General science if you have no intention of bringing god into it, else religion.

(June 28, 2017 at 1:13 am)ignoramus Wrote: General science if you have no intention of bringing god into it, else religion.

I have NO intention of bringing god into it, I would think philosophy but that's fine general science it is.

Quote: What morality do I assert that you should or should not eat meat?

As with the former case I would invite you to mind your own business.

Where do you get the right to tell anyone else how to live?

(June 28, 2017 at 1:10 am)DogmaticDownSouth Wrote:
or

Will see. I will clean up the posts in the next few days and delete the information that should be redacted and start a new thread, which forum is best?

There is no need for that. Feel free to create a thread though.. Plenty of sections here. In doubt make on off topic and we can move it.

And welcome. I see you are enthusiastic with beginning discussing stuff.

(June 28, 2017 at 2:04 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: What morality do I assert that you should or should not eat meat?

As with the former case I would invite you to mind your own business.

Where do you get the right to tell anyone else how to live?

Did you read the actual post? your selective quote is intellectually dishonest. I specifically stated waht right do I have to DICTATE to some on else :none. Period. same for you and anyone else. PERIOD.
I don't think you understand the concept of a conversation. I have invitied people to join willing join me in a conversation, I have not told anyone to do anything. I have asked if anyone would be interested in hearing and critiquing my arguements adn you want to then great, if not then DONT READ THE THREAD ABOUT IT. I haven't interjected my opinoin in some-on elses conversation nor have I even IMPLIED i should dictate how someone else should live. I see you have a lot of stars so I suppose you are a popular person on these threads, but my limited interaction with you leaves me believing you are not intellectually honest, certainly within the context of this thread. I don't know what you are like elsewhere.

Same question to you, where do you get the right to tell anyone else how to live?

For those who did not see the actual post: ( added all Caps IF YOU WANT to emphasize the point of minimilist's out of context quote. else un-edited)

What morality do I assert that you should or should not eat meat? I have what I feel is a sound moral arguement for being a vegetarian and would be happy to try to convince you if YOU WANT. Just like that I feel I have a sound moral arguement (2 seperate ones actually) that lead to conclusion that in most situations (and exceptions are built into the framework of the arguement, not post-hoc or ad-hoc) a woman has a moral obligation to the fetus, her desire to want it or not is independent of that. That's what a moral arguement is.
If you are asking me what justification do I have to dicated to a woman that she must complete her pregnancy (or conversely that she must have an abortion as folks in China can tell you), I would say none, because morality is not an arguement for compulsion. That is what the law is for. I am not, nor have I, advocated for a legal arguement restricting abortion. That is the role of the government as a reflection of the society. I am a member of the society but not of the government.
However, if I have a sound arguement that convinces a woman not to have an abortion and she convinces some one else and so on then the law doesn't really matter does it?
Again this is the difference between what I believe morality is (what we should do) and legality (what we must or must not do). Laws can be moral or immoral and morality can be legal or illegal.

---

@LastPoet

Thanks for the welcome

@ingoramus
Got a few more posts from my respondent and answered my questions, they were both idiotic and intellectually dishonest. They finally tried to be specific and thought they laid a trap for me with who enforces a moral right, and my point is that moral rights are innate whereas legal rights are extended a government and may enhance or reduce our moral rights, eg slaves had moral rights to life and freedom but did not have legal rights. Response. Slaves did not have moral rights because they were taken away from them. I have ended my conversations at this point because they are either dumb or dishonest and the post seemed to be both. I may post a few of their replies, but primarily i will post a thread on my moral arguements soon and would greatly apprecuate honest feedback and comments and I would be happy to have a dialoge about my thoughts and your thoughts on my thoughts. If you want to create a threads on the morality of abortion then I would be happy to do the same for you or anytopic you choose thatI feel I can interject. Thanks again for the welcom

And, after that, in post #16 you said:

Quote:Same for me for morality. Abortion isn''t moral because it's moral (of course that's a tautology but I hope you get my drift). There should be some more fundamental moral arguements that lead to that conclusion, or to the converse. That's were I come.

I have my moral arguements, and they lead to a conclusion there, but I use the same toolset to determine other parts of my life, so obviously I would like to know my tools works, that's where I;m coming from.

Sounds to me like you are saying that your moral arguments ( watch your spelling ) have led you to a conclusion that it is not.  Of course, on closer reading of that and the OP it is possible that you are using Google Translate or equivalent so who can tell what you mean.

(June 26, 2017 at 10:33 pm)DogmaticDownSouth Wrote: I am willing to engage and hope others are as well

I don't usually get engaged on the first post but ..

Also, if you're from the South aren't you engaged with a cousin or something by now?

I type on a mobile device and have big thumbs. Typos happen. Oh well

More than happy to listen.
I trust you also are being honest by stating you are an atheist in your bio.
Not that we mind at all, but many theists will try to use a gotcha moment at the last minute after wasting everyone's time like somehow that will poof god into existence or something....

No intellectual conversation can ever do that except god himself. And he can't/won't because he doesn't exist.

Catch.

Thanks for your long post. Welcome!