Pomp

spin,

Revulsion per se has little value. The revulsion one felt in the deep south when a nigra invaded waht society merely refected badly on the one feeling revulsion.

I disagree. The revulsion of a white southerner to an intergrated society is a valid reason for that southerner to oppose integration. It can, of course, be argued (and I would argue this) that there were better reasons to favor integration, but that does not change the fact that personal revulsion was a valid reason for the revolted to oppose it.

These sorts of almost physical reactions are predominantly learnt, so there is nothing intrinsic to such reaction of the individual.

So? It doesn't matter if I am instinctivly repulsed by the thought of torturing babies or if I learned to be repulsed by the thought of torturing babies, the fact remains that I am repulsed by the notion, as are the vast majority of human beings, and that repulsion is a valid reason for us to oppose the torture of babies. It is, by no means, the only reason why we might oppose such torture, but it is a valid reason nonetheless.

x-member

Spin;

You respond to MadKally that you "Did address her points in the last thread". She goes back, quotes you, and responds with the only two things you said on the subject -both ignorant ad hominems-. You then ignore her response again.

Curious.

No dobout that you'll respond to my observation by saying "Jonikins, you've not contributed anything to this thread, so shut up".

Jon

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: Jon Up North ]</p>

spin

Yes, PB, we are all helpless automatons, slaves to our passions, so who gives a fuck about morality at all, why not simply rape and pillage like our forebearers were programmed to do? Why argue about eating meat, when it is a physical imperative, or is it a mental imperative, or is it a moral imperative or who the fuck cares any way, as long as I can burp and fart the way I want, take sex the way I want.

Revulsion? I'm revolted by those people who want to stop me from raping and pillaging, burping and farting.

spin

spin:
----------
This {killing 1,000 sentient beings for the protection and benefit of 10,000 sentient beings} would deliberate contravention of the first part of the statement.
----------

PB:
----------
I don't understand. Am I not protecting and benefitting the most possible sentient beings in my example?
----------

You are not protecting the ones you want to hack up. You start with the maximum and when an entity contravenes the second part applies. As what you are advocating contravenes then it is stopped.

This is not a trading operation, PB. I'll give you 1000 baboons to save 10000 humans. Duh.

Humans have become a plague on this planet, going from occupying a minimal part to having stolen the habitat from so many species which have now been driven into extinction. Why not use humans instead of baboons, PB? They would be more relevant to the experiments.

PB:
----------
As I am trying to figure out how your moral system works, I'm going to continue quoting your complete stated moral system at the top of each of my posts.
----------

Thanks. It might sink in eventually.

PB:
----------
If this rule about consent is to be considered part of that system, please let me know so I can incorporate it.
----------

I suppose one can consent to give up one's existence. But then it's only applicable to consenting adults anyway, so we don't need to change the system to allow one consenting human to *uck another consenting human.

x-member

-snicker-

Avoid avoid.

Bree

Spin:

Just another reminder: When you are going to try and quote someone else, instead of using --- to distinguish between the two people, try this. Type and put the words you want to quote in between the two.

PS - I'm still waiting for a reply to my post <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000084&p=8" target="_blank">here</a>.

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: Bree ]</p>

spin

Bree:
-----------------
I'm still waiting for a reply to my post &lt;url removed&gt;here&lt;/&gt;.
-----------------

That's nice to know.

emphryio

Spin writes:
Ahhh. Now I get it. There is absolutely no forethought involved in your system of morality. No looking ahead to the 10,000 people that would be saved. The main thing that gives civilization the right to call itself civilized (forethought) would be removed in your system of morality.
We would all just live for the moment.

emphryio

Actually except for the way that you act like we're all idiots for not seeing this immediately, this isn't neccessarily a stupid idea.

Possibly humans have evolved into a creature that uses too much forethought and doesn't concentrate enough on enjoying the moment. (Next thing you know, 70 years have gone by, and somehow something was missing.) And I certainly agree that the actual moment of killing an innocent creature isn't so great.

But is there any basis, (logical reason), that there is no forethought involved in your personal system?

If there is, could you elaborate on what that basis is?

spin

spin:
------------
This is not a trading operation, PB. I'll give you 1000 baboons to save 10000 humans. Duh
------------

emphryio:
------------
Ahhh. Now I get it. There is absolutely no forethought involved in your system of morality. No looking ahead to the 10,000 people that would be saved. The main thing that gives civilization the right to call itself civilized (forethought) would be removed in your system of morality.
We would all just live for the moment.
------------

No. If you want experiments to be done, instead of damaging baboons, who are mainly irrelevant and who are merely victims of human cowardice, why not volunteer to be the guinea pig?

1000 humans to save 10000 humans? I'm sure you'd agree.