping with lots of people is morally equated to war? Am I following this? Somehow I am having trouble seeing the equality.
Consider: Violent behavior is counter to species survival (could kill the whole species) - ergo, immoral; sleeping with many encourages genetic
disbursal, ergo not immoral. [shrug]
There is a reason the 1900's was one of the bloodiest eras of history, its because man was given the excuse of evolution.
Uh... I doubt it. War is encouraged amongst humans for population control, behavior control, and to make a profit. Some of the richest in this
world got rich by selling to both sides of conflicts.
Where does this sudden burst of moral fiber come from, if there is nothing in the universe to give it to us.
Sudden burst? Where? Humans have always had compassion and love. But they are deceived and manipulated by those who would have power and money.
I have read all the garbage of "social evolution" reguarding the forming of laws and people accepting things "for the greater good", but
all of thoes things that are accepted are selfish laws, protecting your person. Abortion is accepted, where it is a federal crime to even touch a
balled eagle's egg.
Lest you are unaware... Humans are not (yet) on the brink of extinction; bald eagles are.
Selfish laws? Most laws are attempts to control people. The few, like the Bill of Rights, were designed to promote respect of others. Is respect of
others a "selfish" thing to promote?
It is a sad day when we put the embryo of an eagle over the embryo of a human.
Again... Which species is at the brink of extinction and which is overrunning the planet? (You do know that the God of the Bible gave the Hebrews
the definitive point at which the soul enters the body? It is "at first breath.")
When a theory that has very little possibility of happening...
I do believe we see clear evidence of the theory in action: "germs" are evolving to tolerate our antibiotics. Just one example. Why do you
believe this phenomenon is so astronomically unlikely, especially with this evidence at hand?
...is accepted, whereas the small possibility that human embryo's just might be alive and a seperate entity are rejected for
Personally, I feel that unwanted children are a bad addition to society as a whole (and it is selfish to force a woman to bring a fetus to term and
then abandon it to the world), given that studies have shown, over and over, that sociopathic and psychopathic behavior crop up virtually always in
those who were unloved, untouched with caring hand, as a child.
Now if those who are so concerned for the prospective life were to adopt and provide for, in terms of food, clothing, shelter and (especially!) love,
every child they forced into this world, I would fully approve of the position.
But as it stands now, many would force to first breath a slew of unwanted babies who have a very high likelihood of being neglected and abused. And
this promotes a higher percentage of socially draining individuals.
[edit on 7/19/2008 by Amaterasu]