wrong thread…
An Islam conversion propoganda advert hidden within a philosophical enquiry? no thanks.
Ok with those two posts , I have no desire to follow that link.
How about my sperm?
I’ve never really understood this style of argument coming from theists. They take something that seems naturally abhorrent to most people and because, in an atheist context, there isn’t anything morally off limits about it, they figure atheists should be in love with it. Why can’t they see there’s a difference between finding something disgusting and having moral issues with it? Getting rid of the moral element doesn’t necessarily get rid of the element of disgust. I don’t find anything morally reprehensible about someone drinking their dad’s sperm, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t find it disgusting myself, even look at the guy drinking it and tell him to his face he’s disgusting. Why do I have to have a moral justification given by God to back that up.
Maybe you just haven’t the slightest fucking clue about what morality is in the first place Gib, hence why you and your group are so willing to dispose of it? And maybe people who follow God notice this limiting capacity I thinkers like you, not because morality derives from God, but because the circuits related here in dealing with moral semblence only activate in people accustomed to religious thinking, and it has nothing to do with God per say?
Is something Good or Bad because God says so, or because he refutes it isn’t the question, but rather the capacity to rationally think, like your incapable of given your drug explorations. Your doing worst that drinking sperm in many ways. Someone religious minded grasps this, and it isn’t necessarily because Bible says, that judgment is based less in nurture and more in nature, isn’t a cultural inherited meme, but a profound means if reasoning your kind is largely unaware of and resists till your self tyranny exhausts itself, and you ask finally to stop, to be redeemed?
It isn’t good to live life as less than human.
Think about it, from a evolutionary perspective, the networks that generate faith must have a lot of interrelations yo other aspects of mind, and a idiotic, wholesale abandonment of them likely does more harm that good to the individuals survival, that knowledge itself becomes impaired, as if the individual suffered brain damage. They start doing deeply retarded shit, and that the classes of logic the faithful/religious keep suggesting might matter far less than any individual point. They are saying essentially that your prone to abnormal, self destructive thinking, which we know you are 100% certainly are. You in particular are so stupid in this, you literally chart your progress in destroying yourself, listing how happy it makes you. Sounds remarkably fucking retarded, and it is quite reasonable why you fail to get the point of such arguments as used in the Op. They nailed your ass.
Shut the fuck up, Turd.
Civility please…
Painful, truth is.
Strong in You, Power of Dumb Side.
I think it may have something to do with 30 years of political propaganda from secular circles saying that if something is merely disgusting and not morally repugnant, it has to be permitted, encouraged, defended, and promoted on T.V. You don’t get to say “Just because it’s not immoral doesn’t mean I can’t find it disgusting”, because that puts you in the position of being an evil bigot whenever MTV gets around to making a reality show about whatever the “it” in question is.
In other words, if you grant that atheism gives us at best a ‘eww’ reaction to things like this and not a moral reaction, then it is your moral duty to suppress your ‘eww’ reaction when it might oppress or otherwise harm the would-be incestuous sperm drinker. Without a moral justification to back it up, you telling the cum drinker to his face that he’s disgusting is no different than telling the white woman dating the black man that she’s disgusting.
Sigh - Stuck between a rock and a hard place again.
Well, this certainly explains why the question in the OP is being raised.
But in a philosophical context, not a political one, the point still stands that you can find something disgusting, and not take part in it, without making moral judgements. It may not be PC to call the guy eating sperm disgusting, but that’s never stopped me (that’s one of the things I find more loathsome about the left). I’ll accept their accusation of oppressing daddy sperm eaters.
You certainly can, and I don’t think that video is particularly good. But there’s two kinds of disgusting at play here. The first kind would be like, me thinking boiled onions are disgusting. I would never eat them, I don’t want them, can’t stand the smell of them, etc. The “Drink your Dad’s sperm” thing has an additional element. I think it’s disgusting, and if you don’t think it’s disgusting, then I’ll think less of you. That second element makes it pretty damn close to a moral judgment.
Well, if the discussion is about morals, than “Well I’ll just be immoral in that case then” is no defense. It’s about as good as having a logical debate with somebody who says “Well, I guess I’ll just take the illogical position in that case, then.” The point is that condemning Daddy-sperm-eaters is wrong. If you don’t think it’s wrong, you have a dilemma. If you do think it’s wrong, then you have to work to overcome your disgust, because it’s irrational bigotry. What you will personally choose to do isn’t relevant.
It makes it contentious is all. I don’t thinking finding something disgusting, or someone weird for like it, has any moral bearing at all. One doesn’t choose to switch on or off one’s feelings about something. However, one can choose to voice one’s feelings–saying “That’s disgusting” or “You’re weird for liking it”–and there one has to think about the moral implications of saying things. There are polite ways of saying it, and there are impolite ways. You can say “I find your preference for your dad’s sperm disgusting, but that’s just me. You do what you want to do on your own time.” Or you could just not say anything at all. ← But that’s a moral issue surrounding what’s offensive to say and what’s not, not what one finds disgusting or not.
Being accused of oppressing daddy sperm eaters isn’t immoral. That’s granting the accusers their accusation. I’m saying they’re just wrong, but I’m not going to lift a finger to convince them otherwise.
It’s about as much of a dilemma as finding someone ugly. If you think they’re ugly (never mind telling them they’re ugly), are you in a moral bind just because being ugly doesn’t determine a person’s moral status? Do you have to work on not finding them ugly?