addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Bay Area Atheists/Agnostics/Humanists/Freethinkers/Skeptics Message Board › How about this very simple ethical code?

How about this very simple ethical code?

A former member
Post #: 48
Nice posts Mike. It's good to see more critical thinking going on in this group.
Gavin I.
globetable
San Francisco, CA
Post #: 101
"Your response is too schizophrenic and disconnected for me to address."

And yet you don't stop do you? Funny thing that. Followed, of course, by,

"Maybe you should take some critical thinking or philosophy courses to subject yourself to the discipline of having to write your thoughts down in a coherent, linear manner for someone else to read."

And your conclusion, AKA running for the door before I tear you a new a-hole -

"This is really not a good use of either of our time or abilities. So I'm just going to end with one last point not specifically relating to the moral consideration-"

In my previous post refuting you, I did not quote specifically your nonsense, but if you make a one to one correlation between your paragraphs and mine, most folks, unlike yourself can figure it out. So if my writings seems "disjointed," and "schizophrenic" you have only my responding source material -meaning your nonsense to blame.

Again, this is the Bay Area Atheists/Agnostics/Brights/Humanistst/Fr­eethinkers Meetup. Notice this is not an alphabetical list, meaning Atheists out-rank whatever rock I highly advise you crawl back under.

So while I disagree with the original posters conclusion, I will defend Audry's sincere, however confused, and misguided understanding of physical reality as it applies to our species (those teeth in your head are indeed canines), and agree, "Treat all animals, not just the human ones, with respect. Of what use are religion or spirituality, when they don't unequivocally stand for even this basic ethical value?"

In short, she is articulating, as am I, a non-theistic, world-view. You ain't.

In language you claim to understand...

Ethics = Yay!! Wooh hoo!! Right on, sister!!!
Morals = Piss off, you wanker. Go back, you god-given, theistic-believing scum, to whatever unseen-entity, make-believe, non-existent, imaginary friend, you believe you have and suck his-- well you get the idea.

(I am trying to play nice, Larry, really I am. But when I am deemed mentally incompetent and incoherent because I state human beings have teeth in their head, I'm dropping my sock.)

"if you can articulate it and show how Darwin has already defeated it you would make a monumental contribution to academic ethics."

Ah, yes, the sink-hole that is academic ethics. There is a rather large body of literature devoted to the examination of the debunking of your nonsense, but the closest at hand from where I sit is "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its quarrels with science, Paul r. Grosss/Norman Levitt.

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, by Steven Pinker, required that I actually stand to pull it off my shelf, but you get the idea. I am no stranger to idiots such as yourself. And unlike yourself, I don't use the word idiot in the ignorant, pejorative way you used, "schizophrenic," to question my mental health, attacking me without refuting the substance of my argument.

(Tell me, oh who is wise in the ways of BS, I only counted seven logical falsities in your rebuke, how many did I miss, oh wise and wonderful crap Master?) I'm an old school, triple D - Darwin, Dawkins, Dennet, no sky-hooks allowed. So yes, I am aware of the philosophical split that happened in 1975, just as I am aware of a similar philosophical split that happened last year in anthropology. Science went one way, believing/theistic numbnuts like yourself went the other. So what? We are discussing reality based ethics, you are talking morals.

I refer to the dictionary defined use of the word - you are an idiot - meaning I am neither insulting your sanity, education, or wisdom, I am making a simple statement of fact. You are capable of distinguishing between right and wrong and choose wrong.

Charles Darwin discredited (I already know you love this overused cliche word) all moral arguments- meaning an appeal to God, including yours. You choose to go the moral - meaning god route, you lose. Creationists such as yourself have no standing in the educational and legal systems, your only argument to engage in a personal attack and pray I didn't notice you changed the argument from ethics to morals. I did, so go home.

You say you know how to use google, then type in, "Richard Dawkins Peter Singer," idiot. How much hand-holding do you need?

Consider the following:

1.Peter Singer on eating Oysters.
2.Peter Singer on human infanticide.
3.Peter Singer on eating human road kill.
4.Under certain circumstances, Peter Singer agrees the eating of human babies is morally acceptable.

feel free to chew on this at your leisure. I won't insult your intelligence or knowledge, so enlighten me under all circumstances, why do you think Peter Singer would object to eating all human babies?

You keep insisting I am ignorant and have no clue of what I speak, and yet remind me, who was it that first mentioned Singer to Audry, that maybe she should take a long-hard ethical look at the moral foundation on which her ethical vegetarian argument is based.

Let us consider the following statements:

1. We live on a planet.
2. That planet is contained within a natural universe.
3. Charles Darwin is the greatest philosopher who ever lived.

As a moral-based, meaning theistic-god-believing philosopher, successfully refute these statements or slither back under your rock and die. Really.

"It's ok to chop up those babies because it's natural for humans to do that."
Whatever you call it, you are an idiot, sir. The mechanism that allows human beings to dehumanize, and thus slaughter their fellow species, babies included, is called...religion.

Technically speaking, that's what us folks is here to oppose. Sane and psycho united, so to speak, you just don't belong.

Gavin I.
globetable
San Francisco, CA
Post #: 102
I agree with the above ethical code, with the exception that I eat meat from animals that have been couped up and otherwise treated inhumanely."

Hi Dwight,
as an aside, facebook friend, atheist, buddy, oh pal, is it just me or do you feel like you've wandered into the Vatican by mistake and if you bend over to pick up one of those hundred dollar bills on the floor, you are going to take it in the behind for Jesus, whether you agree or like it in the behind or not?

Agreed, the actual killing is probably the most human thing that happens to an industrial food animal. As someone who has actually seen someone dieing of Madcow disease, back in the good old days when no one knew if it was contagious or not, I can assure you, it is not a pleasant way to die. Let us remember the reason Madcow came into existence is because someone came up with the brilliant idea that it made economic sense to feed cows to cows. Keep in mind, cows are herbivores-meaning they don't eat meat. They didn't evolve that way.

Cows also can't digest corn meaning corn-fed beef is also a horrifically bad idea. The reason 80 to 90% of all antibiotics end up in livestock is the result of this simple fact. They pump them full of antibiotics to keep them from dying from eating corn long enough to kill them for meat. The increase in obesity and the reduction of life expectancy, quality of life, etc. is directly traceable to the consumption of corn and corn products, not meat. The problem with meat is it arrives pre-poisoned. True of chicken and to an extent pigs.

Cows are not evolved meat-eating cannibals and human beings are not evolved vegans. Human beings are omnivores. True some human beings are healthy no matter what they eat, but it sounds like you and me kid, need that meat to stay healthy.

And you know what, corn is not an animal.


"I have tried several times to become vegan or vegetarian, but my body rebels and I start to get all sorts of aches and pains. I am too cheap to buy range fed chickens, so I just keep eating super market chickens. I feel a little guilty about it, but not enough to make me stop.

I recommend sustainably fed fish, but whatever, the trick is to get ethically raised animals into existence and then into the stomach.
mike b
user 12279488
San Francisco, CA
Post #: 3
'Idiot' – lol I feel like I'm on fox 'news.'

"And yet you don't stop do you? Funny thing that."

Good point. With the few corrections below I'm done.

"Ah, yes, the sink-hole that is academic ethics. There is a rather large body of literature devoted to the examination of the debunking of your nonsense, but the closest at hand from where I sit is "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its quarrels with science, Paul r. Grosss/Norman Levitt."

That book is a critique of postmodernism and probably continental philosophy (per the TOC and description on Amazon) not analytic philosophy. My interests and background lie in analyitc philosophy--that's the movement that Singer, Dennett and Pinker (to the extent that he's doing philosophy) are working within as well. The majority of work published in English on moral philosophy since the first half of the 20th century has broadly speaking come out of the analytic tradition. Even though analytic and continental philosophy are taught in the same university departments, they are two distinct and mostly incompatible fields. There are scholars in analytic philosophy on all sides of the political spectrum. My position also doesn't rest on denying science or any facts.

"But when I am deemed mentally incompetent and incoherent because I state human beings have teeth in their head"

I'm not attacking you for claiming that humans have canines. You still don't seem to get the argument that whether or not something is natural doesn't have a direct bearing on whether it's morally acceptable.


"As a moral-based, meaning theistic-god-believing philosopher, successfully refute these statements or slither back under your rock and die."

I use the terms moral and ethical interchangeably (I'm fairly certain that in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Dennett does as well). I'm unclear as to how you would get the impression that my use of the term moral would mean I believe in god. I'm an Atheist. There have been good arguments since Plato's dialog Euthyphro not only that ethics (or right action) do not come from religion, but that (if one believes in an all good god) ethics cannot come from religion. [Look up criticisms of the Divine Command Theory view of ethics.] There are even many ways to preserve our ability to engage in typical moral discourse without asserting that ethics are something that exist out in the world separately from humans or in any way denying what we're learning from cognitive science and evolutionary biology (metaethics is the name of the branch of analytic philosophy where these issues are addressed).

"The mechanism that allows human beings to dehumanize, and thus slaughter their fellow species, babies included, is called...religion."

While I wouldn't claim that Hitler and other Nazis were atheists, I don't think they were carrying out their genocide in the name of religion. Massacres in Africa and other parts of the world have been based on tribal/cultural differences, not religion. The point you evaded would still stand with an equally egregious example not drawn from religious mythology. I just like giving examples of atrocities from the bible every chance I get.
Wendy
user 9892369
San Ramon, CA
Post #: 138
Mike B --

What you say makes sense, and is an enlightening read.
Larry H.
terrycts
Group Organizer
Pinole, CA
Post #: 18
Not taking sides here.

Just please try to make these discussions spirited, but not relating to your opponent's inability to remove their head from another part of their anatomy. Yeah, I know nobody said that, but some of the ad hominen attacks have been a bit much.
Gavin I.
globetable
San Francisco, CA
Post #: 106
Not taking sides here.

Hi Larry, now I know what an agnostic is. I know, I'm a bad man. No one has so far said, "God hates Omnivores," but then again, who doesn't?

I will say this, I had a private bet going with myself - that I would share should I win, and no great surprise, win I did.

I made the bet last night while contemplating the Angus cheese burger, the fried chicken, or the veggie sandwich, at a rather unfortunate brew-pub in the Inner Sunset.

My bet was simply this, instead of the other offerings, I will order the Angus cheese burger, order it cooked medium rare, (served more rare and bloody than I personally care for), with the salad as opposed to fries (served with no dressing - swear to god, what's that all about), because I bet not only will Mike break his word and not return to his fore mentioned rock, he is going to drag Hitler and the Nazis' into it.

A rough draft of a short I shot some years ago, but forgot about and recently re-edited, then submitted to exactly one film festival, winnings to date - $1000.00, contains the following line in part, spoken by the Devil to Job, "I was in Conneticut once, a real s--t-hole. They've got this lesbo-veggie collective restaurant called the "Bloody Sausage." So I order the chicken teriaki, next thing they're calling me a Nazi because..."

When I put it on the web, I'll send you the link.

Technically speaking, in web-icate, the first one to make an non sequitur invocation of Hitler loses, always.

Now if chicken teriaki had been on the menu....I think you can see my reasoning.
Gavin I.
globetable
San Francisco, CA
Post #: 107
'Idiot' – lol I feel like I'm on fox 'news.'

- Despite your claim, words have accepted meanings, easily searchable on-line. Consider the following, words, "fool, stupid, ignorant, schizophrenic, potted-plant, idiot."

Consider your responses in part to my statement- and your boy Singer is down with Oysters - generally eaten by ripped apart and raw. No face don't you know. He's also okay with eating human babies - not just the Irish ones."-
"That claim is outrageous. Please provide links or citations to back it up. Keep in mind that we're all capable of googling "Smoking and pregnancy" and "Fetal alcohol syndrome."
"Really? When, where? I've read most of Singer's work"
"Please provide the link to the Dawkins interview where Singer allegedly justifies eating human babies. Btw, neither I nor Singer definitively claim that Oysters are not sentient."

These quotes read to me, you know what a search bar is, (I've had run-ins with folks who didn't), but given your refusal to type the words "Richard Dawkins Peter Singer" into the search bar - it worked for me, and thus access the information you requested. The most accurate and non-prejudicial word defining your behavior on my presented list of words is idiot. I did not call you a potted-plant. Were you the one who brought up the book, "Don't think of an Elephant."

"Good point. With the few corrections below I'm done."

Here I'm sure we can safely can safely anticipate combining the word "liar" to "idiot," the list describing you.


"That book is a critique of postmodernism and probably continental philosophy (per the TOC and description on Amazon) not analytic philosophy."

This is where you do your research, is it, the reviewers comments on Amazon? What the book is about is the meaningless psycho-babble that academics use to say absolutely nothing of meaning or substance.
"Sound and fury signifying nothing," so to speak.

"My position also doesn't rest on denying science or any facts."
Your position completely rests on ignoring science and pretending it doesn't exist, which granted, isn't exactly the same thing, however, the same refutation is equally effective. There are some refutations of the Jehova's Witnesses on the web, which basically address your arguments,


I'm not attacking you for claiming that humans have canines. You still don't seem to get the argument that whether or not something is natural doesn't have a direct bearing on whether it's morally acceptable.

And you still haven't addressed that it is unhealthy to feed a human woman a vegan diet when preparing for pregnancy and child-birth. I'm defending mom, baseball, apple pie, what have you got?


"I use the terms moral and ethical interchangeably (I'm fairly certain that in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Dennett does as well)."

Here and only here you are allowed to respond by siting the pages of which you speak and I will not forever address you as, "liar, liar, pant's on fire, Mikey," when our paths should cross. Assume I have the book on the shelf, and assume you are wrong. Words don't get to mean whatever you decide they mean from one convenience to the next. If you are going to attach a special meaning to a word or prase, as I did with "Cultural Atheist," you have to provide a working definition of that phrase. You can't merely state you obviously don't know what this Mumbo Jumbo refers to. This is why you have no standing and your arguments are nonsense.

"I'm an Atheist."
I make the distinction between Darwinian-evolution, based atheists, who know what the "one long argument" is about, and "Cultural atheists," such as yourself, who clearly don't, and go to great lengths to pretending the argument does not exist. All you have done is repeatedly insult me personally. You really haven't a clue how to argue.

"While I wouldn't claim that Hitler and other Nazis were atheists, I don't think they were carrying out their genocide in the name of religion. Massacres in Africa and other parts of the world have been based on tribal/cultural differences, not religion. The point you evaded would still stand with an equally egregious example not drawn from religious mythology. I just like giving examples of atrocities from the bible every chance I get. "

Here you are unforgivably ignorant and wrong. The only Nazi I know of that isn't to this day a Catholic in good standing was excommunicated for marrying a protestant. Nazi Germany signed a treaty with the Vatican and there is no shortage of quotes by Hitler expressing his mission from god. And let us not forget his hero, Martin Luther, author of the classic, The Jews and their Lies.

I will concede, "religion" in its most limited usage refers only to the Roman Catholic Church. Suggesting Africans lack religion because you never happened to notice one attending your particular church is merely racist.

I am not attempting to evade any points you believe you have made. I refer to you as a serpent in the "meetup" garden, as I assumed correctly you are familiar with Hebrew myths and not much else.

Looking at your profile I see the joy of linking Veganism to a fantasy post-apocalypse lifestyle. How nice.

Me, I'm off to shoot my sweetie's scientific conference, on ancestral health. And yes, the science is there to say we are adapted to a meat-eating diet, so now what?




Gavin I.
globetable
San Francisco, CA
Post #: 111
nytimes has an interesting article about food morality

http://opinionator.bl...­
Gavin I.
globetable
San Francisco, CA
Post #: 117
Here is a link to the Ancestral conference
http://ancestryfounda...­
and here is a link to the CBS local new on a healthy meat eating study
http://sanfrancisco.c...­
keyword paleolithic


I may be the videographer for the ancestry foundation gathering and I have gently suggested at least one of the participants have a section about the ethics of eating meat, and animal husbandry. I think they are somewhat naive and dismissive of the moral absolutism and disruptive carnage, Vegetarians bring to the table.

Maybe a new thread about a not so simple ethical code?
Powered by mvnForum

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy