Conservative or Liberal? (official poll)

Page 8 of 10 [ 153 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Flagg
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,399
Location: Western US

28 Jan 2007, 7:54 pm

Someone explain whats wrong with Zoophilia! The animal gains a sense that it forwarded the species and the humans lust is sated!

It's a win-win!

ahayes
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,506

28 Jan 2007, 7:57 pm

Flagg wrote:

Someone explain whats wrong with Zoophilia! The animal gains a sense that it forwarded the species and the humans lust is sated!

It's a win-win!

I believe the ASPCA can more adequately answer your question than I can.

Anubis
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 136
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England

28 Jan 2007, 8:00 pm

ahayes wrote:

Flagg wrote:

Anubis wrote:

My beliefs on stem cell/embryo research and biotechnology are that the embryo is unaware, unthinking, and of no significance until it develops into several tissues, and actually starts to form a living organism, with several tissues. Whilst it still consists of a small amount of cells which feel absolutely nothing, and of no resemblance to a vertabrate life form, no harm will be done if it is used for medical research and then destroyed.

That's pretty much my view.

So... if I went back in time and destroyed your embryo, that would be okay? After all, at that time you are unaware, unthinking and of no significance according to your views.

That is a different matter, as it is going back in time and changing something. I would not agree with that anyway.

_________________
Lalalalai.... I'll cut you up!

Hyperborealian
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 195

28 Jan 2007, 8:02 pm

Flagg wrote:

Someone explain whats wrong with Zoophilia! The animal gains a sense that it forwarded the species and the humans lust is sated!

It's a win-win!

well, the one of the things thats wrong is that it's impossible for humans and non-human animals to procreate together.

Another thing thats wrong with it is that you put yourself at risk for diseases possibly deadlier than the ones you get from exchanging human fluids.

Flagg
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,399
Location: Western US

28 Jan 2007, 8:02 pm

Once again, it relies on fallacy that morality is set in stone. The animal doesn't feel bad about it! In fact, it feels like it served it purpose! Which to animals is forwarding the species.

The human is happy about it to. Besides, it your life to use as you see fit.

Laws are often unfair and arbitrary.

Last edited by Flagg on 28 Jan 2007, 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

b_ryan
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3

28 Jan 2007, 8:08 pm

libertarianism (though not the new LP) appeals to me the most. i believe your body is yours and my body is mine. i am against censorship. i am against religion in the government. i am pro-animal rights. i believe many people are deterred from starting their own business because of red tape and complications in the current system and thus the economy suffers so i believe in making it much easier to become an entrepreneur or small business owner. i believe in a more focused legal system where violent crimes are top priority and dealt with full attention. prisons would be a lot less busy---they are overflowing now. the government would become neutral and less pushy in international affairs and thus tolerate diversity rather than become a world (morality) police

Flagg
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,399
Location: Western US

28 Jan 2007, 8:10 pm

b_ryan wrote:

Sounds alot like me to.

headphase
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 709
Location: NC, USA

28 Jan 2007, 8:11 pm

ahayes wrote:

headphase wrote:

ahayes wrote:

Flagg wrote:

Anubis wrote:

That's pretty much my view.

So... if I went back in time and destroyed your embryo, that would be okay? After all, at that time you are unaware, unthinking and of no significance according to your views.

Probably so if his mother was willing. It would be like going back in time and interrupting your parents having sex.

But using this example is irrelevant because it conflicts with other morality issues concerning altering the previous states of time.

So, if somebody went back in time to do this and it was okay with your mother, you wouldn't mind at all?

Explain EXACTLY how the example is made irrelevant, with every little detail.

It is irrelevant because this example assumes that, if time travel were possible, you would be ok with someone going to the past to alter it the time continuum. You can simply agree that going back in time to destroy an embryo is wrong due to the fact that one would alter the past, and not because you think destroying embryos was wrong.

Flagg
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,399
Location: Western US

28 Jan 2007, 8:18 pm

Someone close this, it's on the verge of becoming a flame war.

headphase
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 709
Location: NC, USA

28 Jan 2007, 8:20 pm

ahayes wrote:

headphase wrote:

ahayes wrote:

But he was never attemtpting to prove that "some moralities are timeless". He proved that there are absolutes by providing an example.

Then why did he say this:

mike wrote:

Thank you for admitting that some truths are transcendent and timeless.

He didn't prove it was an absolute either.

He proved that there is nothing to modify her view that beastiality is wrong.

No he only proved that she believes bestiality wouldn't become moral when they both die.

Mike wrote:

My point is that we agree on something. Bestiality is immoral. Do you think that it will become moral once Kathy and Mike are dead? I hope you will give me a direct answer.

He made the argument that she would think bestiality would become normal only due to the fact that both of them are dead. He should have been more careful with his words and sasked her if she believes that bestiality could ever be acceptable.

Kathy wrote:

No, it won’t suddenly become moral when we die. That is a stupid thing to say.

She clearly refutes the claim that bestiality would become moral due to their deaths.

Mike wrote:

Thank you for admitting that some truths are transcendent and timeless. That means they are not contingent on our feelings and subjective choices.

He makes the false assumption that she believes that bestiality could never become moral.

headphase
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 709
Location: NC, USA

28 Jan 2007, 8:22 pm

Flagg wrote:

Someone close this, it's on the verge of becoming a flame war.

I fear that is too. Let me say to ahayes that I mean no disrespect to you. I am just making claims to refute the argument.

Flagg
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,399
Location: Western US

28 Jan 2007, 8:29 pm

*Dons Flame Resistant suit*

I'm done with this thread.

ahayes
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,506

28 Jan 2007, 8:31 pm

how cowardly

Flagg
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,399
Location: Western US

28 Jan 2007, 8:36 pm

ahayes wrote:

how cowardly

He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day.

ahayes
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,506

28 Jan 2007, 9:08 pm

Flagg wrote:

ahayes wrote:

how cowardly

He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day.

But probably won't.

chadders
Deinonychus

Joined: 3 Dec 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 354

29 Jan 2007, 12:30 am

I think I value the liberal views more.

_________________
- Chadders

That's my two pence worth.

Page 8 of 10 [ 153 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Jump to:

Conservative or Liberal? (official poll) Post Reply New Topic

Conservative or Liberal? (official poll)