jakelafort

Simon Paynton wrote:
there are a surprising number of women living in the bush in Africa who will sadly abandon a new born if they think it will not survive.  They do it before bonding with the baby; but they don’t like to talk about it.

However, the goal of the Spartans is familiar: mutual benefit.

And what “mutual benefit” derives from ab…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
The thing is, they are somewhat built into the fabric of reality, given the requirements that humans have to live in the way they do (collaboratively).  The multiplicity of values never varies, but how we emphasise them and achieve them varies a lot in time and place.

You are obsessed with collaboration and cooperation, but…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:
There’s no god needed, no ethics of the day. This shit is timeless. Every critter with a brain from a rabbit to a monkey to a child knows when they are getting screwed. Use that as your moral compass. No need to ascribe this to Jesus or Confucius. It comes from the evolution of the social advantage.

“Every critter with a brain f…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:
By saying “one way,” out the window goes any pretense of absolutism or universality or objectivity.

Sorry to burst your bubble – but I’m not sure what you’re after. It’s factually correct that people in need, need help. It’s always been the same the world over.

It’s not factually correct, it’s formally corr…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
Morality is less about human well being, than about the process itself, of achieving it; and one way is through helping others in need, and rescuing or restoring their well being.

That’s fact-free jibber jabber. It’s idealistic fantasizing. By saying “one way,” out the window goes any pretense of absolutism or universality or…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
Yes – what exactly is moral relativism?  Is it the moral philosophy that nothing is better than anything else?

Moral relativism isn’t a simple concept. On the one hand, it’s an epithet meant to describe ethical anarchy. In the historical sense, it’s a recognition that the values that conform to right and wrong vary ac…[Read more]

I have a long read post in Sunday School this week on morals.

@ Robert @ Jake

How do you define moral relativism?

If morals are not relative, then they are absolute which means factual. How would you go about proving that morality, which varies vastly from time to time and place to place is factual and not simply local beliefs at a given place and time?

I can’t wait to hear the answer.

A not bad at all full concert fancam showing that they always deliver your money’s worth when performing live.

Anyway, it’s time to get back to the original topic which is how AI raises questions regarding how to define porn and whether it can even have some positive uses, for example in treating pedophilia.

_Robert_ wrote:
Has sexualizing children ever been a moral act? Has rape ever been a moral act? Has owning people as slaves ever been moral act? The answer to those questions is and has always been a factual no.

Morals vary from place to place and time to time. They are beliefs. “Sexualizing” as used today is a new concept that didn’t exist until…[Read more]

@ Robert

You talk about right and wrong like they are facts and not artifacts. You don’t seem to know the difference between facts and beliefs. Cultural values are not facts subject to verification and proof. If they evolve over time, like our beliefs about homosexuality, they are not and cannot be facts.

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:
You treat “normal” as if normality is a fact and not a judgment or standard.

“Normal” can mean, neutrally, “most of the time” or “usually”. In that sense, paedophiles are a small minority and therefore abnormal.

Yeah, like people who own parrots. Abnormal.

@ Robert
You treat “normal” as if normality is a fact and not a judgment or standard. That is what we disagree about. For you, the ancient Greek men who diddled around with boys were violating some sort Truth handed down by God or perhaps built into the fabric of the Cosmos, and not simply a strongly held value and belief of a certain culture at a…[Read more]

RichRaelian wrote:
I don’t agree.

With whom or what explicitly?

_Robert_ wrote:
Any efforts to paint child predators as the victims here is disturbed. I am not giving pedos and predators any excuses by calling them mentally ill. would even call it psychopathic behavior and reiterate that they must be removed from society.

How do your basic assumptions not apply equally to gays and lesbian engaging in legal…[Read more]

@ Robert @ Jake

The Israeli Defense Forces is admitting the truth even though Netanyahu and you guys won’t: Even killing every last civilian Palestinian to get rid of Hamas is an unachievable goal.

But let’s kill all the Palestinians in the  Gaza ghetto anyway, even if it’s just for the helluvit.

IDF spokesman says Hamas can’t be destroyed, dr…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:
Sorry, that’s not logical. If it’s not normal, it’s abnormal, aka an “illness”.

First of all, not normal and abnormal are different concepts. Some leopards have spots and some, very few, are black, but a black panther is rare, not ill. A leopard with rabies is sick.

Furthermore, the concept of normality is normative, defined.…[Read more]