Ban Blood Sports

[brien]

Yes, it is clear you just don`t know.

And it is clear your are a nanny state narrow minded know it all.:rolleyes:

Too bad debates with you always devolve into you showing everyone how you think you know it all and then insult others from a phony better than thou p.o.v. People like you always end up hurting your cause more than helping because you alienate any open minded potential allies. You consistently prove that your intolerance to other points of view bear out your narrow mindedness personality. Sorry for you.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Sorry for the slow reply, bri.

And it is clear your are a nanny state narrow minded know it all.:rolleyes:

What is clear bri is that you can`t divorce yourself from anthropocentrism in order to handle a debate where values in an analogy can be substituted with humans or other animals so that thought processes in reason can be analyzed. You run for cover with indignance, which is not debate.

Too bad debates with you always devolve into you showing everyone how you think you know it all and then insult others from a phony better than thou p.o.v.

Bri, I don`t know a lot of things, and in fact I hope to learn more from debate, if not new perspectives then at least how to defend the arguments I believe in better. I never resort to indignance. I`ve seen quite a few places where you seem to be quite insultive and again resort to your emotional indignance/plea (or was it a demand), one coming to mind is your exchange in the Animal Experimentation thread with Praxius. Yeah, you devolved that thread quite well, so much to the point where a tap on the shoulder was needed to put an end to it. And, you using the word "us", as if we should care about your indignant argument, just because you group yourself in with those with a fatal disease was pathetic debate form -- not that you were debating more than just trying to be insultive and a grammarian (always poor form in debate -- eerrrr unless the debate is about grammar or the argument hinders on a grammatical point).

People like you always end up hurting your cause more than helping because you alienate any open minded potential allies. You consistently prove that your intolerance to other points of view bear out your narrow mindedness personality. Sorry for you.

People like me? You mean those who point out that indignance is not a leg to stand on? You mean those who point out that you can`t handle an analogy because someone had the audacity to use poor little ol' innocent homosapien to outline your flawed reasoning?

People like me sure do have our opponants and we do lose people in the battle of ideas. We sure can`t win over everyone. But, we are winning enough people by making indignant arguments fall down on themselves.

As for the laughable nanny statist comment, I have no problem with direct action to weaken unjust institutions. However, I sure don`t want to live in anarchy either.

Please try and return to the discussion without indignance and be prepared to handle analogies. They don`t dissappear merely because you vent indignance towards them.

[StrongHeartsWin]

The issue is a bit more complicated than that. For example, do you really think that those 100 murderers would follow a uniform distribution against the people at large?

I don`t think it would follow demographics perfectly, but also, I don`t think the profile would be so perverted to the point where it would become meaningless to reference. Statistics and random sampling, while they can be used to support any argument, can be done in a way such that real data is obtained for non biased judgement. Surely you would agree that that is a fair statement, and also that that would take us off on a tangeant if we were to go further than that on this point.

Also, there's a difference between believing something to be immoral (which would, ceteris paribus, prevent you from undertaking it) and knowing it to be illegal. In other words, morality (and ethics) is self-limiting, while the law is not.

I understand your point, but you have to understand, we are not operating in a vacuum, and, therefore, all other things are not equal -- meaning the links we have in society and the knowledge that the average moral agents possess, is quite adequate to let us presume that others, in addition to knowledge of the law, also have a strong intuition, if not outright knowledge, on what the moral beliefs of the law are. Are morals and ethiics self limiting?... They can be, but are they always? ... I don`t think so. One may know it is wrong, and indeed believe it is wrong to torture another, but still give into the strong curiosity or satisfaction one seeks to fulfill by doing it.

Law is only self-limiting in that the individual is part of the collective concience of the whole society one finds herself a part of. As an average moral agent, she will self/voluntarily limit herself based on that, and only if she sees the laws unjust will she decide to break them or change them -- attempting to divorce herself from the collective concience, or perhas through revolt i.e. changing them or wiping the slate clean, which would require infecting others with her belief, or identifying and unifying with others who believe likewise.

Another point to be made here is that no one is obliged to follow what I would call "universal morality" -- that is, a morality that is applied consistently to all people at all times. Most serial killers, for example, readily consider murder to be wrong for others, but not for themselves.

Hmmm... I think our social evolution as a species, which is one that philosophises, amongst others, discovers those universal morals which have always existed but just needed to be identified. Was rape morally wrong 3,000 years ago? I think so. How about slavery? Again, I think so. Surely we were not obliged to follow that belief in the past simply because our systems of phylosophy had not yet discovered then AND, therefore, no law had come about to center itself upon those morals discovered by philosophical thought.

As for serial killers, even though they may state murder to be wrong for others but not themselves in police profile reports of their personalities, I would bet that if a philosophy were attatched to their beliefs by philosophy experts, they will label them as egotist, which would in the final view make it (i.e. murder) justified. That they consider it ok for themselves and not others is merely inconsistency in their personal beliefs. If they had to chose the possibility of relinquishing to satisfy their ability to do the murder which brings them gratification OR allow it for others and keep doing it themselves, they would probably choose the latter so as to protect their own selfindulgence in it.

Finally, neither morals nor laws exist in a vacuum. Any given moral or law typically exists alongside other morals or laws. As a result, some of the other morals or laws may be regarded as more important. When one encounters a moral or legal dilemma, he would choose to fulfill the moral or law that he considers more important (or "valuable").

Agreed.

Again, knowing that something is illegal is not the same as holding the belief that it is immoral.

Agreed, but the average moral patient is not divorced (existing in a vacuum) from the reality of society and its morals which rest on the collective concience of society. As with her own personal morals, she is compelled/obliged through custom and law to respect that, or as I said earlier face the consequences of going against them.

Also, I would caution against associating "(il)legal" with "(not) being accepted in society". While democracy makes it more likely for this association to exist, it is not deterministically so. I imagine that there are several, if not many, things that are illegal in this country but would be accepted in society.

Fair enough, and I am not sure I have made any absolutist declarations on that point. I don`t think I have.

Auto, hold on. I am going to cut here and address the rest of your reply in a follow-up post.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Hmmm... I think our social evolution as a species, which is one that philosophises, amongst others, discovers those universal morals which have always existed but just needed to be identified. Was rape morally wrong 3,000 years ago? I think so. How about slavery? Again, I think so. Surely we were not obliged to follow that belief in the past simply because our systems of phylosophy had not yet discovered then AND, therefore, no law had come about to center itself upon those morals discovered by philosophical thought.

Slavery was not wrong 3000 years ago, people did not consider it wrong, so, at the time, it ws not wrong. Morality depends on human perception. Slavery is certainly wrong to us, and we look at the past with disgust, but to our ancestors It was not wrong. Morality depends on society's views, unfortunately.

[StrongHeartsWin]

There are many laws that are passed due to the efforts of a minority to impose their views on everyone else. Democracy's supporters often hold the premise that the voice of "the majority" always has the loudest voice, so to speak, but this premise has been proven false. Just as often, if not moreso, a minority has the loudest voice.

That could be so, Rob. Not much disagreement there. Those who get involved in the democratic processes of their country, putting forth laws, statutes, zoning, etc...surely are going to be shaping society to match their world view. The Sheeple, who are complacent and drugged with apathy, have no one else to blame but themselves for their own lack of power base.

Take "blood sports", for example. I think we can all agree that they are practiced by a small minority. Likewise, they are vehemently opposed by a small minority.

I think they are actively oppposed by a small minority who are quite vehement in their opposition. However, when blood sports have been put to the test with ballots and or candidates who have stated their opinion on it, the average person votes down blood sports.

The masses simply don't have a strong opinion on the subject. So you can see that, in this area, the dispute is between two small minorities -- the rest of us don't really care.

Hmmm... Again, I have to disagree here, Rob. Yes, the masses are not as enraged by blood sports as the activists who oppose them are, but they do not need to be so in order to play a part in change. They only need to care about it enough to vote against it or sign a petition. The hardcore activist stuff can be left to more energetic persons. And that is the reality of the situation; voter ballots and elected state officials have been banning blood sports because they are getting enough feedback from the average person on the issue against it.

If it were an equal amount on either side with the majority staying mum on the issue, I don`t think we`d be seeing 49 states with bans against cockfighting and all states with bans against dog fighting. The side which wants the bans in place could never have achieved what they have up until now without the support from "the rest of us" to tip the scales in our favor -- and remarkably so.

[sevendogs]

Do not worry. Be happy. All things, which people enjoy the most and with passion will survive all kind of religious and ideological minorities no matter how zealous or aggressive they may be. Look at the prohibition era or at our endless "war on drugs", for example. In free society attempts to outlaw prostitution or pornography consistently fail. Now, we have AR ideologists with their ideas of morality. They won cockfighting war in some states, but it also survives. Yes, it is going on, just away from sight pf snooping AR activists. Hunting with dogs continues in England. These "victories" are never complete and only temporary. What we can say about outlawing eating meats, dairy products, eggs and honey? Even those AR who are talking about "voluntary extinction" can not do it without violating their morality code. Human specific parasites will extinct with humans, such as cloths lice and some species of intestinal parasites. They have to stay for the sake of rights of those parasites! Perhaps, Taliban was most successful in all kind of prohibitions, but we do not like them so much. I would not mind, if all AR would extinct voluntarily, or with help of some of us.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Slavery was not wrong 3000 years ago, people did not consider it wrong, so, at the time, it ws not wrong. Morality depends on human perception.

Are nomadic tribes who have no or very little contact with the moral beliefs of others outside their world doing anything immoral when they slice off the labia and clitorus of 9 or 12 year olds -- so that they are a suitable young bride for a 35 year old who has arranged her marriage to him before she was even born?

According to you, because perception is the marker that defines morals, then the UN has no business stating such a practice should be discontinued? Why should it be discontinued if their perceptions see the practice as completely moral?

Slavery is certainly wrong to us, and we look at the past with disgust, but to our ancestors It was not wrong. Morality depends on society's views, unfortunately.

Slavery still goes on today, some in parts where the slaveholders are aware of present day societies` view of it, but some still in very remote places where it is not viewed as immoral.

Why are our "ancestors'" view relevant, being they are isolated by time, but not people of today who are isolated by geography or by choice? Their perspective may still be the only perspective they are aware of, or acknowledge.

I guess PHenry can summerize the rammifications of this philosophy of moral relativism more bluntly than I. See here.

[sevendogs]

Are nomadic tribes who have no or very little contact with the moral beliefs of others outside their world doing anything immoral when they slice off the labia and clitorus of 9 or 12 year olds -- so that they are a suitable young bride for a 35 year old who has arranged her marriage to him before she was even born?
It was abolished not because it was "immoral, but because girls did not like it for sure. People do not stick for long with anything what they do not like. Cutting off labia and eating steaks of keeping cats as pets are very different things. People enjoy eating steaks and keeping pets and you cannot compare it with weird customs of isolated tribes, which were certainly hated by women. There were speciesl TV boradcasts and interviews with locals about this. You miss difference between what people like and what they do not lie. People are always gedonistic and any ideological or religious oppression depriving enjoynment of human life would not stay for long. You are more similar to Taliban then to abolicionists as you claim it.

According to you, because perception is the marker that defines morals, then the UN has no business stating such a practice should be discontinued? Why should it be discontinued if their perceptions see the practice as completely moral?

This is not only about the perceptions. This is about needs and enjoyments.
Demands of AR, perhaps, are closer to those clitoris cutters, because so weird and anti human they are.


Slavery still goes on today, some in parts where the slaveholders are aware of present day societies` view of it, but some still in very remote places where it is not viewed as immoral.

Slavery did not stay, because people do not like the oppression and never enjoyed it. People do not hold on what they do not like naturally. Eating meat products and keeping pets is a great pleasure for too majority of people and they will not give up what they really enjoy. It is almost like sex. Only most asketic idologists can do it.

Why are our "ancestors'" view relevant, being they are isolated by time, but not people of today who are isolated by geography or by choice? Their perspective may still be the only perspective they are aware of, or acknowledge. People are like one big village now, because of Internet. This is how eating meats and keeping pets spread worldwide. Steaks and other meat dishes are popular in Japan as well as in England. AR is a marginal movement based on ideological believes and it is against what great majority of people of all nations like to do.

I guess PHenry can summerize the rammifications of this philosophy of moral relativism more bluntly than I. See here.

AR movement is a temporary freaky ideology, which should loose a lot of teeth before it can survive in a form of some isolated groups, like a kind of religious sect. Now, it became spread only in some well fed and urbanized societies. Economic difficulties of not so remote future will cure it quickly.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Are nomadic tribes who have no or very little contact with the moral beliefs of others outside their world doing anything immoral when they slice off the labia and clitorus of 9 or 12 year olds -- so that they are a suitable young bride for a 35 year old who has arranged her marriage to him before she was even born?

According to you, because perception is the marker that defines morals, then the UN has no business stating such a practice should be discontinued? Why should it be discontinued if their perceptions see the practice as completely moral?

Slavery still goes on today, some in parts where the slaveholders are aware of present day societies` view of it, but some still in very remote places where it is not viewed as immoral.

Why are our "ancestors'" view relevant, being they are isolated by time, but not people of today who are isolated by geography or by choice? Their perspective may still be the only perspective they are aware of, or acknowledge.

I guess PHenry can summerize the rammifications of this philosophy of moral relativism more bluntly than I. See here.

Society defines right and wrong, the isolated tribes are not capable of seeing what is the right thing, because they have not been exposed to our society's morals. We view it as wrong, but, as morals are defined by society, it was not back then. The slave trader knows what society percieves as wrong, and he probably wouldn't say it is right, just profitable. This is not relatavism on an individual level, but on a societal level, and if morals are defined by humans, then there is no such thing as absolute morality.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Society defines right and wrong, the isolated tribes are not capable of seeing what is the right thing, because they have not been exposed to our society's morals. We view it as wrong, ...

So, the UN is wrong in trying to get slavery and clitoral circumcision halted in isolated places and cultures who don`t view it as such? We should respect those peoples' morals and views of right and let it continue without condemning it as wrong?

[StrongHeartsWin]

A different point to add to your quote below:

Society defines right and wrong, the isolated tribes are not capable of seeing what is the right thing,

What do you mean "not capable of seeing what is the right thing,"? To THEM, what THEY are doing IS the right thing, so being not capable of being able to see it makes your sentence nonsensical.

[Gods_Mercenary]

So, the UN is wrong in trying to get slavery and clitoral circumcision halted in isolated places and cultures who don`t view it as such? We should respect those peoples' morals and views of right and let it continue without condemning it as wrong?

No, but it should be done sensitively and without judging just as viable moral systems.