Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: SF1900 on January 25, 2020, 12:22:01 PM
-
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/02/06/this-man-believes-food-should-be-free-for-all-is-leading-the-way-to-make-it-possible/
This Man Believes Food Should Be Free For All & Is Leading The Way To Make It Possible
Do you ever question why we have to pay to live and essentially survive on this planet? Grow Free is changing the paradigms in regards to what society has implied we accept and not question.
In order to survive on this planet, human beings need 3 basic things; air, food, and water. If someone were to start charging us for the air we breathe, we would think that they were absolutely crazy, but paying for food daily we don’t even think twice. Why is it that we have to pay for what is produced naturally by our Mother Earth? Why is it that human beings are the only species who have to pay to eat and pay for shelter? Have you ever asked yourself those fundamental questions?
In his TedX Talk, Andrew Barker, Growtester and author for Collective Evolution, raises these questions and more, as he shares his message about what him and his group, Grow Free, are aiming to achieve. Their goal? Simple. To give away for FREE any extra food that they are growing in their own personal gardens. Giving away food for free might sound crazy to some as our minds are so conditioned to be in constant survival mode, someone had to work hard to grow that food, if it’s given away for free, how will they ever be repaid for their hard work? We might think that when there is an abundance of food grown, it goes to waste. How crazy is it that there are people who are starving and we have millions of tons of food being thrown in the garbage every year?
-
1 humanoid works & produces food, another 1 eat for free & get fat !?.
:P
-
I don’t ever ask or want anything for free.Ill pay my way the whole way.someone is putting in the time and money to grow it so I shouldn’t get it for free.i know I’m not working for free.Just my .02.
Air isn’t owned or made by anyone and they can’t control that.Food is made by people so needs to be paid for or else those who make/grow it won’t want to make/grow it anymore.
-
World wide hunger is a VERY complicated problem. Anytime someone comes up with a simple solution to a complicated problem....it means the solution is WRONG.
You can't produce food for free/ ::)
-
When someone says that something that needs to be produced should be free they really mean is that other people should have to work for them for free. Nothing is free. Someone is paying for it. Either with their cash or their labor.
I always find it ironic that people who demand that they have a right to free stuff don't do or give anybody shit for anything.
There's a difference between the right to have health care provided for you by someone else and having the right to obtain (buy) health care for yourself.
Same for education or anything else that the Democrats/Liberals say should be provided "for free".
It's easy to appear compassionate and generous when it comes to spending other people's money.
-
There is no shortage of food on Earth anywhere. However there are corrupt governments that withhold food from their citizens.
-
When someone says that something that needs to be produced should be free they really mean is that other people should have to work for them for free. Nothing is free. Someone is paying for it. Either with their cash or their labor.
I always find it ironic that people who demand that they have a right to free stuff don't do or give anybody shit for anything.
There's a difference between the right to have health care provided for you by someone else and having the right to obtain (buy) health care for yourself.
Same for education or anything else that the Democrats/Liberals say should be provided "for free".
It's easy to appear compassionate and generous when it comes to spending other people's money.
The last 2 things you said are the most true things ever said.great whole post but the last two just really say something.
-
Decades ago, my cousin biked to Cannon Beach, OR where she planned to live for the summer. All she took for food was brown rice. She survived the entire summer by tending peoples' gardens in exchange for free vegetables. She set up camp at Hug Point, which is just south of Cannon Beach.
(https://oregonstateparks.org/index.cfm?do=main.loadImage&Image=Hug+Point+State+Recreation+Site%5C03-IMG_0939.JPG)
-
Decades ago, my cousin biked to Cannon Beach, OR where she planned to live for the summer. All she took for food was brown rice. She survived the entire summer by tending peoples' gardens in exchange for free vegetables. She set up camp at Hug Point, which is just south of Cannon Beach. She passed that winter from malnutrition and exposure..
(https://oregonstateparks.org/index.cfm?do=main.loadImage&Image=Hug+Point+State+Recreation+Site%5C03-IMG_0939.JPG)
fixed
-
(https://s3.drafthouse.com/images/made/soylent_green_01_758_401_81_s.jpg)
-
fixed
:) Not exactly. My cousin is alive and well. She stills rides her bike and works out at a local gym where she and her husband live in Maine. She is one of the healthiest 68 year old people I know. In the winter she and her husband live in the Florida Key's on their schooner.
-
In the winter she and her husband live in the Florida Key's on their schooner.
Known a few people to do this - work just enough to keep in shape and neutralize the outgo of living this way. Before Belize this was the in lifestyle to have for Easterners.
-
When someone says that something that needs to be produced should be free they really mean is that other people should have to work for them for free. Nothing is free. Someone is paying for it. Either with their cash or their labor.
I always find it ironic that people who demand that they have a right to free stuff don't do or give anybody shit for anything.
There's a difference between the right to have health care provided for you by someone else and having the right to obtain (buy) health care for yourself.
Same for education or anything else that the Democrats/Liberals say should be provided "for free".
It's easy to appear compassionate and generous when it comes to spending other people's money.
Great post especially about people demanding free stuff while they themselves never doing or giving shit to anyone. These are the same people demanding $15 minimum wages.
-
Known a few people to do this - work just enough to keep in shape and neutralize the outgo of living this way. Before Belize this was the in lifestyle to have for Easterners.
Yes it is "the life of Riley". Both my cousin and her husband are retired and while not rich, they are well enough off to do pretty much whatever they want.
-
When someone says that something that needs to be produced should be free they really mean is that other people should have to work for them for free. Nothing is free. Someone is paying for it. Either with their cash or their labor.
I always find it ironic that people who demand that they have a right to free stuff don't do or give anybody shit for anything.
There's a difference between the right to have health care provided for you by someone else and having the right to obtain (buy) health care for yourself.
Same for education or anything else that the Democrats/Liberals say should be provided "for free".
It's easy to appear compassionate and generous when it comes to spending other people's money.
Yep great post..
-
Food can be free for that twink, looks like he nibbles on raw grape-nuts and few celery sticks for his daily intake.
25 cents a day in food costs.
-
There is no shortage of food on Earth anywhere. However there are corrupt governments that withhold food from their citizens.
Not necessarily withholding food but policies that stifle production. But government corruption is the cause. Think of countries that were once prosperous that are now poor like Cuba, Lebanon, and Venezuela. Africa should be a bread basket but is just one big shit hole.
-
Decades ago, my cousin biked to Cannon Beach, OR where she planned to live for the summer. All she took for food was brown rice. She survived the entire summer by tending peoples' gardens in exchange for free vegetables. She set up camp at Hug Point, which is just south of Cannon Beach.
(https://oregonstateparks.org/index.cfm?do=main.loadImage&Image=Hug+Point+State+Recreation+Site%5C03-IMG_0939.JPG)
She got paid in vegetables for working, dummy. If she didn't tend the gardens there would be no "free" vegetables. It's just like saying she tended people's gardens in exchange for free money.
-
Great post especially about people demanding free stuff while they themselves never doing or giving shit to anyone. These are the same people demanding $15 minimum wages.
And we are called selfish because we want to keep more of our money but the government is never called greedy because they want to confiscate more of it. I don't care if you are rich or poor, why is it better that the government gets so much of your money? Whose money is it? Does anybody really think that the government spends your money better than the people who actually had to earn it? There is always an inherent waste with the government. That's why you should want limited government.
-
Decades ago, my cousin biked to Cannon Beach, OR where she planned to live for the summer. All she took for food was brown rice. She survived the entire summer by tending peoples' gardens in exchange for free vegetables. She set up camp at Hug Point, which is just south of Cannon Beach.
(https://oregonstateparks.org/index.cfm?do=main.loadImage&Image=Hug+Point+State+Recreation+Site%5C03-IMG_0939.JPG)
So as pellius said, she got paid. That's called "capitalism". Thanks for making a post supporting it.
PS - this is why I wanted FART SPRAY to be sprayed at your union meeting. Leftists deserve to be gassed.
-
Children should not have to pay for food at school. There should also be something set up for summertime so that children who are from poor families can be fed. But grown ass adults should have to work for food if they are able bodied.
-
food is always free , you just have to know where to go to find it.
-
Children should not have to pay for food at school. There should also be something set up for summertime so that children who are from poor families can be fed. But grown ass adults should have to work for food if they are able bodied.
If they have parents that can work then they should have to pay.If you are to poor to support your kids you should not have any.its a jungle out there and only the strong shall survive.
-
Don't bring in Turd World shitizens to your Civilized Nation. Life isn't fair and while it's not their "fault" they were born with shitty DNA, it's not the responsibility of the civilized to take care of them.
You want to "help" them? Move there and see what happens to you and anyone and everything you bring along. It won't be pleasant.
-
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/02/06/this-man-believes-food-should-be-free-for-all-is-leading-the-way-to-make-it-possible/
This Man Believes Food Should Be Free For All & Is Leading The Way To Make It Possible
Do you ever question why we have to pay to live and essentially survive on this planet? Grow Free is changing the paradigms in regards to what society has implied we accept and not question.
In order to survive on this planet, human beings need 3 basic things; air, food, and water. If someone were to start charging us for the air we breathe, we would think that they were absolutely crazy, but paying for food daily we don’t even think twice. Why is it that we have to pay for what is produced naturally by our Mother Earth? Why is it that human beings are the only species who have to pay to eat and pay for shelter? Have you ever asked yourself those fundamental questions?
In his TedX Talk, Andrew Barker, Growtester and author for Collective Evolution, raises these questions and more, as he shares his message about what him and his group, Grow Free, are aiming to achieve. Their goal? Simple. To give away for FREE any extra food that they are growing in their own personal gardens. Giving away food for free might sound crazy to some as our minds are so conditioned to be in constant survival mode, someone had to work hard to grow that food, if it’s given away for free, how will they ever be repaid for their hard work? We might think that when there is an abundance of food grown, it goes to waste. How crazy is it that there are people who are starving and we have millions of tons of food being thrown in the garbage every year?
This thread is so stupid, I thought Primemuscle posted it. :-\
-
“Why is it that humans are the only species that have to pay to eat and pay for shelter?“?? Using that logic EVERYTHING should be free since humans are the only species that has to pay for ANYTHING...
-
Food should be free to bbers
-
Food is a right. Water is a right. A warm home is a right. Health care is a right. Education is a right. A good paying job is a right. The problem is the government has no money. Only the money they take from the workers. When people who vote for a living out number those that work for a living the whole system will collapse in poverty like all socialist and communist countries do. The only kind and compassionate system in the history of this planet is capitalism. You are free to make as much money as you can. America might be the only country in this world that has obese poor people. Poor people all over the world are starving and our poor people are waddling around fat. God bless the USA. A country the whole world wishes they lived in. God bless Trump. Fuck you millennial socialists living in your mom's basement that want government to take care of you.
-
Why is it that we have to pay for what is produced naturally by our Mother Earth?
If this author thinks food is produced at no cost he has never been to a farm.
Does he actually believe food just grows by itself like in the Garden of Eden?
What a dope.
-
Odd that the left should lay claim to what is or is not, right.
Fuck That Noise.
-
Food should be free to bbers
It is. They just call it "schmoelent greene". ;D
-
This thread is so stupid, I thought Primemuscle posted it. :-\
Just spewed my iced beverage. ;D
-
:) Not exactly. My cousin is alive and well. She stills rides her bike and works out at a local gym where she and her husband live in Maine. She is one of the healthiest 68 year old people I know. In the winter she and her husband live in the Florida Key's on their schooner.
Is she sexual?
-
Food is a right. Water is a right. A warm home is a right. Health care is a right. Education is a right. A good paying job is a right. The problem is the government has no money. Only the money they take from the workers. When people who vote for a living out number those that work for a living the whole system will collapse in poverty like all socialist and communist countries do. The only kind and compassionate system in the history of this planet is capitalism. You are free to make as much money as you can. America might be the only country in this world that has obese poor people. Poor people all over the world are starving and our poor people are waddling around fat. God bless the USA. A country the whole world wishes they lived in. God bless Trump. Fuck you millennial socialists living in your mom's basement that want government to take care of you.
Post of the day.
-
Food is a right. Water is a right. A warm home is a right. Health care is a right. Education is a right. A good paying job is a right. The problem is the government has no money. Only the money they take from the workers. When people who vote for a living out number those that work for a living the whole system will collapse in poverty like all socialist and communist countries do. The only kind and compassionate system in the history of this planet is capitalism. You are free to make as much money as you can. America might be the only country in this world that has obese poor people. Poor people all over the world are starving and our poor people are waddling around fat. God bless the USA. A country the whole world wishes they lived in. God bless Trump. Fuck you millennial socialists living in your mom's basement that want government to take care of you.
Uh yeah......no. Especially on the education front. None of these are rights. You need to fucking earn them.
-
Food is a right. Water is a right. A warm home is a right. Health care is a right. Education is a right. A good paying job is a right. The problem is the government has no money. Only the money they take from the workers. When people who vote for a living out number those that work for a living the whole system will collapse in poverty like all socialist and communist countries do. The only kind and compassionate system in the history of this planet is capitalism. You are free to make as much money as you can. America might be the only country in this world that has obese poor people. Poor people all over the world are starving and our poor people are waddling around fat. God bless the USA. A country the whole world wishes they lived in. God bless Trump. Fuck you millennial socialists living in your mom's basement that want government to take care of you.
Rights are things other people allow you to have, there are no inalienable rights, they dont exist, rights are a man made construct..
-
I dont know if i would say "food should be free", but I do think it makes a lot of sense to have "food stamps" both widely available and generously supplied for all who need/want them. From what I understand, far as economics goes, there isn't too many government programs which are as beneficial.
There is no shortage of food on Earth anywhere. However there are corrupt governments that withhold food from their citizens.
Well, there's some truth in that, but also I think one thing to consider is that a significant percentage of the world's population lives in regions/climates that just aren't very agriculturally productive. I sometimes think migration would be more cost effective for reducing hunger, than other routes we are trying.
-
I dont know if i would say "food should be free", but I do think it makes a lot of sense to have "food stamps" both widely available and generously supplied for all who need/want them. From what I understand, far as economics goes, there isn't too many government programs which are as beneficial.
Well, there's some truth in that, but also I think one thing to consider is that a significant percentage of the world's population lives in regions/climates that just aren't very agriculturally productive. I sometimes think migration would be more cost effective for reducing hunger, than other routes we are trying.
You are a disgrace to those that truly follow the Nazarene.
-
Children should not have to pay for food at school. There should also be something set up for summertime so that children who are from poor families can be fed. But grown ass adults should have to work for food if they are able bodied.
So even if you are the children of Donald Trump or Jeff Bezos they still have to have their food provided for by others who may have children of their own that they also have to provide for?
At least in the U.S., there are tons of programs providing food for the poor that are provided for by the taxpayers. Not having enough food to eat is not a huge problem here in America. Just look around.
-
This thread is so stupid, I thought Primemuscle posted it. :-\
LOL @ comparing food with air. Nobody does anything to produce air. It's just there. If food was just "there", meaning everywhere, without any cultivation or labor, then it would be free.
-
Food is a right. Water is a right. A warm home is a right. Health care is a right. Education is a right. A good paying job is a right. The problem is the government has no money. Only the money they take from the workers. When people who vote for a living out number those that work for a living the whole system will collapse in poverty like all socialist and communist countries do. The only kind and compassionate system in the history of this planet is capitalism. You are free to make as much money as you can. America might be the only country in this world that has obese poor people. Poor people all over the world are starving and our poor people are waddling around fat. God bless the USA. A country the whole world wishes they lived in. God bless Trump. Fuck you millennial socialists living in your mom's basement that want government to take care of you.
Again don't conflate having a right to obtain something yourself and having a right to have something provided for you for free.
-
Rights are things other people allow you to have, there are no inalienable rights, they dont exist, rights are a man made construct..
Not true. Nobody gives me the right or allows me to breathe air. I can believe or not believe in any God I want. I can say what I want in my private life. I have a right to live. You can say, "Well, people can kill you, or suffocate you, or put you in jail for your beliefs and speech." But depriving someone of their rights doesn't mean you are granting them these rights.
It's like saying you don't own that pair of glasses you are wearing. You only wear it because I am allowing you to.
-
I don’t ever ask or want anything for free.Ill pay my way the whole way.someone is putting in the time and money to grow it so I shouldn’t get it for free.i know I’m not working for free.Just my .02.
Air isn’t owned or made by anyone and they can’t control that.Food is made by people so needs to be paid for or else those who make/grow it won’t want to make/grow it anymore.
Supreme 'murican intellect right here ^^^^^
-
Not true. Nobody gives me the right or allows me to breathe air. I can believe or not believe in any God I want. I can say what I want in my private life. I have a right to live. You can say, "Well, people can kill you, or suffocate you, or put you in jail for your beliefs and speech." But depriving someone of their rights doesn't mean you are granting them these rights.
It's like saying you don't own that pair of glasses you are wearing. You only wear it because I am allowing you to.
another person can take all those rights away from you if they are bigger and stronger..
Owning something and having a right to something are two different things but are intrinsically linked, but yes, you only own something because other people allow you to..
There is a huge conversation to be had about the existence of ownership and its actual definition, one that would take up far more time than we have on here
-
Leftys always want stuff for free
-
Leftys always want stuff for free
Many "leftys" support socialized programs which help those in need survive. This is different than always wanting free stuff. There are plenty of folks on the right who rely on social benefits. What is interesting is that some of the folks who claim to be against socialized government have no problem benefiting from it.
-
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/02/06/this-man-believes-food-should-be-free-for-all-is-leading-the-way-to-make-it-possible/
This Man Believes Food Should Be Free For All & Is Leading The Way To Make It Possible
Do you ever question why we have to pay to live and essentially survive on this planet? Grow Free is changing the paradigms in regards to what society has implied we accept and not question.
In order to survive on this planet, human beings need 3 basic things; air, food, and water. If someone were to start charging us for the air we breathe, we would think that they were absolutely crazy, but paying for food daily we don’t even think twice. Why is it that we have to pay for what is produced naturally by our Mother Earth? Why is it that human beings are the only species who have to pay to eat and pay for shelter? Have you ever asked yourself those fundamental questions?
In his TedX Talk, Andrew Barker, Growtester and author for Collective Evolution, raises these questions and more, as he shares his message about what him and his group, Grow Free, are aiming to achieve. Their goal? Simple. To give away for FREE any extra food that they are growing in their own personal gardens. Giving away food for free might sound crazy to some as our minds are so conditioned to be in constant survival mode, someone had to work hard to grow that food, if it’s given away for free, how will they ever be repaid for their hard work? We might think that when there is an abundance of food grown, it goes to waste. How crazy is it that there are people who are starving and we have millions of tons of food being thrown in the garbage every year?
Growing food takes a lot of human effort and capital!
How can someones question himself if it is ok to pay for the food they eat? ::)
Mother nature doesn't care about high yields. Take away irrigation systems, fertilizers, human labor, agricultural techniques, inputs, plant breeding, etc. and you're left with an 1/10 of our current yields in the best case scenario.
-
Bats, rats and frogs are free
-
Children should not have to pay for food at school. There should also be something set up for summertime so that children who are from poor families can be fed. But grown ass adults should have to work for food if they are able bodied.
they do get free food at school if their family is low income
E
-
Many "leftys" support socialized programs which help those in need get survive. This is different than always wanting free stuff. There are plenty of folks on the right who rely on social benefits. What is interesting is that some of the folks who claim to be against socialized government have no problem benefiting from it.
Truth.
-
Food is a right. Water is a right. A warm home is a right. Health care is a right. Education is a right. A good paying job is a right. The problem is the government has no money. Only the money they take from the workers. When people who vote for a living out number those that work for a living the whole system will collapse in poverty like all socialist and communist countries do. The only kind and compassionate system in the history of this planet is capitalism. You are free to make as much money as you can. America might be the only country in this world that has obese poor people. Poor people all over the world are starving and our poor people are waddling around fat. God bless the USA. A country the whole world wishes they lived in. God bless Trump. Fuck you millennial socialists living in your mom's basement that want government to take care of you.
Poor people on low income countries can also be obese!
Access to cheap carbohydrates is a worlwide phenomen at this point. The only countries where people are actually starving are communist regimes or war-torn places.
-
another person can take all those rights away from you if they are bigger and stronger..
Owning something and having a right to something are two different things but are intrinsically linked, but yes, you only own something because other people allow you to..
There is a huge conversation to be had about the existence of ownership and its actual definition, one that would take up far more time than we have on here
That's an odd way at looking at it. Depriving someone of their rights does not mean that you are giving them this right. When that happens it's taking away someone's right. It's like saying you don't have any right to live. You are alive only because I, and others, allow it.
So one has the right to obtain food for himself but he does not have the right to have his food provided by someone else, i.e., forcing others to serve them. That would be depriving them of their rights.
-
Many "leftys" support socialized programs which help those in need survive. This is different than always wanting free stuff. There are plenty of folks on the right who rely on social benefits. What is interesting is that some of the folks who claim to be against socialized government have no problem benefiting from it.
It's one thing for a person to give "free money" to help others. It's quite another to have a third party take your money and give it to someone else because they think they need it more than you do. If someone robbed you at gunpoint but said he was going to give to the homeless people in his area would that make you feel better?
I don't blame people who benefit from Social programs even though they would vote to eliminate it. Their money has already been taken away from them through taxes.
-
That's an odd way at looking at it. Depriving someone of their rights does not mean that you are giving them this right. When that happens it's taking away someone's right. It's like saying you don't have any right to live. You are alive only because I, and others, allow it.
So one has the right to obtain food for himself but he does not have the right to have his food provided by someone else, i.e., forcing others to serve them. That would be depriving them of their rights.
do animals in the wild have rights?
No, they are either predators or prey.
Human rights are a man made construct.
Life works like this
You can do whatever you want, but if other people dont like what you are doing they will stop you...
Thats it, thats the one over riding rule...
-
do animals in the wild have rights?
No, they are either predators or prey.
Human rights are a man made construct.
Life works like this
You can do whatever you want, but if other people dont like what you are doing they will stop you...
Thats it, thats the one over riding rule...
You can do whatever you want but you can't force others to do what you want. That is depriving them of their rights. Rights that they had independent of you and your desires. That's why you have the right to obtain food (do what you want) but you do not have the right to have others provide it for you.
The difference is in our world view. I believe in God and the basis for which this country was founded as stated in the Declaration of Independence and what made our country great.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
-
You can do whatever you want but you can't force others to do what you want. That is depriving them of their rights. Rights that they had independent of you and your desires. That's why you have the right to obtain food (do what you want) but you do not have the right to have others provide it for you.
The difference is in our world view. I believe in God and the basis for which this country was founded as stated in the Declaration of Independence and what made our country great.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
and it was men that wrote the constitution, not God, it was men that gave other men rights, and it is men that can take those rights away.
God has nothing to do with it
-
and it was men that wrote the constitution, not God, it was men that gave other men rights, and it is men that can take those rights away.
God has nothing to do with it
God has everything to do with it. Again, that's the difference. We have different beliefs. I believe that the universe was created by a Creator, i.e., God. You believe that the universe just created itself out of nothing. I think your point of view is just as silly and preposterous as you think mine is.
That's why I find your view on human rights very odd. Everything you have, even your existence, is made possible only because I and others allow it.
-
You are a disgrace to those that truly follow the Nazarene.
Well - if there is one thing that Jew taught - it was judge others. You member - make sure to cast stones and all that shit. Plus if remember correctly he was big on making a huge spectacle about how pious one is.
But - what the hell did he know? He was a broke ass Jew! Now - his daddy the sky wizard THAT is a cat you can really get behind.... Noooo - not like that Prime... Damn it I saw your eyes widen there for a sec. the last thing this place needs is hellfire being rained on us because the ole sissy was trying to have butt sex with a man and his son!
-
God has everything to do with it. Again, that's the difference. We have different beliefs. I believe that the universe was created by a Creator, i.e., God. You believe that the universe just created itself out of nothing. I think your point of view is just as silly and preposterous as you think mine is.
That's why I find your view on human rights very odd. Everything you have, even your existence, is made possible only because I and others allow it.
You havent provided any evidence to contradict that claim..
-
You havent provided any evidence to contradict that claim..
Neither have you.
-
You havent provided any evidence to contradict that claim..
Read some Ayn Rand.
-
Neither have you.
you have evidence of how the world works, go outside your door and start doing something that other people are not happy about.
Laws, societies and democracies are built on the very foundation of this principle
Laws are what the majority of people agree are boundaries that people shouldn't cross and we take people to task and stop them doing it if they do.
Morals are based exactly the same way, they are simply what the collective agrees are acceptable
If you want to make the claim that God granted people inalienable rights the first thing you need to do is prove the existance of God, without doing that you have zero claim.
God was created by man, not the other way around...
-
Read some Ayn Rand.
So you want me to read a book by a human being to contradict the proof that man created rights?
Think about it logically, without language there would be no rights, rights are a man made construct, jeez, its not rocket science.
-
you have evidence of how the world works, go outside your door and start doing something that other people are not happy about.
Laws, societies and democracies are built on the very foundation of this principle
Laws are what the majority of people agree are boundaries that people shouldn't cross and we take people to task and stop them doing it if they do.
Morals are based exactly the same way, they are simply what the collective agrees are acceptable
If you want to make the claim that God granted people inalienable rights the first thing you need to do is prove the existance of God, without doing that you have zero claim.
God was created by man, not the other way around...
No one can prove the existence of God. Just like you can't prove that the universe just created itself out of nothing. Both positions require a leap of faith. I just think your view it more preposterous.
And when you leave it to man to just decided what he thinks is moral you get things like human sacrifice and slavery.
You trust human nature to determine what's right. I do not.
-
The left wants poor people to be stuck on social programs for life so the have generational voters for life. They don't "care more", like they try to portray. It's all about them gaining voters so they can have more control. Sick group of individuals.
-
No one can prove the existence of God. Just like you can't prove that the universe just created itself out of nothing. Both positions require a leap of faith. I just think your view it more preposterous.
And when you leave it to man to just decided what he thinks is moral you get things like human sacrifice and slavery.
You trust human nature to determine what's right. I do not.
I dont have to prove the Universe was created out of nothing, I have no idea how the Universe came into being.
That has nothing to do with my point, I am talking about rights being man made constructs, as opposed to your viewpoint that they were created by God..
You have zero evidence they were created by God, I have the irrefutable evidence they were created by man..
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/history-human-rights
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-1/short-history.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_rights
Your only argument is "God made them"
-
I dont have to prove the Universe was created out of nothing, I have no idea how the Universe came into being.
That has nothing to do with my point, I am talking about rights being man made constructs, as opposed to your viewpoint that they were created by God..
You have zero evidence they were created by God, I have the irrefutable evidence they were created by man..
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/history-human-rights
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-1/short-history.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_rights
Your only argument is "God made them"
Don't bother with the links. I'm not going to read them. I can post links, too. I want to hear what you think.
Yes, morality comes from God. It does matter if the universe has a creator or if everything just created itself. If there is no after life, no accountability, if Mother Theresa and Saddam Hussein share the same ultimate fate then the whole concept of good and evil is meaningless. It's just what you decide it is based on the moment and feeling and what you can get away with. I definitely did not do things that I would have done if I thought there was no final judgement on my soul.
"Without God, all is permitted."
-- Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
-
Don't bother with the links. I'm not going to read them. I can post links, too. I want to hear what you think.
Yes, morality comes from God. It does matter if the universe has a creator or if everything just created itself. If there is no after life, no accountability, if Mother Theresa and Saddam Hussein share the same ultimate fate then the whole concept of good and evil is meaningless. It's just what you decide it is based on the moment and feeling and what you can get away with. I definitely did not do things that I would have done if I thought there was no final judgement on my soul.
"Without God, all is permitted."
-- Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
You cant keep saying morality comes from God without any evidence to substantiate it, I cant accept things on blind faith.
I dont do things because they will put me in prison if I do them, its consequences in this life that keeps people on the straight and narrow, not some mystical belief in some imaginary afterlife.
As for Dostoevskys quote, it could just as well read "With rules, all is permitted"
-
It's just what you decide it is based on the moment and feeling and what you can get away with. I definitely did not do things that I would have done if I thought there was no final judgement on my soul.
Plenty of people have a sense of morality without it being explicitly linked to God. Most people have a very simple and effective moral barometer- it is wrong to hurt others. There are situations when it gets more complicated, but that's generally the heart of most ethical dilemmas, regardless of whether you believe in a God or not. People with no religious ties constantly make *moral, good* decisions because of how they will help others. Or how they will be seen others. They don't factor going to hell. Likewise, just joswift alluded to, many religious people do immoral things because they feel they won't experience consequences here on earth. They aren't factoring in the afterlife.
-
You cant keep saying morality comes from God without any evidence to substantiate it, I cant accept things on blind faith.
I dont do things because they will put me in prison if I do them, its consequences in this life that keeps people on the straight and narrow, not some mystical belief in some imaginary afterlife.
As for Dostoevskys quote, it could just as well read "With rules, all is permitted"
Yes, I can. People of faith do or not do things not because it is illegal but because it is immoral -- including myself. Many do not commit adultery not because of they think
it's illegal but because it's immoral.
But before I can continue to have a discussion about morality I need to know that we are operating under the same premise. As I've stated before, I know it is unlikely that either of us will convince the other but what I clarity regarding the arguments presented. So to continue, so I know what direction to go in, we have to start from the same premise otherwise it is pointless.
Do you believe that morality -- moral good and evil actually exist. Not just a matter of personal taste or do you believe that all morality is just a matter of personal opinion?
-
Plenty of people have a sense of morality without it being explicitly linked to God. Most people have a very simple and effective moral barometer- it is wrong to hurt others. There are situations when it gets more complicated, but that's generally the heart of most ethical dilemmas, regardless of whether you believe in a God or not. People with no religious ties constantly make *moral, good* decisions because of how they will help others. Or how they will be seen others. They don't factor going to hell. Likewise, just joswift alluded to, many religious people do immoral things because they feel they won't experience consequences here on earth. They aren't factoring in the afterlife.
and many religious people (catholics especially) believe as as long as they go to church on Sunday and attend confession they can have their sins in this life forgiven, and as such do unspeakable wrong to other people day in day out...
-
Yes, I can. People of faith do or not do things not because it is illegal but because it is immoral -- including myself. Many do not commit adultery not because of they think
it's illegal but because it's immoral.
But before I can continue to have a discussion about morality I need to know that we are operating under the same premise. As I've stated before, I know it is unlikely that either of us will convince the other but what I clarity regarding the arguments presented. So to continue, so I know what direction to go in, we have to start from the same premise otherwise it is pointless.
Do you believe that morality -- moral good and evil actually exist. Not just a matter of personal taste or do you believe that all morality is just a matter of personal opinion?
I think people do good things and people do bad things, so yes, good and evil do exist, in fact without one you cannot have the other.
Almost all people of sound mind know what is right and wrong, but now we get down to cultural good and evil.
Depending where you are born and raised your belief of what is right and wrong is based on what you are taught.
as Al doggity wrote, there really is only one real rule, "cause no harm or loss to another human being", thats pretty much a Golden Rule, anything else is just additional padding..
-
and many religious people (catholics especially) believe as as long as they go to church on Sunday and attend confession they can have their sins in this life forgiven, and as such do unspeakable wrong to other people day in day out...
As someone who was born and raised a Catholic you are absolutely wrong. People who claim to be Catholics and Christians can believe anything they want but that is not the tenets of the faith.
-
I think people do good things and people do bad things, so yes, good and evil do exist, in fact without one you cannot have the other.
Almost all people of sound mind know what is right and wrong, but now we get down to cultural good and evil.
Depending where you are born and raised your belief of what is right and wrong is based on what you are taught.
as Al doggity wrote, there really is only one real rule, "cause no harm or loss to another human being", thats pretty much a Golden Rule, anything else is just additional padding..
There is no disagreement as to the concept of right and wrong, good and evil. But is there a moral value system outside and above an individual person or is good and evil just a matter of personal opinion.
To say all people of sound mind know what is right and wrong. And then you follow that by saying those values come from their culture and how you were raised. So-called "Palestinians" are taught as children to hate Jews and to kill them. Are they not of sound mind? Do you consider this right as they do?
And there are many instances where you would cause harm and loss to another for the greater good. For instance, killing someone that wants to kill or harm you. Disciplining a child for misbehavior. Firing someone from a job because you want to cut costs.
Anyway, I have to get back to life but I'll be back. I like these kinds of discussions.
-
As someone who was born and raised a Catholic you are absolutely wrong. People who claim to be Catholics and Christians can believe anything they want but that is not the tenets of the faith.
I was born and tried to be raised as a christian but as soon as I worked out the futility and in my opinion stupidity of it all (I was about 11) and I have seen first hand the behaviour of many catholics in my time to know it to be true.
-
There is no disagreement as to the concept of right and wrong, good and evil. But is there a moral value system outside and above an individual person or is good and evil just a matter of personal opinion.
To say all people of sound mind know what is right and wrong. And then you follow that by saying those values come from their culture and how you were raised. So-called "Palestinians" are taught as children to hate Jews and to kill them. Are they not of sound mind? Do you consider this right as they do?
And there are many instances where you would cause harm and loss to another for the greater good. For instance, killing someone that wants to kill or harm you. Disciplining a child for misbehavior. Firing someone from a job because you want to cut costs.
Anyway, I have to get back to life but I'll be back. I like these kinds of discussions.
Yes, morality is based on your indoctrination and culture.
Yes, its fine to kill sopmeone if they are going to harm you, but thats them breaking the 1st law.., you could make the argument that anyone breaking the law of "cause no loss or harm" means they are excluded from the protection that the law allows, a bit like when people were made "outlaws" in the Wild West , they were excluded the protection of the law so anyone could kill them and not face prosecution.
Children misbehave to test boundaries, as such they are causing you harm by doing so...
As for the sacking someone there is a little addition to the 1st law "cause no loss or harm or commit fraud in contracts" that way no one could sack anyone unless they caused harm themselves by breaching an agreement or contract.
-
So, should food be free or not?
-
So, should food be free or not?
not if it requires someones labour to produce it..
-
And there are many instances where you would cause harm and loss to another for the greater good.
And this is the key phrase: "for the greater good". Like I said in my previous post, there are situations where it gets more complicated, but essentially, all of the situations you described were either to hurt someone to prevent future harm or to punish someone who'd already harmed in the past.
Most people's moral barometer would find that the the remedy would have to be commensurate with the infraction. It might not be immoral to kill someone who was an imminent threat to your family, but it would be immoral to kill a child as a form of discipline.
-
not if it requires someones labour to produce it..
Good point. I have never appreciated having great food more than when I was a kid and lived with cousins on their dairy farm. Most of what we ate they grew or raised and when appropriate, processed and stored for winter. Everyone of us, kids and adults, contributed something to our meals, snacks and desserts.
Homemade ice-cream, which we kids took turns churning by hand was unbelievably delicious. The wild berries and asparagus were not only fun to gather, they tasted wonderful. I wasn't excited when my cousin Winnie's husband slaughtered a year old male calf, but I don't think I've ever had better tasting beef since. Anyone who has tasted a home grown tomato, would wonder what the tasteless pale red things we get at the market are, because they sure don't taste like tomatoes.
These days the only hands on work I do for what I eat is buy it at the store and cook it on the stove or in the oven. Of course I worked my entire adult life and saved for my retirement income, which is what pays for the food I eat today.
-
I was born and tried to be raised as a christian but as soon as I worked out the futility and in my opinion stupidity of it all (I was about 11) and I have seen first hand the behaviour of many catholics in my time to know it to be true.
So if someone violates the tenets of a certain belief system then that, perforce, invalidates the entire belief system as a whole? Must all members, be it Mormons or the Police Department, follow all the rules and tenets to the "T" or the whole organization is deemed to be baseless and unsound?
But your experience is very interesting. I was around 14 when I decided to become an Agnostic and announced to my religious family that I would no longer observe the Catholic faith. I was heavily influenced by the writings of Bertrand Russell. It would be hard to understate the effect this had in our household in those days (mid-1970s) and how from their perspective I had just condemned myself to hell.
As the years, actually decades, went by, I worked out the futility and, in my opinion, the stupidity of it all. The idea that the universe just appeared out of nothing and the futility of it all as there is no accountability for any behavior and it really doesn't matter, in the grand scheme of things, whether you are good or evil. It's what you can get away with.
-
The wants of the lazy, the drug and/or alcohol addicted, the perverse and promiscuous do NOT outweigh the needs of the honest and hard working.
Those that claim otherwise are quislings to this Nation of ours.
-
Yes, morality is based on your indoctrination and culture.
Yes, its fine to kill sopmeone if they are going to harm you, but thats them breaking the 1st law.., you could make the argument that anyone breaking the law of "cause no loss or harm" means they are excluded from the protection that the law allows, a bit like when people were made "outlaws" in the Wild West , they were excluded the protection of the law so anyone could kill them and not face prosecution.
Children misbehave to test boundaries, as such they are causing you harm by doing so...
As for the sacking someone there is a little addition to the 1st law "cause no loss or harm or commit fraud in contracts" that way no one could sack anyone unless they caused harm themselves by breaching an agreement or contract.
What law? Killing per se is not against the law. Governments do it to their own people. Muslims are commanded to kill infidels. It may break "your" law but not theirs.
And so now the definition changes from "causing no harm or loss to another human being -- unless they caused or intended to cause harm themselves." And you give a preposterous example that is contorted to fit your world view, that people are fired because they have committed fraud in contracts. That's not why all people are fired. You've heard of "downsizing". What if an employer simply wants to cut cost and fires, deprives one of their livelihood, i.e., causing great harm to another person even though the person did no harm to others? What if a landlord decides they now want to sell a house or give it to a relative that is currently being rented by an elderly couple for the last 20 years? The couple did no harm but they are being harmed tremendously being kicked out of their home for the last 20 years. Here in Hawaii, a long time Sports Bar had to close down because the owner charged an exorbitant fee to renew the lease. A fee the owner knew the business owner could not pay. A long time fixture is now gone and no amount of public protest, and there was a lot, nor the hardship it caused the business owner mattered. The Landlord wanted to rent it to an Olive Garden restaurant because he wanted a different "clientele" to frequent the area. Harm was caused to the business owner who did nothing to deserve it other than to exist.
-
Now, to get back to the argument at hand: where does morality come from? How do we, did we, determine what is right and what is wrong? You argue that it is purely a human construct. What we like or dislike. But how did we come to those value judgements? You made the statement, "Almost all people of sound mind know what is right and wrong". Really? Are you implying that they are just born with a moral sense? That right and wrong don't really need to be taught but it is an innate trait? How did they get this moral sense? How did it just become ingrained in humans or cultures but not other life forms?
To make it easy I'll list the possibilities as I suspect in these topics it is not as thought through as many think they have: They can be one or any or all on the list and feel free to add any other. And you tell me how humans came up with moral laws.
1. Evolution
2. Reason
3. Conscience
4. Human Nature
5. Utilitarianism
-
Now, to get back to the argument at hand: where does morality come from? How do we, did we, determine what is right and what is wrong? You argue that it is purely a human construct. What we like or dislike. But how did we come to those value judgements? You made the statement, "Almost all people of sound mind know what is right and wrong". Really? Are you implying that they are just born with a moral sense? That right and wrong don't really need to be taught but it is an innate trait? How did they get this moral sense? How did it just become ingrained in humans or cultures but not other life forms?
To make it easy I'll list the possibilities as I suspect in these topics it is not as thought through as many think they have: They can be one or any or all on the list and feel free to add any other. And you tell me how humans came up with moral laws.
1. Evolution
2. Reason
3. Conscience
4. Human Nature
5. Utilitarianism
I think morality is a mixture of hardwired in and social engineering
Listen to Jordan Petersons lobster theory about how lobsters have hierarchies , in fact all animals have heiracies, they are hardwired in and 350 billion years old.
but, social engineereing has a massive influence, look as African tribes, they think its acceptable to marry and have sex with 10 year old girls, that takes some stretch of anyones moral hardwiring...
When I said people know whats right from wrong I was thinking more Western civilised societies.
-
Good point. I have never appreciated having great food more than when I was a kid and lived with cousins on their dairy farm. Most of what we ate they grew or raised and when appropriate, processed and stored for winter. Everyone of us, kids and adults, contributed something to our meals, snacks and desserts.
Homemade ice-cream, which we kids took turns churning by hand was unbelievably delicious. The wild berries and asparagus were not only fun to gather, they tasted wonderful. I wasn't excited when my cousin Winnie's husband slaughtered a year old male calf, but I don't think I've ever had better tasting beef since. Anyone who has tasted a home grown tomato, would wonder what the tasteless pale red things we get at the market are, because they sure don't taste like tomatoes.
These days the only hands on work I do for what I eat is buy it at the store and cook it on the stove or in the oven. Of course I worked my entire adult life and saved for my retirement income, which is what pays for the food I eat today.
Did you suck your first dick on that farm?
-
Did you suck your first dick on that farm?
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
just drop my coffee :P
-
I think morality is a mixture of hardwired in and social engineering
Listen to Jordan Petersons lobster theory about how lobsters have hierarchies , in fact all animals have heiracies, they are hardwired in and 350 billion years old.
but, social engineereing has a massive influence, look as African tribes, they think its acceptable to marry and have sex with 10 year old girls, that takes some stretch of anyones moral hardwiring...
When I said people know whats right from wrong I was thinking more Western civilised societies.
So Western civilization has a more "innate" sense of morality than African tribes? Why is that? How did a moral sense develop in humans but not animals?
I'm not going to look up lobster behavior and what hierarchy, which I take to mean as "pecking order" has to do with morality. It's just who is the strongest or most powerful and then working your way down.
Still waiting for a specific response on the origins of morality. Just saying hardwired and culture is not a specific answer. How did it get hardwired? What caused society to develop a moral code to pass on to future generations? Was it reason? Evolution? Human nature? Utilitarianism?
-
Did you suck your first dick on that farm?
LMAO!
-
Still waiting for a specific response on the origins of morality. Just saying hardwired and culture is not a specific answer. How did it get hardwired? What caused society to develop a moral code to pass on to future generations? Was it reason? Evolution? Human nature? Utilitarianism?
Not exactly sure where joswift is going, but it's undeniable that our views on morality change with the times and change under different circumstances. And different cultures do have different views on morality. So, that's a strong argument that morality is a human invention as opposed to a divine force. The fact that ethical dilemmas exist is another. In one of your previous posts, you listed things that caused harm but werent immoral. The problem is that under certain circumstances, some of those things are arguably immoral.
-
So Western civilization has a more "innate" sense of morality than African tribes? Why is that? How did a moral sense develop in humans but not animals?
I'm not going to look up lobster behavior and what hierarchy, which I take to mean as "pecking order" has to do with morality. It's just who is the strongest or most powerful and then working your way down.
Still waiting for a specific response on the origins of morality. Just saying hardwired and culture is not a specific answer. How did it get hardwired? What caused society to develop a moral code to pass on to future generations? Was it reason? Evolution? Human nature? Utilitarianism?
thats not how it works with civilised societies, heirachies are based on competence, not power
here is Jordans explanation
-
NO FREE LUNCHES IN THIS WORLD. WORK OF STARVE. TRUMP 2020.
-
thats not how it works with civilised societies, heirachies are based on competence, not power
here is Jordans explanation
OK, "competence" although I have found in the real world the most competent are the ones NOT leading the pack and running the show. Now back to the topic at hand, are you able to answer the question on the origins of morality?
And, as I said before, I'm not going to read any links or videos. Anybody can find anything on the net to support their views. I don't want to hear what Jordan has to say. I want to know what you have to say. We can go back and forth all day posting opposing links and videos. Let's think and argue for ourselves.
-
Did you suck your first dick on that farm?
@Prime - I apologize for laughing like a hyena at this.
-
OK, "competence" although I have found in the real world the most competent are the ones NOT leading the pack and running the show. Now back to the topic at hand, are you able to answer the question on the origins of morality?
And, as I said before, I'm not going to read any links or videos. Anybody can find anything on the net to support their views. I don't want to hear what Jordan has to say. I want to know what you have to say. We can go back and forth all day posting opposing links and videos. Let's think and argue for ourselves.
I have explained 3 times, I have given my opinion and you just keep asking "why" like a 5 year old does, its not helpful..
I have said, its partly in or DNA and more so in or societal upbringing,
Now Im not going to say "God put it there" like you want me to to, lets just say its always been there.
Its like the question of where did the universe come from, you say God created it, I then ask who created God, you say , hes always been here, OK then lets just say the Universe has always been here and forget about God.
-
I have explained 3 times, I have given my opinion and you just keep asking "why" like a 5 year old does, its not helpful..
I have said, its partly in or DNA and more so in or societal upbringing,
Now Im not going to say "God put it there" like you want me to to, lets just say its always been there.
Its like the question of where did the universe come from, you say God created it, I then ask who created God, you say , hes always been here, OK then lets just say the Universe has always been here and forget about God.
No, you haven't. You have just given some vague "morality is based on indoctrination and culture". What? Maybe I getting too deep for you but that does not answer the basic question as to the origins of morality. Indoctrination? By who? Your parents and culture? Where did your parents get or develope these values? Same with society composed of other parents. I tried to make it easier for you by listing the common reasons atheists argue for the development and origins of moral values and even invited you to add any of your own.
Remember, you were the one who made the claim that there are no such things as inalienable human rights, a concept our country is based on. You think people have rights only because others say they do.
Rights are things other people allow you to have, there are no inalienable rights, they dont exist, rights are a man made construct..
-
I tell you what? I'll break it down even more and use a specific example. One that is considered pretty cut and dry -- murder.
Explain to me why murder is wrong? If you think that it is trivial or self-evident please indulge me. Why is murder wrong? And none of this, well it's against the law or because it violates the principle of harming others because that just begs the question why is it illegal or why is it wrong to harm others.
Often trying to explain what appears to be a simple concept becomes not so simple when it's broken down to its essence. If you can't do it, I understand. It's not as easy as people think. At least to those who have actually thought through the issue.
-
I tell you what? I'll break it down even more and use a specific example. One that is considered pretty cut and dry -- murder.
Explain to me why murder is wrong? If you think that it is trivial or self-evident please indulge me. Why is murder wrong? And none of this, well it's against the law or because it violates the principle of harming others because that just begs the question why is it illegal or why is it wrong to harm others.
Often trying to explain what appears to be a simple concept becomes not so simple when it's broken down to its essence. If you can't do it, I understand. It's not as easy as people think. At least to those who have actually thought through the issue.
Murder is against the law by definition, as Murder is a legal term, its defined as "unlawful killing", like I mentioned earlier, people in the old west were made "outlaws" and as such it was impossible to "murder" them as they didnt have the protection of law.
Now, as for killing someone, its wrong because people decided its wrong, animals kill each other all the time, they dont think its wrong, death is just a part of life.
As I said before we switched to morality we were talking about rights, people dedided that people have a right to life, thats why we created laws to protect people, and formed civilised societies, go look at at Africa, you have people dispensing street justice and chopping people up in the street, everyone watching joins in, not one of those people believe they are doing anything wrong, now, where are their morals?
-
Murder is against the law by definition, as Murder is a legal term, its defined as "unlawful killing", like I mentioned earlier, people in the old west were made "outlaws" and as such it was impossible to "murder" them as they didnt have the protection of law.
Now, as for killing someone, its wrong because people decided its wrong, animals kill each other all the time, they dont think its wrong, death is just a part of life.
As I said before we switched to morality we were talking about rights, people dedided that people have a right to life, thats why we created laws to protect people, and formed civilised societies, go look at at Africa, you have people dispensing street justice and chopping people up in the street, everyone watching joins in, not one of those people believe they are doing anything wrong, now, where are their morals?
This is what I mean when I implied you are not as thought through as you think you are. You say murder is wrong because people simply decided it was wrong. No reason given why they made this decision. You make it sound like they just tossed a coin. As you said, animals don't think it's wrong. "It's just a part of life." Aren't we animals? Why isn't killing part of "our life".
At least a more thought through person will give specifics like maybe make an evolutionary argument, such as why women are more choosy than men in picking someone to mate with. Or maybe they might say, well I wouldn't want you to murder me so I won't murder you and we come to an agreement that murder is wrong. No, you just say it's against the law. It's against the law by definition. No, it's not. There are cultures that celebrate murdering innocent people. There were, are cultures that engage in human sacrifices. In Palestine, your family gets a chunk of money and sometimes even a street named after you for killing Jews. Murder, is not defined as "unlawful killing" that's just begging the question. It's like me saying the Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible. Murder is the killing of an innocent person. A moral imperative. You conflate rules and laws with morality which are universal and unchanging. Inalienable human rights are very much tied to morality as they deal with absolute rights and wrongs.
BTW, your example of killing outlaws is not murder is irrelevant. Murder is the killing of an innocent person. Killing an outlaw, essentially capital punishment, is not murder.
-
It is free already, isn't it? Some people hunt deer, fill their freezer stock for a year.
-
It is free already, isn't it? Some people hunt deer, fill their freezer stock for a year.
Money, labor, goods, and services are essentially the same things. Money is just a convenient way to trade goods and services without using the barter system. Hunting is not free as it is very labor-intensive. Labor is the price paid for anything you want. And if you were ever, or are, a hunter, you would know, depending on the method used, hunting is not a cheap endeavor
How many people can, do, or are able to grow their own produce and hunt for their meat? We have advanced as a society where we don't have to spend all our time cultivating our food. We have a division of labor where people are able to mass produce things leaving others to mass produce other things.
-
This is what I mean when I implied you are not as thought through as you think you are. You say murder is wrong because people simply decided it was wrong. No reason given why they made this decision. You make it sound like they just tossed a coin. As you said, animals don't think it's wrong. "It's just a part of life." Aren't we animals? Why isn't killing part of "our life".
At least a more thought through person will give specifics like maybe make an evolutionary argument, such as why women are more choosy than men in picking someone to mate with. Or maybe they might say, well I wouldn't want you to murder me so I won't murder you and we come to an agreement that murder is wrong. No, you just say it's against the law. It's against the law by definition. No, it's not. There are cultures that celebrate murdering innocent people. There were, are cultures that engage in human sacrifices. In Palestine, your family gets a chunk of money and sometimes even a street named after you for killing Jews. Murder, is not defined as "unlawful killing" that's just begging the question. It's like me saying the Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible. Murder is the killing of an innocent person. A moral imperative. You conflate rules and laws with morality which are universal and unchanging. Inalienable human rights are very much tied to morality as they deal with absolute rights and wrongs.
BTW, your example of killing outlaws is not murder is irrelevant. Murder is the killing of an innocent person. Killing an outlaw, essentially capital punishment, is not murder.
Murder is defined as unlawful killing, its a specific word that is used and was created and made up for that very purpose, go look it up in a dictionary
I really dont know how many times you want me to give you my opinion on where morality comes from, just because you either cant grasp or wont accept my reasons is lost on me at the moment, maybe you are trolling or just dont see whats in front of you..
And where do inalienable human rights come from and who ensures you have them?
-
Our man-made rights come from God.
Where else would they come from?
-
that's just begging the question. It's like me saying the Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible.
You have literally done this in every post you've made arguing that morality comes from God.
You conflate rules and laws with morality which are universal and unchanging
How can you claim that morality is universal and unchanging, and in the same post reference cultures that don't view murder as immoral?
Inalienable human rights are very much tied to morality as they deal with absolute rights and wrongs.
BTW, your example of killing outlaws is not murder is irrelevant. Murder is the killing of an innocent person. Killing an outlaw, essentially capital punishment, is not murder.
How can morality be absolute if the second statement is true?
-
Murder is defined as unlawful killing, its a specific word that is used and was created and made up for that very purpose, go look it up in a dictionary
I really dont know how many times you want me to give you my opinion on where morality comes from, just because you either cant grasp or wont accept my reasons is lost on me at the moment, maybe you are trolling or just dont see whats in front of you..
And where do inalienable human rights come from and who ensures you have them?
You can keep repeating the same thing over and over, but it's still wrong. Manslaughter is considered an unlawful killing. You fail to understand that murder is a specific subset of killing. That is the premeditated taking of a life of an innocent person. That's another example of your shallow thinking. And it still does not answer the basic question as to how do you know it's wrong.
But this post does allude as to why do you think murder is wrong. It's not because it violates some moral imperative. In your world, there is no objective morality, only opinions. So it's just your opinion. The concept of right and wrong can just as easily be called "like" and "dislike". And these are subject to whims and feelings of the time.
Saying murder is wrong or evil is just the same as saying "I dislike murder". And then we are left with moral relativism. There is no absolute morality but it's only relative to the individual. So you can have rules and laws, but that doesn't stop me from deciding to murder if I think I can get away with it and if in my opinion, I don't think it is wrong. But knowing I will have to answer to this sin and believing there is more to this life and this world then just what you see around you, it is a huge incentive to keep me on the straight and narrow. There is an especially egregious homeless person in our neighborhood that I wish was dead. If I didn't believe it was a sin I would put a bullet in his wretched head and go to sleep knowing that I, in a small way made, the world a better place. And no one would give a shit but breathe a sigh of relief. I doubt the murder investigation would be priority one for L.E.
So with moral relativism, we have what we are having so much of today: moral confusion. So, if you want a good world, then the loss of objective, absolute, universal morality will only make it worse. "Without God, all is permitted."
-
So where does morality come from? To answer this you have to start from the premise that moral good and evil really exist. They are not simply a matter of personal taste or opinion. A concept that I believe is unforgivably shallow and superficial. A very, very common trait in our ever-expanding secular society.
Unlike science which tells us what is, the laws of morality tell us what ought to be. And like physical laws they direct and order something, i.e., right human behavior. But since morality doesn't exist physically its cause has to be something that exists apart from the physical world (nature). And that "thing" or "concept" has to be above nature, or supernatural. So if you believe that morality does, in fact, exists then this proves the existence of something beyond nature and beyond man. Just as a design implies a designer (a concept you also reject) moral commands implies a moral commander. Moral laws must come from a moral lawgiver. And that's what theists call God. Therefore, whenever you appeal to morality you appeal to God whether you think so or not.
So, by your arguments and the beliefs you presented here, you do not believe that there is such a thing as moral good and moral evil. All your value system is based simply on opinions. What you like and what you dislike and those can vary wildly. And that does not make for a better world.
-
You can keep repeating the same thing over and over, but it's still wrong. Manslaughter is considered an unlawful killing. You fail to understand that murder is a specific subset of killing. That is the premeditated taking of a life of an innocent person. That's another example of your shallow thinking. And it still does not answer the basic question as to how do you know it's wrong.
But this post does allude as to why do you think murder is wrong. It's not because it violates some moral imperative. In your world, there is no objective morality, only opinions. So it's just your opinion. The concept of right and wrong can just as easily be called "like" and "dislike". And these are subject to whims and feelings of the time.
Saying murder is wrong or evil is just the same as saying "I dislike murder". And then we are left with moral relativism. There is no absolute morality but it's only relative to the individual. So you can have rules and laws, but that doesn't stop me from deciding to murder if I think I can get away with it and if in my opinion, I don't think it is wrong. But knowing I will have to answer to this sin and believing there is more to this life and this world then just what you see around you, it is a huge incentive to keep me on the straight and narrow. There is an especially egregious homeless person in our neighborhood that I wish was dead. If I didn't believe it was a sin I would put a bullet in his wretched head and go to sleep knowing that I, in a small way made, the world a better place. And no one would give a shit but breathe a sigh of relief. I doubt the murder investigation would be priority one for L.E.
So with moral relativism, we have what we are having so much of today: moral confusion. So, if you want a good world, then the loss of objective, absolute, universal morality will only make it worse. "Without God, all is permitted."
why do you keep making up your own definitions, go look them up and post me a definition that backs your own..
18 U.S. Code § 1111. Murder
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
Any other murder is murder in the second degree.
where does it say anything about an "innocent person"
and as for wishing someone dead?? What the fucks wrong with you?
Some homeless guy on the streets who wishes you no harm?
And you accuse me of being shallow and with no compassion?
And the only reason you dont put a bullet in his head is because you know they would throw you in prison.
If you knew there were no consequesnces you would off him tomorrow.
-
You can keep repeating the same thing over and over, but it's still wrong. Manslaughter is considered an unlawful killing. You fail to understand that murder is a specific subset of killing. That is the premeditated taking of a life of an innocent person. That's another example of your shallow thinking. And it still does not answer the basic question as to how do you know it's wrong.
But this post does allude as to why do you think murder is wrong. It's not because it violates some moral imperative. In your world, there is no objective morality, only opinions. So it's just your opinion. The concept of right and wrong can just as easily be called "like" and "dislike". And these are subject to whims and feelings of the time.
Saying murder is wrong or evil is just the same as saying "I dislike murder". And then we are left with moral relativism. There is no absolute morality but it's only relative to the individual. So you can have rules and laws, but that doesn't stop me from deciding to murder if I think I can get away with it and if in my opinion, I don't think it is wrong. But knowing I will have to answer to this sin and believing there is more to this life and this world then just what you see around you, it is a huge incentive to keep me on the straight and narrow. There is an especially egregious homeless person in our neighborhood that I wish was dead. If I didn't believe it was a sin I would put a bullet in his wretched head and go to sleep knowing that I, in a small way made, the world a better place. And no one would give a shit but breathe a sigh of relief. I doubt the murder investigation would be priority one for L.E.
So with moral relativism, we have what we are having so much of today: moral confusion. So, if you want a good world, then the loss of objective, absolute, universal morality will only make it worse. "Without God, all is permitted."
Dude, it was just a quarter pounder with cheese. Time to let go. ;D
-
why do you keep making up your own definitions, go look them up and post me a definition that backs your own..
where does it say anything about an "innocent person"
and as for wishing someone dead?? What the fucks wrong with you?
Some homeless guy on the streets who wishes you no harm?
And you accuse me of being shallow and with no compassion?
And the only reason you dont put a bullet in his head is because you know they would throw you in prison.
If you knew there were no consequesnces you would off him tomorrow.
OK, forget innocent. It includes "premeditated" which is more than just unlawful. First-degree murder is a specific class of killing.
And why do I wish some people were dead? It's because I believe in justice. I rejoiced when Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were dead. I loved to see Kim Jung-un dead. I would love to see murderers and child molesters dead. I know this surprises you because you are oblivious to things done that don't directly affect you. You only care about yourself. And how the fuck do you know he wishes me no harm? You don't have a clue.
And I know I could easily kill him and get away with it. You are probably unaware that most murders go unsolved. In this case, it would be a relief to the community and L.E. as they have stated publicly that they wish there was a way they could get him out of the neighborhood. And, you are correct, the only reason I don't do it is because of the consequences and it's not because of the law but because I believe I will have to answer for it with my soul.
Learn how to spell "consequences".
-
Dude, it was just a quarter pounder with cheese. Time to let go. ;D
These things take time.
-
Food can be free, mushrooms can be found growing in the wild, can pick willicks at one the rocks after a high tide, can even get a lobster with a home made hook and with a bit of luck. These are just a few examples, Fuck doing that every day though would rather just go to work to pay for food.
-
OK, forget innocent. It includes "premeditated" which is more than just unlawful. First-degree murder is a specific class of killing.
And why do I wish some people were dead? It's because I believe in justice. I rejoiced when Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were dead. I loved to see Kim Jung-un dead. I would love to see murderers and child molesters dead. I know this surprises you because you are oblivious to things done that don't directly affect you. You only care about yourself. And how the fuck do you know he wishes me no harm? You don't have a clue.
And I know I could easily kill him and get away with it. You are probably unaware that most murders go unsolved. In this case, it would be a relief to the community and L.E. as they have stated publicly that they wish there was a way they could get him out of the neighborhood. And, you are correct, the only reason I don't do it is because of the consequences and it's not because of the law but because I believe I will have to answer for it with my soul.
Learn how to spell "consequences".
you are aware you can just choose not to believe that and you will be fine.
You are living in a prison of your own making
And why do I wish some people were dead? It's because I believe in justice. I rejoiced when Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were dead. I loved to see Kim Jung-un dead
You are aware that those people were no better or worse than any political leaders in the West, you just seem to want to kill people who you disagree with or dont like.
Do you want George Bush and Tony Blair killed?
Would you have had all the leaders during the 2nd World war on the allied forces who were all fully aware of the Holocaust and chose to do nothing in case it diverted resources to the wrong place?
And I gurantee the guy want dead does not wish you harm, unless you have wronged him in some way..what did you do to him?
-
you are aware you can just choose not to believe that and you will be fine.
You are living in a prison of your own making
Of course, it's my choice. You think you are making some insightful observation? Just like it's your choice to decide that there is no moral good and evil, just opinions. That man has no soul and there's nothing more to all this than what you can see and touch. You've chosen to have a life with no transcendent meaning. That's what makes you so breathtakingly shallow. No wonder your main focus in life at 55 is still how your body looks.
-
Of course, it's my choice. You think you are making some insightful observation? Just like it's your choice to decide that there is no moral good and evil, just opinions. That man has no sould and there's nothing more to all this than what you can see and touch. You've chosen to have a life with no transcendent meaning. That's what makes you so breathtakingly shallow. No wonder your main focus in life at 55 is still how your body looks.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/Vsl4fGedmYFRC/source.gif)
-
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/Vsl4fGedmYFRC/source.gif)
That's the best you can do? One superfluous letter which is obviously being sloppy whereas your posts are littered with misspelled words, grammatical, and punctuation errors not because you're sloppy but because you just don't know how to spell and write.
-
That's the best you can do? One superfluous letter which is obviously being sloppy whereas your posts are littered with misspelled words, grammatical, and punctuation errors not because you're sloppy but because you just don't know how to spell and write.
and previously
What's "eays" retard? And just one period will suffice. No space needed in front of a comma.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/Vsl4fGedmYFRC/source.gif)
-
You are aware that those people were no better or worse than any political leaders in the West, you just seem to want to kill people who you disagree with or dont like.
Do you want George Bush and Tony Blair killed?
Would you have had all the leaders during the 2nd World war on the allied forces who were all fully aware of the Holocaust and chose to do nothing in case it diverted resources to the wrong place?
And I gurantee the guy want dead does not wish you harm, unless you have wronged him in some way..what did you do to him?
You can't guarantee (note correct spelling) shit. You have no idea what or who you are talking about. This crazy bum has been arrested numerous times and gets right back on the street. He has randomly assaulted people, he exposes himself to children and makes cat-calls ("show me your panties") as the kids have to walk past him because they have to get to the bus stop. He has threatened me countless times saying he will put a knife in my back. So STFU. You keep talking about things you know nothing about.
"You are aware that those people were no better or worse than any political leaders in the West"
Wow! I want everybody on this board to read this. This surprises me even coming from you. You are equating monsters like Kim Jung-un, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden? People who have slaughtered their own people for disagreeing with them and killing innocents because they don't share their religion with our leaders.
I had no idea what a nut case you are.
-
You can't guarantee (note correct spelling) shit. You have no idea what or who you are talking about.This crazy bum has been arrested numerous times and gets right back on the street. He has randomly assaulted people, he exposes himself to children and makes cat-calls ("show me your panties") as the kids have to walk past him because they have to get to the bus stop. He has threatened me countless times saying he will put a knife in my back. So STFU. You keep talking about things you know nothing about.
"You are aware that those people were no better or worse than any political leaders in the West"
Wow! I want everybody on this board to read this. This surprises me even coming from you. You are equating monsters like Kim Jung-un, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden? People who have slaughtered their own people for disagreeing with them and killing innocents because they don't share their religion.
I had no idea what a nut case your are.
hahaha. And so do all the political leaders from the West
George Bush and Tony Blair killed thousands of Iraqies based on a lie.
USA overseas involvements
(http://www.activistpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/US-War-Graph.jpg)
This crazy bum has been arrested numerous times and gets right back on the street. He has randomly assaulted people, he exposes himself to children and makes cat-calls ("show me your panties") as the kids have to walk past him because they have to get to the bus stop. He has threatened me countless times saying he will put a knife in my back. So STFU. You keep talking about things you know nothing about.
he sounds mentally ill and in need of some help, what are you as a God believing Christian doing to help him?
Oh yes, plotting to kill him.
-
hahaha. And so do all the political leaders from the West
George Bush and Tony Blair killed thousands of Iraqies based on a lie.
USA overseas involvements
(http://www.activistpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/US-War-Graph.jpg)
he sounds mentally ill and in need of some help, what are you as a God believing Christian doing to help him?
Oh yes, plotting to kill him.
There was no lie. We went to war with Iraq due to the repeated violations of UN resolutions which included credible reports of WMD from all the major intelligence agencies (Russia, France, UK).
And you don't see the difference between casualties of war and targeting innocent civilians. No one, NO ONE, does more to try to spare innocents in times of was than the U.S. That's one of the main reasons why war is so protracted. We fight with one arm tied behind our backs.
Man, you show more and more just what a shallow, vapid person you are.
And way to go like a true European Leftist standing up for criminals and people who make other lives miserable. Sure he's nuts. All the more reason to get rid of him.
-
There was no lie. We went to war with Iraq due to the repeated violations of UN resolutions which included credible reports of WMD from all the major intelligence agencies (Russia, France, UK).
And you don't see the difference between casualties of war and targeting innocent civilians. No one, NO ONE, does more to try to spare innocents in times of was than the U.S. That's one of the main reasons why war is so protracted. We fight with one arm tied behind our backs.
Man, you show more and more just what a shallow, vapid person you are.
And way to go like a true European Leftist standing up for criminals and people who make other lives miserable. Sure he's nuts. All the more reason to get rid of him.
In the early 2000s, the administrations of George W. Bush and Tony Blair asserted that Saddam Hussein's weapons programs were still actively building weapons, and that large stockpiles of WMDs were hidden in Iraq. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted between November 2002 and March 2003,[3] under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Hussein give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections, shortly before his country was attacked.[4] The United States asserted that Hussein's frequent lack of cooperation was a breach of Resolution 1441, but failed to convince the United Nations Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] Despite this, Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War instead. A year later, the United States Senate officially released the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq which concluded that many of the Bush Administration's pre-war statements about Iraqi WMD were misleading and not supported by the underlying intelligence. United States-led inspections later found that Iraq had earlier ceased active WMD production and stockpiling; the war was called by many, including 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain in a memoir, a "mistake"
-
In the early 2000s, the administrations of George W. Bush and Tony Blair asserted that Saddam Hussein's weapons programs were still actively building weapons, and that large stockpiles of WMDs were hidden in Iraq. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted between November 2002 and March 2003,[3] under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Hussein give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections, shortly before his country was attacked.[4] The United States asserted that Hussein's frequent lack of cooperation was a breach of Resolution 1441, but failed to convince the United Nations Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] Despite this, Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War instead. A year later, the United States Senate officially released the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq which concluded that many of the Bush Administration's pre-war statements about Iraqi WMD were misleading and not supported by the underlying intelligence. United States-led inspections later found that Iraq had earlier ceased active WMD production and stockpiling; the war was called by many, including 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain in a memoir, a "mistake"
I told you, numbnuts, I'm not going to read links or copy/paste bullshit. I can find anything on the net to back any position I want. Try to think and speak for yourself.
Perhaps I've tapped the upper limit of your intellect and so now you have to find others to speak for you.
-
I told you, numbnuts, I'm not going to read links or copy/paste bullshit. I can find anything on the net to back any position I want. Try to think and speak for yourself.
Perhaps I've tapped the upper limit of your intellect and so now you have to find others to speak for you.
OK, the link says they admit they went to war on a misleading evidence.. thats it in a nutshell
Now, care to back up this point you made
We went to war with Iraq due to the repeated violations of UN resolutions which included credible reports of WMD from all the major intelligence agencies (Russia, France, UK).
see, thats why I post links, it validates the argument, you just make stuff up and dismiss links and evidence because you have none.
imagine if the police and courts acted like you, just shouting out accuastions and making staements as opposed to providing evidence, they wouldnt get very far.
I can see now why you believe in God so easily
-
Excellent and insightful observation!
Damn, I should have thought of that.
You just further proved how brainwashed and indoctrinated he is. He is incapable of thinking for himself and only parrots what his conspiracy theory whack jobs tell him.
And he's absolutely clueless. He really sincerely believes that he has cornered the truth and is on the right side of history. No capacity for self-reflection and objectivity.
Bit like people who believe in God.. :-*
-
Bit like people who believe in God.. :-*
And that's one of the differences between you and me. When I quoted you I posted the entire exchange so that no context is lost. Here you are quoting me referring to an anti-Semitic posts post links and numbers as absolute facts. I have freely admitted that the belief in a creator has not been proven and is taken on faith. It's exactly the same as those who believe that the universe just created itself. It hasn't been proven and is taken on faith. It's just that I am more honest about than you are.
What a phony.
-
And that's one of the differences between you and me. When I quoted you I posted the entire exchange so that no context is lost. Here you are quoting me referring to an anti-Semitic posts post links and numbers as absolute facts. I have freely admitted that the belief in a creator has not been proven and is taken on faith. It's exactly the same as those who believe that the universe just created itself. It hasn't been proven and is taken on faith. It's just that I am more honest about than you are.
What a phony.
Occams Razor my friend....
-
Occams Razor my friend....
You're running out of arguments, "my friend". Tough when I don't allow links or youtube vids and you have to think and speak for yourself.
I am making no assumptions. I check the context of my quote and it is you who are trying to imply, to make assumptions, of something that's not there.