User Controls
Is there a term for this? *the illusion of sin*
-
2017-08-20 at 2:08 AM UTCDon't worry bout it b.
Keep Your Keep -
2017-08-24 at 3:35 AM UTCfather Abraham had many sons, had many sons had father abraham, I am one of them and so are you so lets just praise the lord. Muhamed Jesus and Einstien were all sons of Abraham.
-
2017-08-24 at 3:52 AM UTC
-
2017-08-24 at 3:52 AM UTCDinglepop
-
2017-08-24 at 3:55 AM UTCDick Tonsil Jockey
-
2017-08-24 at 3:57 AM UTCDoorpork Sniggle
-
2017-08-24 at 3:59 AM UTCSchrodinger's List
-
2017-08-24 at 4:01 AM UTCJackrat noodle
-
2017-08-24 at 4:03 AM UTCJacket's Weather
-
2017-08-24 at 4:04 AM UTCWARIAT'S REVENGEThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-08-24 at 4:06 AM UTC
-
2017-08-24 at 4:08 AM UTCWartdog shackleberry
-
2017-08-24 at 4:11 AM UTCyou win
-
2017-08-24 at 4:13 AM UTCIT'S A DRAW!
-
2017-08-24 at 4:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by fag father Abraham had many sons, had many sons had father abraham, I am one of them and so are you so lets just praise the lord. Muhamed Jesus and Einstien were all sons of Abraham.
Muhammed was related to Abraham through the line of Ishmael, whereas Jesus and Einstein were related to him by the line of Isaac. -
2017-08-24 at 4:17 AM UTCSuck me, beautiful.
-
2017-08-24 at 4:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by Falco You are not apart from nature. Man made constructs are no less natural than an ant colony or a beehive. So that is the tautological argument: the way we are is the way nature intended, because we are a part of nature.
But I think you deserve a better answer than that.
You agree that this "total freedom", no rules, is the state of nature, right?
Well let me introduce you to the idea of the categorical imperative:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
I recommend that you give the article a read, but let me give you the gist of it; since the "state of nature" is for everyone to be able to do anything they want, it can be argued that once everything exercises all of its "freedoms", the freedoms of everything principally cancel out; for practically every action, there is also a negation.
For example, a cat's "right" by nature to kill a mouse is cancelled out by the mouse's "right" by nature to defend against being killed. (CF's note; when this arises in a practical circumstance, the fact that these do not "cancel" per season is that the practical exercise of these rights does not live up to the ideal, principle exercise of these rights).
Kant therefore asserts that the state of nature principally has no freedom due to the fact that every individual is allowed to exercise their right; all these rights cancel out, infinitely.
Therefore to truly have any freedoms, he contends that we must enter, as we have, a "state of society". In a state of society, we give up some of our rights, so that we may be able to exercise other rights. For example, you must all give up your right to murder someone, so that you may exercise your right to life. (CF's note: and you can take this further to say that when you violate someone else's right to life, you must also therefore forfeit your own right to life.)
In this way, we can say that the "natural" state for a being that values true freedom, is the state of society, with rules, and not the state of nature.
That makes sense. I'm thinking about, do animals aside from us have justice systems? Set up punishments for rules? Their own special sins? Because to them it's essentially 'anything goes' and I could say that it should apply to us just the same.
That being said, why is it natural and permissible for animals to hunt other animals, and why did we decide it wasn't? I know you addressed that already, I'm just saying, why do we have any rights? I didn't ask for rights. I want to go back to the time before the first human was like "Uh hey, guise? I think we need to start delving out rights and consequences and such" and everyone was liek "much wow! What is a consequences??" and the guy explained all of it in a 4-hour prepared speech.
I want to go back then and convince that guy that no, it's not the right thing to do the rights thing, you have no right. -
2017-08-24 at 11:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ That makes sense. I'm thinking about, do animals aside from us have justice systems? Set up punishments for rules? Their own special sins?
I know monkeys and chimps have fairly complicated social structures. However I believe their entire life is based on first impulse, not any sort of cognition. So I doubt you can call it justice or a justice system.Because to them it's essentially 'anything goes' and I could say that it should apply to us just the same.
Yes, but why? Clearly there is more utility in existing in a state of society, than a state of nature.That being said, why is it natural and permissible for animals to hunt other animals, and why did we decide it wasn't?
We still hunt other animals. Other animals aren't capable of making and maintaining a social contract with us. I could be as nice as I want to a deer, it will still kick me in the head and put me into a coma when it has the first impulse to do so.I know you addressed that already, I'm just saying, why do we have any rights? I didn't ask for rights. I want to go back to the time before the first human was like "Uh hey, guise? I think we need to start delving out rights and consequences and such" and everyone was liek "much wow! What is a consequences??" and the guy explained all of it in a 4-hour prepared speech.
We didn't quite start from philosophy unfortunately. But we got close enough. Looking at something like the Hammurabi code, those ethics are not where we currently stand at all, but they show hints of it, such as "an eye for an eye" (although the intention, unlike how retards interpret it) was not retaliatory, but limiting. So you can progressively lose more and more of your social contract as you progress.I want to go back then and convince that guy that no, it's not the right thing to do the rights thing, you have no right.
Why? Don't you value your freedom? Why not instead go back and talk to people who implemented fucked up laws? -
2017-08-24 at 12:01 PM UTCSocial contract what a load of horseshit, i didn't sign shit motherfucker.
-
2017-08-24 at 12:10 PM UTC
