Vegetarian Discussion: Moral Relativity

Moral Relativity
Posts: 10

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Bundling Snowfalls
2010-06-30 04:18:02 EST
There is difficulty in arguing with
someone who just doesn't care about
the same things as you do. What am
I to say to them? I believe many of
the moral issues concern things that
would concern the individual IF they
were aware of certain facts, or if
they had some shadow guilt about it.
If they truly don't care then there's
not much to do except all out war. I
can't say they're wrong... Well... I
can say they're wrong in my VIEW but
I can't say they're universally wrong.
But I want what I care about. So the
will to power comes into this, right?
However compassionately grounded...!

In 1904 with the words "Do as thou wilt
shall be the whole of the Law" Aleister
Crowley preceded scientific relativism
with a moral standard of relativism....

What are the main things it is relative
to? Individuals and conditions... right?
The individual sensitivity, and their
own awareness, their own biology, their
own conditions of culture, and so on. I
think there are also the conditions that
are about the animal more, like now we
have better ability to take the option..
Now we have a freer capacity to do as
we will, and if we care about animals...

On the "universal" side... I don't believe
there is an easy way to lay the law down,
on some universal level, but there is this
ideal I have that sensitivity generally is
the same in everyone at highest levels. It
is still relative to the individual body,
etc, and the world conditions, but in some
way there is a universal raw sensitivity
to the suffering of all sentient beings....
And... the world is coming to a point where
the state can "universalize" even more...?

Awaken21
2010-06-30 10:05:31 EST
On Jun 30, 4:18 am, bundling snowfalls <w...@time.dr> wrote:
> There is difficulty in arguing with
> someone who just doesn't care about
> the same things as you do.  What am
> I to say to them?  

"I will defend with my life your right to be an asshole."

It's a little shy of Julian standards, just meant as a baby step

Bundling Snowfalls
2010-06-30 13:44:00 EST
On 30/06/2010 10:05 PM, Awaken21 wrote:
> On Jun 30, 4:18 am, bundling snowfalls<w...@time.dr> wrote:
>> There is difficulty in arguing with
>> someone who just doesn't care about
>> the same things as you do. What am
>> I to say to them?
>
> "I will defend with my life your right to be an asshole."
>
> It's a little shy of Julian standards, just meant as a baby step

Too complex... don't get what you meant.

Anyway. Do you agree with my take?

Awaken21
2010-06-30 22:55:46 EST
On Jun 30, 1:44 pm, bundling snowfalls <w...@time.dr> wrote:
> On 30/06/2010 10:05 PM, Awaken21 wrote:
>
> > On Jun 30, 4:18 am, bundling snowfalls<w...@time.dr>  wrote:
> >> There is difficulty in arguing with
> >> someone who just doesn't care about
> >> the same things as you do.  What am
> >> I to say to them?
>
> > "I will defend with my life your right to be an asshole."
>
> > It's a little shy of Julian standards, just meant as a baby step
>
> Too complex... don't get what you meant.
>
> Anyway.  Do you agree with my take?

No. People just want to be listened to and accepted for what they are,
they don't need to be agreed with. Therefore the premise of the
question that argument or even debate is primary to a communication
between any two people is flawed.


Bundling Snowfalls
2010-07-01 00:19:22 EST
On 1/07/2010 10:55 AM, Awaken21 wrote:
> On Jun 30, 1:44 pm, bundling snowfalls<w...@time.dr> wrote:
>> On 30/06/2010 10:05 PM, Awaken21 wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 30, 4:18 am, bundling snowfalls<w...@time.dr> wrote:
>>>> There is difficulty in arguing with
>>>> someone who just doesn't care about
>>>> the same things as you do. What am
>>>> I to say to them?
>>
>>> "I will defend with my life your right to be an asshole."
>>
>>> It's a little shy of Julian standards, just meant as a baby step
>>
>> Too complex... don't get what you meant.
>>
>> Anyway. Do you agree with my take?
>
> No. People just want to be listened to and accepted for what they are,
> they don't need to be agreed with. Therefore the premise of the
> question that argument or even debate is primary to a communication
> between any two people is flawed.
>

oookayyyy. i think you are responding
to the me from that other universe.

Awaken21
2010-07-01 07:01:28 EST
On Jul 1, 12:19 am, bundling snowfalls <w...@time.dr> wrote:
> On 1/07/2010 10:55 AM, Awaken21 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 1:44 pm, bundling snowfalls<w...@time.dr>  wrote:
> >> On 30/06/2010 10:05 PM, Awaken21 wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 30, 4:18 am, bundling snowfalls<w...@time.dr>    wrote:
> >>>> There is difficulty in arguing with
> >>>> someone who just doesn't care about
> >>>> the same things as you do.  What am
> >>>> I to say to them?
>
> >>> "I will defend with my life your right to be an asshole."
>
> >>> It's a little shy of Julian standards, just meant as a baby step
>
> >> Too complex... don't get what you meant.
>
> >> Anyway.  Do you agree with my take?
>
> > No. People just want to be listened to and accepted for what they are,
> > they don't need to be agreed with. Therefore the premise of the
> > question that argument or even debate is primary to a communication
> > between any two people is flawed.
>
> oookayyyy.  i think you are responding
> to the me from that other universe.

Helloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Bundling Snowfalls
2010-07-01 07:05:00 EST
On 1/07/2010 7:01 PM, Awaken21 wrote:
> On Jul 1, 12:19 am, bundling snowfalls<w...@time.dr> wrote:
>> On 1/07/2010 10:55 AM, Awaken21 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 30, 1:44 pm, bundling snowfalls<w...@time.dr> wrote:
>>>> On 30/06/2010 10:05 PM, Awaken21 wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jun 30, 4:18 am, bundling snowfalls<w...@time.dr> wrote:
>>>>>> There is difficulty in arguing with
>>>>>> someone who just doesn't care about
>>>>>> the same things as you do. What am
>>>>>> I to say to them?
>>
>>>>> "I will defend with my life your right to be an asshole."
>>
>>>>> It's a little shy of Julian standards, just meant as a baby step
>>
>>>> Too complex... don't get what you meant.
>>
>>>> Anyway. Do you agree with my take?
>>
>>> No. People just want to be listened to and accepted for what they are,
>>> they don't need to be agreed with. Therefore the premise of the
>>> question that argument or even debate is primary to a communication
>>> between any two people is flawed.
>>
>> oookayyyy. i think you are responding
>> to the me from that other universe.
>
> Helloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

give me a minute to twist my
thoughts into your position.

that wasn't the premise. i think
i know what you mean, it's not a
premise of what i was saying tho.

everything doesn't have to be an
argument, if you disagree with some
one moral relativity i think must
make it even easier to back off..
but there is a power that comes in
the form of individualism as well.

Zenworm
2010-07-01 10:47:21 EST
On Jul 1, 7:01 am, Awaken21 <lukecar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 12:19 am, bundling snowfalls <w...@time.dr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1/07/2010 10:55 AM, Awaken21 wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 30, 1:44 pm, bundling snowfalls<w...@time.dr>  wrote:
> > >> On 30/06/2010 10:05 PM, Awaken21 wrote:
>
> > >>> On Jun 30, 4:18 am, bundling snowfalls<w...@time.dr>    wrote:
> > >>>> There is difficulty in arguing with
> > >>>> someone who just doesn't care about
> > >>>> the same things as you do.  What am
> > >>>> I to say to them?
>
> > >>> "I will defend with my life your right to be an asshole."
>
> > >>> It's a little shy of Julian standards, just meant as a baby step
>
> > >> Too complex... don't get what you meant.
>
> > >> Anyway.  Do you agree with my take?
>
> > > No. People just want to be listened to and accepted for what they are,
> > > they don't need to be agreed with. Therefore the premise of the
> > > question that argument or even debate is primary to a communication
> > > between any two people is flawed.
>
> > oookayyyy.  i think you are responding
> > to the me from that other universe.
>
> Helloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


ROFLMAO!

^~

Awaken21
2010-07-01 11:44:52 EST
On Jul 1, 7:05 am, bundling snowfalls <w...@time.dr> wrote:
> On 1/07/2010 7:01 PM, Awaken21 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 12:19 am, bundling snowfalls<w...@time.dr>  wrote:
> >> On 1/07/2010 10:55 AM, Awaken21 wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 30, 1:44 pm, bundling snowfalls<w...@time.dr>    wrote:
> >>>> On 30/06/2010 10:05 PM, Awaken21 wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jun 30, 4:18 am, bundling snowfalls<w...@time.dr>      wrote:
> >>>>>> There is difficulty in arguing with
> >>>>>> someone who just doesn't care about
> >>>>>> the same things as you do.  What am
> >>>>>> I to say to them?
>
> >>>>> "I will defend with my life your right to be an asshole."
>
> >>>>> It's a little shy of Julian standards, just meant as a baby step
>
> >>>> Too complex... don't get what you meant.
>
> >>>> Anyway.  Do you agree with my take?
>
> >>> No. People just want to be listened to and accepted for what they are,
> >>> they don't need to be agreed with. Therefore the premise of the
> >>> question that argument or even debate is primary to a communication
> >>> between any two people is flawed.
>
> >> oookayyyy.  i think you are responding
> >> to the me from that other universe.
>
> > Helloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>
> give me a minute to twist my
> thoughts into your position.
>
> that wasn't the premise. i think
> i know what you mean, it's not a
> premise of what i was saying tho.
>

Seems to me it's the background of your frustration with the
situation. OTOH I'm not claiming to have perfect insight for everyone
under every condition.


Bundling Snowfalls
2010-07-01 11:48:27 EST
On 1/07/2010 11:44 PM, Awaken21 wrote:
> On Jul 1, 7:05 am, bundling snowfalls<w...@time.dr> wrote:
>> On 1/07/2010 7:01 PM, Awaken21 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 1, 12:19 am, bundling snowfalls<w...@time.dr> wrote:
>>>> On 1/07/2010 10:55 AM, Awaken21 wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jun 30, 1:44 pm, bundling snowfalls<w...@time.dr> wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/06/2010 10:05 PM, Awaken21 wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 4:18 am, bundling snowfalls<w...@time.dr> wrote:
>>>>>>>> There is difficulty in arguing with
>>>>>>>> someone who just doesn't care about
>>>>>>>> the same things as you do. What am
>>>>>>>> I to say to them?
>>
>>>>>>> "I will defend with my life your right to be an asshole."
>>
>>>>>>> It's a little shy of Julian standards, just meant as a baby step
>>
>>>>>> Too complex... don't get what you meant.
>>
>>>>>> Anyway. Do you agree with my take?
>>
>>>>> No. People just want to be listened to and accepted for what they are,
>>>>> they don't need to be agreed with. Therefore the premise of the
>>>>> question that argument or even debate is primary to a communication
>>>>> between any two people is flawed.
>>
>>>> oookayyyy. i think you are responding
>>>> to the me from that other universe.
>>
>>> Helloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>>
>> give me a minute to twist my
>> thoughts into your position.
>>
>> that wasn't the premise. i think
>> i know what you mean, it's not a
>> premise of what i was saying tho.
>>
>
> Seems to me it's the background of your frustration with the
> situation. OTOH I'm not claiming to have perfect insight for everyone
> under every condition.
>

did i mention "all out war" too quick?

one has the choice to accept and make do.
Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron