logic and compassion aren't polar enemies

Post Reply New Topic

This is my feelings on this.... One can have logic, and think logically, and still have compassion, still care about right and wrong. I mean, morality can vary from person to person, BUT, some things are just obvious wrongs. Everyone can agree it's wrong to rape someone, or murder someone in cold blood out of nothing but personal hatred. The secular humanists use eugenics as an excuse for immoral behavior, and I've seen this time and again. No matter how much they wanna argue using logic, they are still entrapped by their animal negativity and the dominance gene. But rather than try to challenge it, they use it as an excuse for immoral behaviors. But, society in general seems to think that logic and emotion can't co-exist, and both have a very important purpose. Emotion should not be used as a platform of behvior and thought, as it is destructive, BUT, logic states all living beings do have emotions, and, people should be able to logically assess not only their own emotions, but the emotions of others. But never should this get in the way of embracing the truth. The truth is the ultimate bottom line, and while some truths can be left to debate, other truths that are being ignored or overlooked are often cut and dry.

Why are some truths innately true, with no debate being possible and others aren't? Isn't anything open to debate as aren't all assumptions things that should be reviewed? After all, even the things you have mentioned as being objectively wrong, you haven't mentioned why or even how an objectively wrong moral statement can exist if different views on morality are possible. What basis do you use for this conclusion and is it acceptable from a logical standpoint for governing a society? Are there moral standpoints better than it? Another issue is that if they want to argue using logic but fail to do so, then why not point out where they fail. You only claim that they are trapped by animal negativity and the dominance gene but that does not refute their claims on these issues but could be interpreted as an ad hominem instead as you attack the arguer instead of the argument. As well, logic does not state that all living beings have emotions, in fact there is no proof that any being outside of the speaker has an emotion at all, which is something argued by solipsists, although of course, the solipsist point of view tends to be unlikely due to the undue complexity required for their standpoint to logically work, not only that but there are individuals and living things without emotions such as flies or those with certain forms of brain damage.

Dude, you don't need proof to tell you it's wrong to go home and beat your dog because you think it's funny. That's common since. I just got done watching the Da Vinci Code, and seeing a realistic window on how religion inspires caveman behavior. And, people like you are the reason why secular atheism is just as abhorable.

Well your not a sec-hum.... but you might as well be though.... My point was morality should be dictated by logic. Common since tells you that it's not right to cause suffering to an innocent being for a sheer ego trip... I guessed at you being a sec-hum because you keep speaking through such cold logic that it becomes illogical. Do you know what makes "my system" better? It's progressive, it's not heirarchical, it's not based around domination, greed, ignorance, limited mind span, brutality, selfishness, and utter stupidity. Wrong is determined by, "are my actions hurting anyone that does not deserve it?"
I mean I'm not some tree hugging lib, but damn, that doesn't mean I can't have a brain AND a heart.

why is this so different from your whimsical idea that its okay for you to eat meat because you "dont like the taste" of cheese and green leafy vegetables (bearing in mind that there are literally thousands of types of plant foods that exist and also that cheese is not a vegetable)? is basing your decision to eat the flesh of dead animals according to nothing more than your own culinary preferences not largely an egotistical decision?

Certainly you do from a philosophical standpoint! We cannot say that something just IS, we have to prove it if there is doubt on the matter. As well, what is wrong with me challenging your belief or assumption? Things cannot simply be assumed, and if they are just your belief or your assumption then why should that be made into a law to compel others, such would be similar to having a state religion or some other thing.

Common sense isn't so common. As Albert Einstein is known for having said "Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen.". That being said, "common sense" is not deserving of going untested as the common sense of this era goes against the "common sense" people have had in previous eras and so on. All of those things that make your system "better" are buzz-words and not logical proof of any improvement. If morality should be dictated by logic then that includes the first premises, you fail to do that, therefore your moral system needs revising or at the very least, it should not be imposed upon other people so that they don't have to suffer the logic issue.

Yeah, I could eat vegetables, but, there's a big difference between eating a peice of chicken and beating my dog with a sledgehammer so I can laugh at him being tortured. For one the chicken had already been killed, and I'd rather see her go to use than to be wasted. Besides i'd literally starve myself until I died if I had to survive on broccoli and cheddar cheese and collard greens and garlic and quiesh (yuck!). I hate it that bad, I would rather wither away and starve, and even IF I did swallow it, there's no way I could hold it down, no matter how hard I tried...... I dunno maybe I should find another source of food............. There has to be something I could sustain myself on....... Any suggestions would be helpful.....?..... Good work you've actually got me thinking on this one.

I probably should find a new source of food, but, like i said, there is a big difference between killing something for self sustainment and killing something for amusement. It's not even about animals, it's like saying if I were to walk up to you and stab you in the face for no reason at all, technically, I'd be the dominant male in that situation. But, does that make me right? Did you do anything to deserve that kind of pain?

What is the difference? Both are pleasing and both destroy an animal but philosophically they aren't difference. The chicken was only killed because the producer knew that somebody would buy it.


Not really, especially considering that meat isn't necessary for self-sustainment. It is about animals though. If you walk up and stab me in the face for your amusement or if you do so because you think that I look tasty, it ends up being the same does it not? I died for your pleasure, the only issue is that killing an animal and killing a human are 2 different things, "common sense" would indicate that humans are more valuable than animals, not only that but from a human point of view animals are truly less valuable, so why not allow people to treat animals the way that they want to treat them, after all, animals are not really that valuable to our human society and hurting an animal does not hurt any other human, so why not? The arguments you make so far on common sense can be used to justify any totalitarian imposition of morality, so really, as my common sense could tell me that "we all need to worship the one true god" or that "homosexuality is evil and they must be killed".

Dude that's f*****g barbaric. This tribal dominance BS is why man has fought wars and eradicated entire cultures. I suppose your gonna say the halucaust wasn't immoral either, because the dominant people got what they wanted? Slavery wasn't evil, because the dominant people got what they wanted? The witch trials weren't evil, because the dominant people got what they wanted from it? It's not being "totalitarian", it's just using basic compassion. If you kill something or someone in self defense, that's different. Progress is about developing a society as free of unnesseccary suffering as possible. I mean what did the damn dog do to warrant being beaten upside the head with a lead pipe? He was born a "lower form"? It could have just as easily have been you or me. So let me ask you a question, what gives you the right to abuse someone (animal or person) just because you feel like it? That sounds alot more totalitarian to me.
I'm sorry but I don't need a book or a scientific expirement to tell me it's not right to hurt innocent beings. There doesn't need to be philosophical debate on something like this, you should know instinctively it's not right.

And the chicken was killed to sustain life, not to gratify someone's ego.

The only thing is that I don't make moral claims. I will claim that the holocaust was a waste of human resources that should have never been pursued and that for a government to pursue such a task means a violation of individual human beings that threatens us all. This has nothing to do with dominant people or non-dominant people, I am arguing for the right of all people to use animals in whatever manner they please. It is being totalitarian to impose your desires upon other people when there is no objective justification for doing so. Progress is a word, it has nothing to do with the elimination or the creation of suffering, as progress is capable of both increasing and decreasing suffering. It could not have just as easily been you or me, and we are not dogs. You keep on hiding behind some moralistic rant without even examining the logical ideas behind such arguments. It is not totalitarian though because I MAKE NO CLAIMS ON HOW INDIVIDUALS IN OUR SOCIETY SHOULD ACT. You are free to treat animals however you like based upon ownership claims but why shouldn't other people be free to act as they desire as well? You spew out garbage in defense of your moral bias without any logical proof of it.


No, just look at history. The romans killed people for fun, the mongols killed people for tactics, the aztecs sacrificed people for gain. Really, there is no instinctive morality to say that even people should not be hurt, but I am not going that far. To allow that people be hurt poses a threat to individuals in our society, but to say that animals can be hurt poses no threat to any individual within our society. Stop claiming instinct, the fact of the matter is that it is more instinctual to do harm than to abstain from it if only based upon what we can notice from the violence of history.

No, not really. He could have sustained life without chicken, though the man consuming it undoubtedly has some pride in that he eats so well.

Logic and truth is the opposite of ignorance and hate. It is ignorance, hate and disrespect that give people an excuse to do wicked things.

Aspie Chav, do you ever check your pm's? I've sent you a few of them. I'd like to discuss some things with you, intellectually.

The only problems with your statements is whether or not logic opposes hate or whether wicked can really be an accurate assessment of anything. The reason why I question the former is that one can have a very logical reason for hating something if the object of hatred does pose a significant threat to one's interests and if the object of hatred promotes a view that one could consider objectionable. As well, the reason I question your statement of wickedness is because nobody has logically derived a definition of wicked so therefore this lack means that ignorance, hate, and disrespect lead to something not defined. Really, I think that the underlying cause for this statement the way that it is, is not because you logically found out these truths but rather that you found pleasing truth and claimed that it was logically derived.

What good has ever came out of hate? In what way is hatred, ignorance, and brutality progressive?