Hatred of Christianity!

[Photonic]

I think you're just arguing now to argue. And really, you're not getting anywhere. Rape is wrong. You agree with that, we agree with that. One can't point to an instance in which it isn't wrong. So to suggest anything else is ridiculous.

It would seem that you have lost the premise of my posts. Perhaps you would like to go back and read from the start of the conversation.

Hint: It's about evil.

 

[ChristineES]

Is it immoral outside of human minds though? Is there some universal law of nature I missed defining rape?

No, there is not. You can argue about it as much as you want. You can even say Humans define existence and it can't exist without us. Based on our experience this is not true anyways.

I believe rape to be about as wrong as something can be. But do I delude myself into thinking it's some intrinsic property of the universe? Hell no. I'm not that blind.

I wish I knew what you are talking about. I am a human, I live among humans and I live by human laws. We all live by human laws. In the animal kingdom, animals don't get tried for murder of another animal. In the animal kingdom, animals don't get a ticket for disturbing the peace or public nudity. Saying that rape is not immoral in say, the animal kingdom, is a moot point because I don't live in the animal world (I live among tame animals, but unless I go to the wild, I won't see wild animals outside of a zoo, except rarely).

 

[Photonic]

Domination. There have been cases in which a buck will rape another buck in order to show domination. Other animals do the same thing, and one could even say part of the process of dominating the other being is to also humiliate them. Either way, it is still purposely hurting another creature. So even in nature it really isn't out of good intentions, but out of malice.

You are assuming animals have intentions. Thus can make choices and are sapient. Would you like to support this with evidence?

 

[Photonic]

Since my point has been predictably lost on everyone I will simplify.


My point is that Good and Evil is a human notion. It is not an intrinsic value of nature, as someone previously has stated.

 

[ChristineES]

Animals do fight for dominance, you can't deny that. Even an animal can have intentions and want to be leader of his pack, or whatever. (I forgot about that, in the heat of the moment, thanks for reminding me.)

 

[Photonic]

Animals do fight for dominance, you can't deny that. Even an animal can have intentions and want to be leader of his pack, or whatever. (I forgot about that, in the heat of the moment, thanks for reminding me.)

Intentions denote choice. Choice is a component of awareness. You are saying they have and act based on thoughts, rather than instinct.

 

[blackout]

Is it immoral outside of human minds though? Is there some universal law of nature I missed defining rape?

No, there is not. You can argue about it as much as you want. You can even say Humans define existence and it can't exist without us. Based on our experience this is not true anyways.

I believe rape to be about as wrong as something can be. But do I delude myself into thinking it's some intrinsic property of the universe? Hell no. I'm not that blind.

If you Wrong someone,
doesn't it mean you forcably come against them?
(in some way)

Is it an intrinsic property of the universe that
things forcably come against other things?
(and hurt, damage or injure them?)

TRANSITIVE VERB:

[SIZE=-1]wronged[/SIZE], [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]wrong·ing[/SIZE], [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]wrongs[/SIZE][/FONT]

1. To treat unjustly or injuriously.
2. To discredit unjustly; malign.
3. To treat dishonorably; violate.

[/FONT]

 

[Photonic]

If you Wrong someone,
doesn't it mean you forcably come against them?
(in some way)

Is it an intrinsic property of the universe that
things forcably come against other things?
(and hurt, damage or injure them?)

Twisting the language I use to communicate with you to prove your point doesn't make you right.

 

[fallingblood]

You are assuming animals have intentions. Thus can make choices and are sapient. Would you like to support this with evidence?

You are stretching a bit. Just because one has intentions, doesn't mean they are sapient. So your thus shouldn't be there.

As for animals showing intention, what would be the point of a buck raping another buck? The intention is to dominate the other buck, and show superiority. Show that it is the alpha male, and in effect, grant it the opportunity to mate with as many does as possible.

Here is an interesting link though: Theory of mind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Really though, I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[fallingblood]

It would seem that you have lost the premise of my posts. Perhaps you would like to go back and read from the start of the conversation.

Hint: It's about evil.

I haven't lost the premise, I just think that you are approaching it in a very illogical manner.

 

[ChristineES]

Intentions denote choice. Choice is a component of awareness. You are saying they have and act based on thoughts, rather than instinct.

Various species may have choices, I really wouldn't know. But I do know, from observance, that various packs, prides, herds, etc of animals do have fights for dominance. If it is indeed an intention, therefore a choice, then these actions would speak for themselves.

 

[Photonic]

You are stretching a bit. Just because one has intentions, doesn't mean they are sapient. So your thus shouldn't be there.

As for animals showing intention, what would be the point of a buck raping another buck? The intention is to dominate the other buck, and show superiority. Show that it is the alpha male, and in effect, grant it the opportunity to mate with as many does as possible.

Here is an interesting link though: Theory of mind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Really though, I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

You communicate the idea of intention with human preconception. You act like they have a choice in what they do.

Their "intention" is just as much of an "intention" as a rock rolling down a hill because the hill was there.

 

[fallingblood]

Intentions denote choice. Choice is a component of awareness. You are saying they have and act based on thoughts, rather than instinct.

Yes. If you read much of the research done on animals and awareness, one can see that yes, animals do (at least some) show a certain level of awareness. It is not just all instinct. Which is why we can also see animals evolving in different manners. For instance, by using tools.

 

[fallingblood]

You communicate the idea of intention with human preconception. You act like they have a choice in what they do.

Their "intention" is just as much of an "intention" as a rock rolling down a hill because the hill was there.

They do have a choice. They could prove their domination in other ways, such as fighting, and in fact, we see that happening as well. They also have the choice of staying out of it, and waiting for an opportunity in which the dominant buck is busy, and then take that to mate with a female. And we also see that happening as well. We can clearly see that they have choices.

 

[Photonic]

I haven't lost the premise, I just think that you are approaching it in a very illogical manner.

Thank you for the input but Formal Logic cannot be argued against unless in an illogical manner. My argument follows impeccably with the concept of Formal Logic firmly implanted.

It has been argued that Good and Evil exist outside the human experience. This is not logical.

 

[Photonic]

They do have a choice. They could prove their domination in other ways, such as fighting, and in fact, we see that happening as well. They also have the choice of staying out of it, and waiting for an opportunity in which the dominant buck is busy, and then take that to mate with a female. And we also see that happening as well. We can clearly see that they have choices.

Evidence that they can cognate these choices?

A rock can also fall along different paths.

Just because it takes one over the other doesn't mean it decided.

 

[fallingblood]

Thank you for the input but Formal Logic cannot be argued against unless in an illogical manner. My argument follows impeccably with the concept of Formal Logic firmly implanted.

It has been argued that Good and Evil exist outside the human experience. This is not logical.

I still think you're approaching it in an illogical fashion, and trying to explain why you're not doesn't help.

 

[blackout]

It would seem that you have lost the premise of my posts. Perhaps you would like to go back and read from the start of the conversation.

Hint: It's about evil.

I've added underlines to show the definitions that can be both measured,
and seen in nature.

They are not necessarily 'moral' in nature, but still qualify as evil.

e·vil (

v

l) [SIZE=-2]KEY[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]ADJECTIVE:[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1][FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]e·vil·er[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=-1], [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]e·vil·est[/SIZE]

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: [SIZE=+0]an evil tyrant.[/SIZE]
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: [SIZE=+0]the evil effects of a poor diet.[/SIZE]
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: [SIZE=+0]evil omens.[/SIZE]
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: [SIZE=+0]an evil reputation.[/SIZE]
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: [SIZE=+0]an evil temper.[/SIZE]

[/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=-1]NOUN:[/SIZE]

1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: [SIZE=+0]a leader's power to do both good and evil.[/SIZE]
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: [SIZE=+0]the social evils of poverty and injustice.[/SIZE]

[/FONT]

 

[fallingblood]

Evidence that they can cognate these choices?

A rock can also fall along different paths.

Just because it takes one over the other doesn't mean it decided.

It kind of does. And if you look at the link I provided, or just recent study on the idea, you would see that scientists are seeing that animals (at least some) show awareness, and make conscious choices.

 

[Photonic]

I still think you're approaching it in an illogical fashion, and trying to explain why you're not doesn't help.

Arguing against me with a technicality is not logical either, but you are certainly doing it.

I only see personal bias here. I will not attempt to teach a blind man who covers his ears to the sound of my voice.