Why does god want to cut off women's hands?

[Minimalist]

Did you miss the whole bit about Israel being a chosen people?

Did you miss the part about that being fucking bullshit?

[Bad Writer]

Did you miss the whole bit about Israel being a chosen people?

Did you miss the part about that being fucking bullshit?

Why do they talking as if that's supposed to mean anything?

[John V]

Yes, absolutely. It's a more complex issue than just desires; there's a weighing of the pros and cons of those desires, their impacts on the broader group, and a host of other issues.

IOW it boils down to your opinion.

You're misunderstanding: I'm claiming happiness as one of many bases for rights.

Happiness fails, as slave owners were presumably happy with the situation but you don't recognize that as a basis for a right to slaves. So, what are these other bases?

For example, that happiness needs to be consistent and spread out;

I disagree. If I have 8 units of happiness and another guy has 2, I feel no need to give the other guy 3 of mine. If we looked at how you live and how the poorest people in the world live, we'd probably see that you're the same as me, but like to think otherwise.

it might cause an individual great happiness to see another come to harm, but we understand that an individual's right to happiness doesn't override the right of the safety of another. We know this because rights need to be applied consistently over an entire community, and allowing people to harm others for their own happiness will be overall detrimental to the cohesion of the group,

Not if it's harm to someone outside the group.

Not at all; I'm implying that there's a progressive state of improvement that can be made. Nothing will ever be perfect, but there are certain choices that can be made, even far reaching ones, that are objectively good or bad; abolishing slavery for one, since that was directly curtailing the freedoms, in a number of harmful ways, of people just like you or I.

Again, you haven't shown that it's objectively better for happiness to be equalized.

Well, okay: the presence of death and killing does not preclude the idea that, generally speaking, life is the preferred option.

Abortion opponents might disagree. So would a lot of other species.

Life is preferable to death in that life is the single objectively confirmable existence that we have, and being so we should preserve it. Pain is not preferable because it's a sense perception specifically designed to warn us about potential bodily damage, and bodily damage is bad. These are simple concepts.

These are simplistic concepts. Life good. Pain bad. NSS. If I was in excruciating pain and you could take half of that pain, you wouldn't.

Yes, but part of the evolutionary advantage that allowed humans to become the dominant species on the planet is our ability to cooperate, our natural altruism and empathy toward one another- within limits, of course- that allows us to accomplish more.

There's been slavery for all or most of our recorded history, but it's our empathy that puts us above the other species? I think not. More likely things like, oh, opposable thumbs, language, and intelligence.

Your mistake is in assuming that one can only belong to one group. There's two: there's your community group, and there's the larger human group that we all belong to.

Your mistake is to delude yourself into thinking humanity counts as a group. As noted above, you pay lip service to it, but you don't act as if it's true.

And I have to ask, if this idea of outsiders being fair game is a compelling one to you, would you be okay with slavery in your country, so long as those slaves where foreign? If not, why not?

I'd like to see prisoners put to work, so you could say I support community slavery of our own citizens.

I don't know. I'd like to think I would, but I honestly couldn't say. You are dodging my question, though.

You too!

[Esquilax]

IOW it boils down to your opinion.

Well, until you can demonstrate that your omnipotent deity exists, opinion is really all we have. And it's not just my opinion; if it was, it wouldn't have any real world effects. These decisions are reached through mutual agreement.

Happiness fails, as slave owners were presumably happy with the situation but you don't recognize that as a basis for a right to slaves. So, what are these other bases?

You seem to be just sloughing off whole portions of my argument whenever it's convenient. Did I not say that happiness is a single element of a larger series of considerations?

I disagree. If I have 8 units of happiness and another guy has 2, I feel no need to give the other guy 3 of mine. If we looked at how you live and how the poorest people in the world live, we'd probably see that you're the same as me, but like to think otherwise.

The mistake here is that you're considering happiness as a finite resource, when what it is is a subjective emotional state. Oh, and also that you're, once again, ignoring large parts of my entire position in order to focus on smaller issues where you might actually gain some traction.

I wasn't using the phrase "spread around" in some totally egalitarian sense, but rather in the sense that the pursuit of individual happiness can be suspended if it overly affects the overall happiness of the community. I suspect if you'd read the entire passage, rather than stopping at the part you quoted and considering the rest as a separate item, you might have realized that.

Not if it's harm to someone outside the group.

We're all a part of the human group.

Again, you haven't shown that it's objectively better for happiness to be equalized.

It's objectively better in that groups that have rules that they all agree to follow have less chance of coming to ruin. That's why you see groups that are actively slanted toward single entities maximizing their happiness at the cost of others falling apart as often as they do; North Korea certainly seems like a great place to be, huh?

Abortion opponents might disagree. So would a lot of other species.

Really? The people that call themselves "pro-life" would disagree that life is a preferred state to death?

These are simplistic concepts. Life good. Pain bad. NSS. If I was in excruciating pain and you could take half of that pain, you wouldn't.

Yes, I know that they're simple. Do you read my whole post before you start to reply? I've said that they're simple myself; they're the starting point of building a moral system, not the entirety of one.

There's been slavery for all or most of our recorded history, but it's our empathy that puts us above the other species? I think not. More likely things like, oh, opposable thumbs, language, and intelligence.

Did you not read the "part of" section at the beginning of that first sentence?

Your mistake is to delude yourself into thinking humanity counts as a group. As noted above, you pay lip service to it, but you don't act as if it's true.

Your inability to consider the entire context of my position doesn't make me wrong.

I'd like to see prisoners put to work, so you could say I support community slavery of our own citizens.

Equivocation: the difference between slaves and prisoners is that prisoners are released at a certain point. Slaves are not, or at least there's no requirement that they are; even your biblical seven year slavery contains rules by which a temporary slave can be kept forever.

You too!

No, my answer is that I don't know. Giving a concrete yes or no when I don't know would be dishonest.

[John V]

Well, until you can demonstrate that your omnipotent deity exists, opinion is really all we have.

Even so, opinion would be all we have. I’ve already told you I don’t believe in objective morality.

And it's not just my opinion; if it was, it wouldn't have any real world effects. These decisions are reached through mutual agreement.

Criminals generally don’t agree with their sentence. The poor don’t agree to be poor. These decisions are reached by agreement of some people. Same with slavery – some people agreed to have it.

You seem to be just sloughing off whole portions of my argument whenever it's convenient. Did I not say that happiness is a single element of a larger series of considerations?

I’m trying to break a rambling, shifting mess into pieces that can be analyzed. If you don’t like it, lay out your entire argument, once, in an organized fashion.

The mistake here is that you're considering happiness as a finite resource, when what it is is a subjective emotional state.

Another shift. You previously tried to tie happiness to pain in an attempt to establish some amount of objectivity. Actually I agree with this last position. I know people with chronic pain that are happier than some people in good health, and I know some poor people who are happier than those better off. It kills your argument against slavery based on happiness, though. Paul agreed with this, noting that he was content in the lord regardless of his circumstances. He also advised slaves in general to abide in their current position, but to be happy nonetheless. This is possible because, as you note, happiness is a subjective emotional state.

Oh, and also that you're, once again, ignoring large parts of my entire position in order to focus on smaller issues where you might actually gain some traction.

I’m trying to break a rambling, shifting mess into pieces that can be analyzed. If you don’t like it, lay out your entire argument, once, in an organized fashion.

I wasn't using the phrase "spread around" in some totally egalitarian sense, but rather in the sense that the pursuit of individual happiness can be suspended if it overly affects the overall happiness of the community.

Yes, you’re using weasel words to avoid real analysis of your positions.

I suspect if you'd read the entire passage, rather than stopping at the part you quoted and considering the rest as a separate item, you might have realized that.

I’m trying to break a rambling, shifting mess into pieces that can be analyzed. If you don’t like it, lay out your entire argument, once, in an organized fashion.

We're all a part of the human group.

Again, you don’t behave that way. Actions speak louder than words.

It's objectively better in that groups that have rules that they all agree to follow have less chance of coming to ruin.

We’re all part of the human group. We don’t agree to much. Yet, our population keeps expanding.

That's why you see groups that are actively slanted toward single entities maximizing their happiness at the cost of others falling apart as often as they do; North Korea certainly seems like a great place to be, huh?

The fact that we still have slavery, and slavery was officially prohibited only recently, says otherwise.

Abortion opponents might disagree. So would a lot of other species.

My mistake – abortion defenders and other species might disagree.

Yes, I know that they're simple. Do you read my whole post before you start to reply? I've said that they're simple myself; they're the starting point of building a moral system, not the entirety of one.

Not simple, simplistic.

Did you not read the "part of" section at the beginning of that first sentence?

I’m trying to break a rambling, shifting mess into pieces that can be analyzed. If you don’t like it, lay out your entire argument, once, in an organized fashion.

Equivocation: the difference between slaves and prisoners is that prisoners are released at a certain point. Slaves are not, or at least there's no requirement that they are;

So you agree that prisoners with life sentences are slaves owned by all of us.

even your biblical seven year slavery contains rules by which a temporary slave can be kept forever.

Yes, by volunteering. Are you saying people shouldn’t have the freedom to do that?

No, my answer is that I don't know. Giving a concrete yes or no when I don't know would be dishonest.

You have no problem asserting that long-dead slaves were unhappy when you don’t really know.

[pocaracas]

Sorry, John, for taking so long to reply... I saw this on my mobile and wanted to reply on the computer and then it got flooded with you and esquilax...

Debatable
Debatable

Sure. While I personally find them convincing, I haven't said that everyone else should, too.

The trouble is when some people claim that I (and everyone else) should adhere to the same line of reasoning, the same gullibility.
And it's always people doing that... I have yet to see an actual god doing anything.

Some of those messengers do seem like fictional characters, don't they?

Not to me.

You see them as historical?
Have you tried to learn about biblical historicity?
One of the things I admire in our fellow forumer, minimalist, is his knowledge of this historicity.... you also have Bart Ehrman and others out there on youtube.

- the Bible's take on mankind agrees with my observations of myself and others.

I'd wager that most religions have a take on mankind that agrees with the way people are...

Debatable.

Aye, hence the wager.
Religions, while human constructs, are flawed... but many do incorporate elements with which the in-group identifies.

could it be that they all looked at how people are and then wrote it down?

If there are others as accurate as the Bible, then from my POV that's obviously what they did.

Couldn't the bible, or better, christianity have done so itself? Is this line of reasoning that much of a stretch?

[Bad Wolf]

Abortion opponents might disagree. So would a lot of other species.

My mistake – abortion defenders and other species might disagree.

Oh come on! Stop being intentionally stupid. People who defend the right to abortion, value life just as much as everyone else. They are not just up for killing babies for no reason. They are worried about the quality of life for both the mother and the baby. And thats how it should be. Not just about life living, but how well that life is going to live. I don't want to get into a debate about abortion here but would you let a baby be born knowing it is going to suffer and die young, like in places like Africa?

---

Equivocation: the difference between slaves and prisoners is that prisoners are released at a certain point. Slaves are not, or at least there's no requirement that they are;

So you agree that prisoners with life sentences are slaves owned by all of us.

This.....someone put this in the hall of shame please.

You have no problem asserting that long-dead slaves were unhappy when you don’t really know.

The way I see it, its irrelevant if the slaves were happy or not. They could have been treated like angels and I wouldn't give a shit. Its wrong. They are owned by another human being, traded around, bought and sold like objects. Owning another human being is wrong, no matter how you treat them

[John V]

The trouble is when some people claim that I (and everyone else) should adhere to the same line of reasoning, the same gullibility.

Do you think that I should adhere to the current mainstream scientific line of reasoning regarding evolution?

You see them as historical?

Yes.

Have you tried to learn about biblical historicity?
One of the things I admire in our fellow forumer, minimalist, is his knowledge of this historicity.... you also have Bart Ehrman and others out there on youtube.

Feel free to make an argument against historicity if you like. Saying that some characters strike you as fictional, or referring me to the biggest asshole on the board and youtube, isn't doing much.

Couldn't the bible, or better, christianity have done so itself? Is this line of reasoning that much of a stretch?

Could have? Sure. Are you trying to convince me that my faith is to some extent...faith? I could've told you that.

Some Biblical teachings are IMO unlikely to have come from men. I can't see why bronze-age goatherders would have given their servants and even their animals every seventh day off from work, or why they would forgive debts every seventh year, or forbid planting of crops every seventh year. Critics frequently say it's cruel to punish gathering firewood on the Sabbath with death...why would they put that law in there?

[pocaracas]

The trouble is when some people claim that I (and everyone else) should adhere to the same line of reasoning, the same gullibility.

Do you think that I should adhere to the current mainstream scientific line of reasoning regarding evolution?

Why not?
It does have a lot of evidence to back it up.
And if it turns out to be wrong, then heck, it was wrong...

You see them as historical?

Yes.

Have you tried to learn about biblical historicity?
One of the things I admire in our fellow forumer, minimalist, is his knowledge of this historicity.... you also have Bart Ehrman and others out there on youtube.

Feel free to make an argument against historicity if you like. Saying that some characters strike you as fictional, or referring me to the biggest asshole on the board and youtube, isn't doing much.

Oh, I'm not knowledgeable on those subjects... they are. There may be others... like the girl on this BBC documentary:

Couldn't the bible, or better, christianity have done so itself? Is this line of reasoning that much of a stretch?

Could have? Sure. Are you trying to convince me that my faith is to some extent...faith? I could've told you that.

I fail to understand how someone keeps his faith in spite of all the available information... or lack thereof.
At some point, reason must be getting overridden in those brains...

Some Biblical teachings are IMO unlikely to have come from men. I can't see why bronze-age goatherders would have given their servants and even their animals every seventh day off from work, or why they would forgive debts every seventh year, or forbid planting of crops every seventh year. Critics frequently say it's cruel to punish gathering firewood on the Sabbath with death...why would they put that law in there?

ah... not goatherders... well, not most.... bronze-age city dwellers. Remember? there were cities back then... sure, no New York with millions on inhabitants, but cities nonetheless.

[Esquilax]

Even so, opinion would be all we have. I’ve already told you I don’t believe in objective morality.

Well, okay.

Criminals generally don’t agree with their sentence. The poor don’t agree to be poor. These decisions are reached by agreement of some people. Same with slavery – some people agreed to have it.

Criminals broke a pre-agreed upon code of ethics; their objections to their punishment don't factor into it. They broke the law, the deterrent must be carried out if it's to have any weight. You might have a point with the poor if we were talking about a communist state, but we're not, generally speaking; accumulation of wealth falls under one's freedom to succeed or not at their own will, though I'd point out that we do recognize the inherent disparity of the social lottery, and redress it with certain government programs, somewhat.

All of this is moot, however, because as I've said before, majority vote is not the only criteria by which these decisions are reached.

I’m trying to break a rambling, shifting mess into pieces that can be analyzed. If you don’t like it, lay out your entire argument, once, in an organized fashion.

Hey, I'm sorry, this is a complex issue that you seem intent on not understanding. And I have laid it all out there; your continued attempts to cut it into smaller pieces without dealing with the whole is what's causing any confusion here.

Part of these determinations are external stimuli; we know what we like, and what hurts us, and it's objectively good to avoid the latter while allowing the former within reason. Part of these determinations are down to empathy and altruism; we do good and try to be equitable because there's an understanding that those memes are helpful to our species, since we can accomplish more by cooperating. Part is down to a weighing up of costs and benefits, as one would expect from a rational society.

There are other considerations, but I don't want to be writing a book, here. We can start with very simple basics, and build up a more complex system from those. It's just demonstrable fact; we've learned as we've gone, we've created a system that is, at the very least, much improved from days past.

Incidentally, how do you think these things are determined? After all, if you're arguing you must believe in some other way, no? It's hard to address you without knowing your position.

Another shift. You previously tried to tie happiness to pain in an attempt to establish some amount of objectivity.

Only in the sense that we uniformly like one and dislike the other. The purpose of the pain stimuli, after all, is as an unpleasant warning that something bad is happening.

Actually I agree with this last position. I know people with chronic pain that are happier than some people in good health, and I know some poor people who are happier than those better off. It kills your argument against slavery based on happiness, though. Paul agreed with this, noting that he was content in the lord regardless of his circumstances. He also advised slaves in general to abide in their current position, but to be happy nonetheless. This is possible because, as you note, happiness is a subjective emotional state.

Yes, and consenting to be a slave is something different; of course you can be happy in a situation you've chosen to be happy in. My concern is with those that have not chosen to be slaves, who would like to be something else but can't; recent history is rife with examples of this. If one wishes to be happy as a slave then fine, but the caveat I would want on this process is that if that happiness changes, then that person is free to leave; the issue with slavery is the robbery of free choice, in that it amounts to kidnapping. It wouldn't, for example, extend to slavery in the BDSM sense: it's the force that I object to. That's what most people object to; free labor given with consent isn't illegal, after all.

And again, happiness isn't the sole consideration.

Yes, you’re using weasel words to avoid real analysis of your positions.

You say analysis, I say strawman. The fact that large swathes of my positions are conspicuously absent lends credence to the latter label.

The fact that we still have slavery, and slavery was officially prohibited only recently, says otherwise.

Again, this is called learning.

So you agree that prisoners with life sentences are slaves owned by all of us.

No, because prisoners of any stripe aren't property, and there are conditions and basic rights in place that they have in common with any other person.

Yes, by volunteering. Are you saying people shouldn’t have the freedom to do that?

I'm saying that giving them a wife to coerce them into volunteering isn't much of a choice.

You have no problem asserting that long-dead slaves were unhappy when you don’t really know.

Some of them might have been happy, but I doubt all of them were. Given those rules on how to beat them, I'd suggest that many weren't fans.

Look, could I seriously get a position on these things from you so that an actual discussion can take place? I'm getting kind of tired of having to take shots in the dark as to where you're coming from, here.