Philosophy Now Forum

Greatest I am wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: Try looking within yourself. You have more potential than you think.
Regards
DL

Following a roadmap of mystical events doesn't make me a cartographer.

True but if you never study a map, you can't even get out of town.

Regards
DL

You don't have to study a map to know what road to take.

Greatest I am wrote: Are those first three doable?

Can you love someone that does not love you back?

Said another way, does true love need reciprocity or can love exist when it only has one entity involved?

Those who love do so and show it by their works and deeds to another.

God does nothing and thus cannot love.

Regards
DL

It seems to me that if you wanted to design a ten step system to help the world work a little better, you might not waste the first three. God must be a completely insecure moron.
In fact the first four are all a fucking waste of space.
Here's a suggestion for replacements.

1. Stop buggering children.
2. Treat men and women equally
3. Treat persons of all races equally and without prejudice.
4. Do not needlessly do harm to other creatures, and the earth we all depend on.

For those who are not familiar with the beliefs of a religion, the appearance is that of Idolatry, but some believers understand that it is not the physical symbol that is worshiped, but what the symbol represents. it is unfortunate that some can't seem to differentiate between the symbol and what the symbol represents.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: 4. Do not needlessly do harm to other creatures, and the earth we all depend on.

Do you believe that eating meat is a necessity, or a luxury that humans can do without?

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: 4. Do not needlessly do harm to other creatures, and the earth we all depend on.

Do you believe that eating meat is a necessity, or a luxury that humans can do without?

I think it forms a useful part of the diet. But eating meat does not necessarily do harm. Farmers I have known give their animals the best life possible, at least better than nature would provide, and their deaths are less painful than they would otherwise have suffered at the hands of disease or predation.
Meat farming can also utilise marginal land and provide a proxy for the natural herbivore than would have otherwise contributed to the natural order. This can be in strict contrast to the desolate environment created by arable farming which most often is wholly dependant of chemical fertilisers, and pesticides. This has led to the wholesale destruction of millions of hectares of land throughout the western world making it vulnerable to ecological disaster.
This is why I am not in favour of barn fed animals fed on grains from intensive arable farming. And since we could actually be happier with eating less meat I would recommend a reduction in this practice.

thedoc wrote:For those who are not familiar with the beliefs of a religion, the appearance is that of Idolatry, but some believers understand that it is not the physical symbol that is worshiped, but what the symbol represents. it is unfortunate that some can't seem to differentiate between the symbol and what the symbol represents.

I do not think wasting four out of ten on the slavish worship is good for anything.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: 4. Do not needlessly do harm to other creatures, and the earth we all depend on.

Do you believe that eating meat is a necessity, or a luxury that humans can do without?

I think it forms a useful part of the diet. But eating meat does not necessarily do harm. Farmers I have known give their animals the best life possible, at least better than nature would provide, and their deaths are less painful than they would otherwise have suffered at the hands of disease or predation.
Meat farming can also utilise marginal land and provide a proxy for the natural herbivore than would have otherwise contributed to the natural order. This can be in strict contrast to the desolate environment created by arable farming which most often is wholly dependant of chemical fertilisers, and pesticides. This has led to the wholesale destruction of millions of hectares of land throughout the western world making it vulnerable to ecological disaster.
This is why I am not in favour of barn fed animals fed on grains from intensive arable farming. And since we could actually be happier with eating less meat I would recommend a reduction in this practice.

Then we agree on that point.

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote:
Do you believe that eating meat is a necessity, or a luxury that humans can do without?

I think it forms a useful part of the diet. But eating meat does not necessarily do harm. Farmers I have known give their animals the best life possible, at least better than nature would provide, and their deaths are less painful than they would otherwise have suffered at the hands of disease or predation.
Meat farming can also utilise marginal land and provide a proxy for the natural herbivore than would have otherwise contributed to the natural order. This can be in strict contrast to the desolate environment created by arable farming which most often is wholly dependant of chemical fertilisers, and pesticides. This has led to the wholesale destruction of millions of hectares of land throughout the western world making it vulnerable to ecological disaster.
This is why I am not in favour of barn fed animals fed on grains from intensive arable farming. And since we could actually be happier with eating less meat I would recommend a reduction in this practice.

Then we agree on that point.

Good. But my statement is a bit long winded for a "commandment".

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I think it forms a useful part of the diet. But eating meat does not necessarily do harm. Farmers I have known give their animals the best life possible, at least better than nature would provide, and their deaths are less painful than they would otherwise have suffered at the hands of disease or predation.
Meat farming can also utilise marginal land and provide a proxy for the natural herbivore than would have otherwise contributed to the natural order. This can be in strict contrast to the desolate environment created by arable farming which most often is wholly dependant of chemical fertilisers, and pesticides. This has led to the wholesale destruction of millions of hectares of land throughout the western world making it vulnerable to ecological disaster.
This is why I am not in favour of barn fed animals fed on grains from intensive arable farming. And since we could actually be happier with eating less meat I would recommend a reduction in this practice.

Then we agree on that point.

Good. But my statement is a bit long winded for a "commandment".

It's OK to be long winded sometimes, rather than being too brief and misunderstood.

There is a problem with the arguments of many who oppose meat eating and many other activities, they make the mistake of pointing out the worst examples, and then claim that they are representative of all. I believe in formal logic, this would be the fallacy of the excluded middle. Certainly there are bad examples of most activities, but to make the claim that these bad examples are typical is an error. Meat farming is one case where the opponents point to the factory farms and find those few who give vent to their cruel actions toward the captive animals, and claim that this activity is typical. I agree that these particular practices should be curtailed, but there is no reason to shut down the whole industry just for a few bad examples.

bobevenson wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

bobevenson wrote: Following a roadmap of mystical events doesn't make me a cartographer.

True but if you never study a map, you can't even get out of town.

Regards
DL

You don't have to study a map to know what road to take.

Get out of my Gnostic Christian thinking. You are not ready to go it alone while sucking on some gods ----.

Have you seen this link?

Martin Luther was thinking of a supernatural god but his thinking was pure Gnostic Christian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_qnsTr7I04

Regards
DL

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: Are those first three doable?

Can you love someone that does not love you back?

Said another way, does true love need reciprocity or can love exist when it only has one entity involved?

Those who love do so and show it by their works and deeds to another.

God does nothing and thus cannot love.

Regards
DL

It seems to me that if you wanted to design a ten step system to help the world work a little better, you might not waste the first three. God must be a completely insecure moron.
In fact the first four are all a fucking waste of space.
Here's a suggestion for replacements.

1. Stop buggering children.
2. Treat men and women equally
3. Treat persons of all races equally and without prejudice.
4. Do not needlessly do harm to other creatures, and the earth we all depend on.

Not too shabby.

I agree except for a caveat on 2.

Equality under the law, no argument.

I would change the law of the land to the law of the sea though.

I think that family is more of a man's responsibility and that we men should place women and children, and their needs, above our own. This does not mean that women are less important than men to family but does recognize that they are more important to family than men. It is better to have two parents but if a family is to settle for one, then it is mostly better to have a woman.

A lot of men seem to agree with this, given that 50% of households are one parent households, --- mostly manned by women.

The problem with those stats is that most of the 50% of dads are deadbeat dads.

So much for men knowing their responsibility.

Pardon the digression.

Regards
DL

thedoc wrote:For those who are not familiar with the beliefs of a religion, the appearance is that of Idolatry, but some believers understand that it is not the physical symbol that is worshiped, but what the symbol represents. it is unfortunate that some can't seem to differentiate between the symbol and what the symbol represents.

I think I agree here but the familiarity does not have to be as deep as you think for a correct opinion of it being idol worship.

The symbol or representation are still the individuals mental construct of their god that they idol worship, and I agree that that representation has nothing to do with a real supernatural god.

Many Christians, for instance, idolize and idol worship Jesus for his goodness but tend to forget that the stupid Trinity concept ties his to his genocidal son murdering vile demiurge, Yahweh.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:
A lot of men seem to agree with this, given that 50% of households are one parent households, --- mostly manned by women.

The problem with those stats is that most of the 50% of dads are deadbeat dads.

So much for men knowing their responsibility.

Pardon the digression.

Regards
DL

I think you are wrong on this issue.
First I'd like to point out the natural sexism of suggesting that women "man" the family.
On the issue of single parent families.
This in no way implies a dead beat dad. In fact for the most part, or at least in my experience, it is the result of the selfishness of women, who upon having children find no need for a man about the house and the law, being what it is, gives them all the power to control the children; throw out the father and either invoke the law to take him for everything he owns; or to rely on the state to provide for her children.

But my commandments make no mention of the family as I do not see that as part of the suggestions that a society can make to enforce what is in effect a private contract between two people.
My commandment was intended to ensure that men and women are to be treated as equal under the law, and should be equally considered for employment, not on grounds of gender, but on their ability to do a job.
If, and when the law needs to be invoked on family matters judgements ought not favour the mother, but also consider the father's potential to bring up the kids.
It seem that your women and children first attitude is the other side of the coin of discrimination against women, both patronising and discriminatory.

Greatest I am wrote: Many Christians, for instance, idolize and idol worship Jesus for his goodness but tend to forget that the stupid Trinity concept ties his to his genocidal son murdering vile demiurge, Yahweh.

You seem to believe too much of the OT is literal, as opposed to mythology, written by bronze age savages, to impress other bronze age savages.

Did it ever occur to you that God's requests were a test of human reaction, and not an expectation that people would actually carry out those requests?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
A lot of men seem to agree with this, given that 50% of households are one parent households, --- mostly manned by women.

The problem with those stats is that most of the 50% of dads are deadbeat dads.

So much for men knowing their responsibility.

Pardon the digression.

Regards
DL

I think you are wrong on this issue.
First I'd like to point out the natural sexism of suggesting that women "man" the family.
On the issue of single parent families.
This in no way implies a dead beat dad. In fact for the most part, or at least in my experience, it is the result of the selfishness of women, who upon having children find no need for a man about the house and the law, being what it is, gives them all the power to control the children; throw out the father and either invoke the law to take him for everything he owns; or to rely on the state to provide for her children.

But my commandments make no mention of the family as I do not see that as part of the suggestions that a society can make to enforce what is in effect a private contract between two people.
My commandment was intended to ensure that men and women are to be treated as equal under the law, and should be equally considered for employment, not on grounds of gender, but on their ability to do a job.
If, and when the law needs to be invoked on family matters judgements ought not favour the mother, but also consider the father's potential to bring up the kids.
It seem that your women and children first attitude is the other side of the coin of discrimination against women, both patronising and discriminatory.

It is discrimination in favor of women and children and I do not apologise for it.

It is not patronizing to women for me to show what I think men 's priorities should be.

To say that women do not want fathers around their children is just too foolish a concept for me to bother with.

Regards
DL