WOW, PETA people really are crazy! - Page 12

Kaj · #**111** 08-22-2007, 01:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So where exactly did I refute my beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't, which is why people will still be stepping on FIDO's tail for pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, what... Misread?

[/ QUOTE ]

No misread. His liberal principles won't allow him to forcibly stop people from stepping on dog's tails, even though he personally believes it to be wrong. It's consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

So you will impose your morals on others?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you even know what my morals are or do you care? Hypothetically, if my moral beliefs are to prevent my neighbor from raping a 6 year-old boy, then it is entirely consistent to intervene. You are trying to play "gotcha" without knowing what the hell you are even arguing against.

Peter666 · #**112** 08-22-2007, 02:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So where exactly did I refute my beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't, which is why people will still be stepping on FIDO's tail for pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, what... Misread?

[/ QUOTE ]

No misread. His liberal principles won't allow him to forcibly stop people from stepping on dog's tails, even though he personally believes it to be wrong. It's consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

So you will impose your morals on others?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you even know what my morals are or do you care? Hypothetically, if my moral beliefs are to prevent my neighbor from raping a 6 year-old boy, then it is entirely consistent to intervene. You are trying to play "gotcha" without knowing what the hell you are even arguing against.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm arguing against the fact that you say my moral values are subjective and others can disagree eg."But just because you do hold this belief does not imply that everyone else must also, or that somehow these values of yours are objectively "right" and others are "wrong"" Yet YOUR morals are not subjective since you will forcibly impose them on others when you deem it necessary, as shown above. Why are your values objective, since you will force others to conform to them, and mine merely subjective?

bunny · #**113** 08-22-2007, 04:59 AM

I'm clueless about ethical/moral theory. But the fact you will forcibly try and impose your morality on others doesnt imply you believe they are objective does it? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Kaj · #**114** 08-22-2007, 09:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So where exactly did I refute my beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't, which is why people will still be stepping on FIDO's tail for pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, what... Misread?

[/ QUOTE ]

No misread. His liberal principles won't allow him to forcibly stop people from stepping on dog's tails, even though he personally believes it to be wrong. It's consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

So you will impose your morals on others?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you even know what my morals are or do you care? Hypothetically, if my moral beliefs are to prevent my neighbor from raping a 6 year-old boy, then it is entirely consistent to intervene. You are trying to play "gotcha" without knowing what the hell you are even arguing against.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm arguing against the fact that you say my moral values are subjective and others can disagree eg."But just because you do hold this belief does not imply that everyone else must also, or that somehow these values of yours are objectively "right" and others are "wrong"" Yet YOUR morals are not subjective since you will forcibly impose them on others when you deem it necessary, as shown above. Why are your values objective, since you will force others to conform to them, and mine merely subjective?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your logic here is completely wrong and your error has been repeatedly addressed. You refuse to comprehend what you've been told in your little game of gotcha -- which you are losing miserably.

Kaj · #**115** 08-22-2007, 09:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm clueless about ethical/moral theory. But the fact you will forcibly try and impose your morality on others doesnt imply you believe they are objective does it? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. And this has been repeatedly addressed.

Peter666 · #**116** 08-22-2007, 10:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So where exactly did I refute my beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't, which is why people will still be stepping on FIDO's tail for pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, what... Misread?

[/ QUOTE ]

No misread. His liberal principles won't allow him to forcibly stop people from stepping on dog's tails, even though he personally believes it to be wrong. It's consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

So you will impose your morals on others?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you even know what my morals are or do you care? Hypothetically, if my moral beliefs are to prevent my neighbor from raping a 6 year-old boy, then it is entirely consistent to intervene. You are trying to play "gotcha" without knowing what the hell you are even arguing against.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm arguing against the fact that you say my moral values are subjective and others can disagree eg."But just because you do hold this belief does not imply that everyone else must also, or that somehow these values of yours are objectively "right" and others are "wrong"" Yet YOUR morals are not subjective since you will forcibly impose them on others when you deem it necessary, as shown above. Why are your values objective, since you will force others to conform to them, and mine merely subjective?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your logic here is completely wrong and your error has been repeatedly addressed. You refuse to comprehend what you've been told in your little game of gotcha -- which you are losing miserably.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't address anything. What is the logical error? Either you are imposing your subjective morals, which cannot be any more right or wrong than someone else's subjective morals, or you think there are objective morals. And if there are objective morals, what is the moral foundation of not causing an animal pain? Necessity was mentioned, but necessity by nature is subjective, so it must be something else.

Lestat · #**117** 08-22-2007, 01:14 PM

That doesn't address anything. What is the logical error? Either you are imposing your subjective morals....

No. It is YOU who is imposing your mistaken belief that your imaginary god places you above all other animals. So much so, that you think it's impossible to wrong an animal. You think you're refuting a liberal cause, but you're just proving yourself to be an ignortant Christian.

twoblacknines · #**118** 08-22-2007, 06:18 PM

Fwiw I hope Peter's asinine views towards animals are not thought of to be the norm of believers. I was raised in a christian family and they were always helping strays, etc and most people in our church were kind hearted towards humans and animals alike....

Also I'm not positive but isn't Peter catholic? They may be a different brood entirely!

bunny · #**119** 08-22-2007, 06:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Either you are imposing your subjective morals, which cannot be any more right or wrong than someone else's subjective morals, or you think there are objective morals.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think someone who believes morals are subjective wouldnt think that "more right" or "more wrong" means anything. They would be imposing their morals because within that morality it is moral to do so. There's nothing inconsistent here. They do not have to say one morality is superior to another in any objective sense, merely that they believe one to be moral and the other not.

Lestat · #**120** 08-22-2007, 07:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Fwiw I hope Peter's asinine views towards animals are not thought of to be the norm of believers. I was raised in a christian family and they were always helping strays, etc and most people in our church were kind hearted towards humans and animals alike....

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you. Even when I believed in God (as a Catholic), I never thought to harm an animal.

I think it's sad the subject of religion needs to be brought up at all in a thread on animal cruelty. It's just so painstakingly obvious that people like Peter get their pompous, holier-than-thou attitude of being more important than anything else on earth, from their religion. People with brains (religious or otherwise), realize this isn't the case.