The inability to argue with insanity.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLambWhat if and i am being hypothetical here shape shifting reptilians exist ( david icke theories) and they look just like a normal human beings but they are not human and therefore think like a reptile that has know empathy for other creatures or even its own, but gets a buzz out of killing babies and sees those babies as food. The reptilian might be doing whats perfectly sane for reptilians do by eating human babies. Just look at what preditors do to the babies of other creatures and the preditor is just doing what comes naturally to it and would be consider perfectly sane by its own fellow preditors.
Most animals and this includes humans feel the need to protect the young of their species as it ensures that species survival This protection includes those of the same species not harming the young and protection from preditors ( both of the same species and other species ) for the young by the bigger stronger members of that species.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
I would hand him the pineapple and say ...............here, change the channel. My guess is the dude would smash the pineapple and still call it a TV remote. That's insanity.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I have no stronger argument that the torturing babies for pleasure is objectively evil independently of anyone’s subjective preference than the self-evident fact that torturing babies is objectively evil.

You're talking about circumcision, right?

Yes, circumcision is torture. It's 'pleasant' for the adults insofar as they think their imaginary overlord wants it that way.
In truth, it's barbaric, unnecessary, and traumatic for the child. I refused to allow it when my son was born 24 1/2 years ago.

All these Christians lamenting the "torturing" of "babies" in terms of 'abortion' are all too happy to let those unwanted babies who are born to be passed from crappy foster home to state custody to institutions....tortured for their whole lives, knowing they were unwanted, unloved, and forced to term anyway, when they might have been spared....
but,
well, here he is. Now...."hey! I know!! Let's cut off the tip of his penis!! YAY!!"

FUN!

No. Sick.

a reply to: solve

when all grown up, detonates ten nuclear bombs across the globe, killing millions, but it cant, because it was tortured to death as a baby

Well then it wouldn't have grown up if it was dead would it?

a reply to: blacktie

the Creator/"God" of today's Bible stated early on that much of what has come to pass 'historically' was foretold a long time ago

this creator god also killed plenty of babies in the old testament

a reply to: Klassified
You stole my thunder . Who is to say what insanity is? or evil ? or good? Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

a reply to: mOjOm

Still not sure I can agree with you though. Take the clear example that you use of "killing babies is wrong". You say this is objectively always true. But is it???

What if the baby is in a situation where it will soon die by burning slowly to death. However, before that process begins you have the ability to kill the baby instantly but no way of saving him. So either way the baby still dies. But in one version you have the ability to remove the suffering from the child's destined outcome.

I would conclude that in that case killing the baby is a "Good" action to take.
Not killing him cannot stop the destined outcome anyway, but by taking no action you are in fact choosing for him to suffer before his eventual death which I would conclude as being a "Bad" action to take.

The situation you have given is a bit unrealistic. Also you took the example that I used and chopped off a part of it. My example is clearly "torturing or killing babies for pleasure" is objectively evil. Also that Rape is objectively evil. And Again I have no way of convincing you of these facts as we disagree about reality. For example your situation above is a false dilemma. As the moral action would be to try and save the childs life even if you lose your own in the process, not to simply kill it. You always have the choice to try and save something even if it seems futile. Your analogy completely disregards this as a possibility and as such is a false dilemma. And given enough information there is always another solution.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
The situation you have given is a bit unrealistic. Also you took the example that I used and chopped off a part of it. My example is clearly "torturing or killing babies for pleasure" is objectively evil. Also that Rape is objectively evil. And Again I have no way of convincing you of these facts as we disagree about reality. For example your situation above is a false dilemma. As the moral action would be to try and save the childs life even if you lose your own in the process, not to simply kill it. You always have the choice to try and save something even if it seems futile. Your analogy completely disregards this as a possibility and as such is a false dilemma. And given enough information there is always another solution.

I assure you I can detail out how my example is possible and give you exactly those choices and only those choices. But that isn't the point. Neither are any certain set of details. I could just as easily come up with a different example under different conditions to prove my same point. It's not about whether the situation is likely to happen or not. It's about demonstrating the non-absolute, fuzzy concept of "Right and Wrong" or "Good and Evil" or however you want to label the duality of morals.

As far as me editing your example that also doesn't invalidate my argument. I could use a completely different argument all together if I chose to. I just used a simplified example matching yours for easy reference.

You might want to claim it's not valid and dismiss it but it's perfectly valid and the reason you dismiss it is because it shows that I'm correct and that "Good and Evil" are not so absolute as you might think. There are actually many different questions that one could asked based on that example. All of which are just as valid as any other example.

a reply to: mOjOm

It does no such thing lol. You asserting that something is valid and sound doesn't make it so. Its up to you to prove that it is the case. I have given you evidence. Torturing babies for fun and Rape are objectively evil actions. If you can't see that there is nothing I can do for you bro. You however have given me no example that proves there is not an objective truth behind each moral question. For example what evidence do you have that shows that rape is not objectively evil, and I would define evil as the incorrect way to go about gaining something good. Immoral actions are actions that are done to gain something we would describe as good. For example sex gives us pleasure and its fun. It is desirable. Rape however is the incorrect way to go about gaining the benefits of sex. If torturing babies is your idea of fun its the wrong way to go about having fun or brings you pleasure. It is the perversion of that which is good.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The problem with those examples is that you're including the reason behind the action already which gives you a specific moral judgement. By saying "Killing babies for fun or pleasure is evil" is far different than saying "killing babies is evil". The reason is because "Killing Babies" is the action alone. But including "for pleasure" with it forces a specific moral reasoning to be included. At that point you've already defined the context of that action.

For example, I would agree that killing babies for pleasure is evil. But what if it's not pleasurable??? Does it change whether or not it's evil???

Because we use a very similar rationalization all the time when we kill innocent children during war. If a soldier takes pleasure in killing innocent children it's an evil act. But if he takes no pleasure in it we excuse his actions since he gets no reward from it. Both examples still have the same result however, a dead innocent child. They both involve the same action as well. The difference is only the effect it has upon the one taking that action.

Even within the Bible itself, the supposed Book of Moral Law, it condones the mass killing of children and even abortion depending upon the context. Abortion is not only not evil but good in the case of a pregnancy resulting from adultery. But if Morality was absolute and killing innocent children was always evil that would not be possible.

a reply to: Bluesma

Then why should we believe Marcus Aurelius' opinion if it cannot be a fact? If it is a fact, and he is correct, then he is also wrong. Such a paradox proves its falsity. "Copper conducts electricity" is a fact, not an opinion, therefore, everything is not an opinion, nor a perspective.

a reply to: mOjOm

For example, I would agree that killing babies for pleasure is evil.

Yet you would also say that killing babies for pleasure is also not evil. A logical contradiction. You would also say that rape is evil and rape is good are both true and false statements. Another logical contradiction.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

Yet you would also say that killing babies for pleasure is also not evil. A logical contradiction. You would also say that rape is evil and rape is good are both true and false statements. Another logical contradiction.

No. What I would say is that "Killing Babies" in most cases is most certainly "Wrong". However, that is not always the case. It is not an Absolute. I would say, as I've demonstrated, there could be a case where simply "killing a baby" would not be "Wrong" in a moral sense.

BTW, I'm using "wrong" instead of "evil" because of a personal choice. It's just because "evil" for some people implies more than for other people. So until we get a clear definition for the terms we're using, which we should do, I'll use that.

I also don't look at it in a black or white kind of way. Some actions are more "wrong" than others. Further still some actions within certain contexts change how they're judged which is why I don't agree with absolutes.

To address your questions though. "Killing babies for pleasure" as far as I can think of would be wrong. I cannot imagine a situation where if the intent is to get pleasure that getting it by killing babies would ever NOT be "wrong or evil". But like I said, "killing babies" and "killing babies for pleasure" aren't the same thing. Adding in the "pleasure" defines the motive behind the action which changes how it's viewed morally.

Don't assume so much about what I'm saying. It's not complicated. All I'm saying is that absolutes are highly unlikely to exist for morality. There always seems to be an exception to any rule even if it's very improbable to ever happen.

originally posted by: AsherLewin11
a reply to: Luuke123

Try arguing with a Mormon. Show them the facts. Result- Insanity

Only a Jehovah Witness can argue reasonably with a Mormon both cancel each other "Poof".

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

well, here he is. Now...."hey! I know!! Let's cut off the tip of his penis!! YAY!!"

Buzzy, you really need to stop evaluating thingys with such ridiculous exaggeration.
From what I've seen in maturnity. Every doctor uses great care when lopping off
what would other wise just get in the way and decrease handsomeness. I thank
God for the trim. It's very cool. The torture comes after circumcision trying to live
in this jacked up, rigorous, hell bent for leather world, man has appropriated to
enslave his brother. But thanks for your concern.
I

a reply to: randyvs

I will actually second that perspective of randys. I realize that it's considered genital mutilation by some and the fact it's done before an age of consent and all. But I personally am very very happy it was done to me. I don't remember it at all and all is well with my man junk. My wife and most other women I know also prefer it that way as well. According to Elaine on Seinfeld it's the only way to go as well. Otherwise there's no "face". LOL

BTW they don't cut off the tip. That would not be cool. It's just some extra skin. Like taking the hood off your hoodie.

a reply to: mOjOm

I know it's not actually "the tip", mojom.

Still - I worked for a while in the neo-natal wing taking portraits of newborns. Those little baby boys were NOT happy campers.
You won't remember it consciously, of course....(how convenient!)

Anyway, I don't regret my maternal/parental decision to prevent it. My son can have his body 'altered' any time he wants. I wasn't about to make that decision on his behalf.

Love you guys, though, (you and randy) ....you know that.

a reply to: mOjOm

BTW they don't cut off the tip. That would not be cool. It's just some extra skin. Like taking the hood off your hoodie.

That's what I meant by exaggeration amigo.
Gotta love Buzzy for her direction tho.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Buzzy, I'm a 100% positive every decision you've ever made concerning your
great additions to the world. Was made with the greatest love from
a mothers heart. So good on you baby.