- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePeeling the onion...
I reject all genetic arguments on the basis that we are free moral agents responsible for our own acts.
One view is that the capacity for conscience is genetic (and varies by person) and the content of a particular person's conscience is greatly influenced by the culture they are in. Does this view necessarily conflict with the idea that we are free moral agents responsible for our own acts? Or is it just connected that way by a few overzealous materialists?
Originally posted by JS357yes we should blame materialists for everything!
Peeling the onion...
One view is that the capacity for conscience is genetic (and varies by person) and the content of a particular person's conscience is greatly influenced by the culture they are in. Does this view necessarily conflict with the idea that we are free moral agents responsible for our own acts? Or is it just connected that way by a few overzealous materialists?
seriously we can be influenced by what we take into our minds, there is no doubt but this is where personal responsibility comes in, for we are responsible for feeding our minds, we should be able to create our own realities and not have them imposed upon us by genetics.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd almost paradoxically have a look at this wiki on rape in US prisons.
Not conflating, no, its the existentialist in me, one should act as oneself, not as "one" acts or as "one's genes" or any other essence requires 😀
It seems much more complicated than i envisioned but at the same time I have a feeling that there is something common and quite sinister at its route, like a kind of unadulterated selfishness, a comple ...[text shortened]... ly when they learn of your deeds. Does rape culture exist here, hardly, its quite the opposite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape_in_the_United_States
The post that was quoted here has been removedI think what robbie is trying to point out is that if you believe in evilution and the survival of the fittess, then why would not you think rape is a natural outcome at times under that belief? Then why should it be punished, if it is just a natural impulse?
Originally posted by RJHindsactually that's not what I am saying at all, i am merely pointing out how scientific dogma can lead to unsubstantiated assertions.
I think what robbie is trying to point out is that if you believe in evilution and the survival of the fittess, then why would not you think rape is a natural outcome at times under that belief? Then why should it be punished, if it is just a natural impulse?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by robbie carrobie...his metal health should be considered as a mitigating factor..."
he is an anomaly and thus his metal health should be considered as a mitigating factor, although to what degree remains undetermined.
The camel's nose is in the tent.
Originally posted by JS357I think that even the secular courts recognise there are differing degrees of culpability for we often hear of sentencing on the basis of diminished responsibility.
...his metal health should be considered as a mitigating factor..."
The camel's nose is in the tent.
How does a bunny apply to any rioter? Bunnies don't riot. Rioters are not passive. Rioters are combatants.
Foxes are predators. Police are not supposed to be predators. Police are supposed to keep "the peace" for the sake of the community that they dwell in.
Similarities derived from 2 animal groups don't make applicable scientific examples just because there are "similarities." Rioters and Police both can have weapons. Bunnies and Foxes are not equal in aggression. Rioters and Police can be equal in aggression depending on their weapons capabilities. Rioters can kill police.
Bunnies and Foxes do no "equal" Rioters and Police respectively.
As a side note, if I can see distinct images in soap material or non-soap material on a shower curtain does that mean there are true similarities to be used as a scientific comparison for my human society? Can my society be helped or hurt by my imagination in recognizing images in soap or non-soap material due to a direct correlation?
Imaginative Reasoning does not necessarily mean direct correlation.
Rape is lust and sexual. Humans are subject to be judged by God. What examples of animal behaviors demonstrate rape among like animals? Animals are not judged by God for sex.
Originally posted by KingOnPointour materialistic friends do have some fruity ideas
How does a bunny apply to any rioter? Bunnies don't riot. Rioters are not passive. Rioters are combatants.
Foxes are predators. Police are not supposed to be predators. Police are supposed to keep "the peace" for the sake of the community that they dwell in.
Similarities derived from 2 animal groups don't make applicable scientific examples ju ...[text shortened]... of animal behaviors demonstrate rape among like animals? Animals are not judged by God for sex.