It doesn’t have to make sense to others, but if the thing that makes you happy is harmful to others, like eating your own child (which is an… interesting? choice to illustrate this specific point. E: and as pointed out bellow, a deliberate one), others absolutely do have a right and even responsibility to stop you.
I think in this case it is more apt to realize that the artist painted this on the wall of his dining room in his house where he never had any visitors. The definition of “happiness” in this context would have to be a tad…malleable though.
Although he initially decorated the rooms of the house with more inspiring images, in time he painted over them all with the intensely haunting pictures known today as the Black Paintings. Created without commission for private display, these paintings may reflect the artist’s state of mind late in a life that witnessed the violence of war and terror stoked by the Spanish Inquisition.
What about religion? There are atheists who don’t understand why people seek religion, but the basis of believing in God is not harmful to others. So why the anti-theism in so many subs here?
To take this even further, you say others have a responsibility to stop you from harming/killing your child. To extend this further, this can be taken to say that others have a responsibility to prevent aborting a healthy fetus.
To take your last point even further, others have a responsibility to prevent you from sterilizing yourself. To take it even further, they have a responsibility to force you to reproduce as long as you have the potential.
Cancer cells are also genetically human and also alive.
If it isn’t sentient, its life is irrelevant.
If it isn’t sapient, furthermore, it does not matter as much as the sapients its existence imminently effects.
A fetus is neither.
A baby, once capable of surviving without parasitically siphoning off the body of a host through a direct persistent flesh attachment, is either sentient or shall imminently be if left to its own devices
(Whereas a fetus without a host, when left to its own devices, shall imminently be dead and never to attain sentience nor sapience)
I’ve not seen many neonates capable of surviving without external intervention. Yes, there is more involvement that an umbilical cord, but left to its own devices, a neonate will not survive.
it meets the definition on the minutes to hours basis.
a fully grown sapient human with experience and valuable expertise who is otherwise ready and able to immediately benefit their community, if “left to their own devices” naked on the surface of the moon, will also die in moments. However, with the use of equipment, with the ability to depend on machinery to survive instead of the active blood supply of another sapient being, such a human can survive.
similarly, a neonate can survive with the aid of equipment without burdening a single exclusive host.
I’ve been told that about sterilization as well by people. So while you present it at a theoretical argument, I’ve seen it as a lm real argument used in legitimate conversation.
The anti-theism is in reaction to the terrible shit justified by religion.
Edit: posted early on accident.
Edit 2: I personally believe people’s morals shouldn’t require unprovable belief in the afterlife to work. Religious people often argue that religion is necessary for morality, but an agnostic approach is the only one people should live by.
If you sincerely believe you can be denied eternal life by going against God’s will, keeping others from committing sin is a rational, moral thing to do. You’re saving them by outlawing homosexuality or other similar shit. However, there’s no evidence that God even exists, let alone what he wants you to do or that he can grant eternal life. Therfore, we should make sure our morality works without the existence of higher powers we have no way of detecting.
Belief in things that don’t affect our material world can make behaviors that cause great harm seem rational. There are amazing people with strong faith, and terrible people with none at all. I just recognize that our common ethical principles cannot be determined by unfalsifiable ideas. Laws shouldn’t be guided by religion.
It doesn’t have to make sense to others, but if the thing that makes you happy is harmful to others, like eating your own child (which is an… interesting? choice to illustrate this specific point. E: and as pointed out bellow, a deliberate one), others absolutely do have a right and even responsibility to stop you.
(go vegan)
I think in this case it is more apt to realize that the artist painted this on the wall of his dining room in his house where he never had any visitors. The definition of “happiness” in this context would have to be a tad…malleable though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Devouring_His_Son
I hate to do this, but I gotta.
What about religion? There are atheists who don’t understand why people seek religion, but the basis of believing in God is not harmful to others. So why the anti-theism in so many subs here?
To take this even further, you say others have a responsibility to stop you from harming/killing your child. To extend this further, this can be taken to say that others have a responsibility to prevent aborting a healthy fetus.
To take your last point even further, others have a responsibility to prevent you from sterilizing yourself. To take it even further, they have a responsibility to force you to reproduce as long as you have the potential.
A fetus is not a child.
Cant believe this descended into this rabbit hole, but justify to me why the hell it wouldn’t count as a human life
A body having a pulse is not what matters.
Cancer cells are also genetically human and also alive.
If it isn’t sentient, its life is irrelevant.
If it isn’t sapient, furthermore, it does not matter as much as the sapients its existence imminently effects.
A fetus is neither.
A baby, once capable of surviving without parasitically siphoning off the body of a host through a direct persistent flesh attachment, is either sentient or shall imminently be if left to its own devices
(Whereas a fetus without a host, when left to its own devices, shall imminently be dead and never to attain sentience nor sapience)
Those are where the lines are drawn.
I’ve not seen many neonates capable of surviving without external intervention. Yes, there is more involvement that an umbilical cord, but left to its own devices, a neonate will not survive.
it meets the definition on the minutes to hours basis.
a fully grown sapient human with experience and valuable expertise who is otherwise ready and able to immediately benefit their community, if “left to their own devices” naked on the surface of the moon, will also die in moments. However, with the use of equipment, with the ability to depend on machinery to survive instead of the active blood supply of another sapient being, such a human can survive.
similarly, a neonate can survive with the aid of equipment without burdening a single exclusive host.
Agreed, a neonate can certainly survive longer than a fetus without support.
I’ve been told that about sterilization as well by people. So while you present it at a theoretical argument, I’ve seen it as a lm real argument used in legitimate conversation.
You don’t hate to do this, you literally feed off of it.
Fuck off, anti-choicer.
Interesting that you’ve assumed my stance based on my comment. I never said I was anti-abortion.
Jesus Christ you’re insufferable. And I wonder why people don’t want to be religious these days.
You also assume I’m religious.
Generally only religious people are uneducated enough to be anti-choicers.
See previous comment in chain about this assumption.
The anti-theism is in reaction to the terrible shit justified by religion.
Edit: posted early on accident.
Edit 2: I personally believe people’s morals shouldn’t require unprovable belief in the afterlife to work. Religious people often argue that religion is necessary for morality, but an agnostic approach is the only one people should live by.
If you sincerely believe you can be denied eternal life by going against God’s will, keeping others from committing sin is a rational, moral thing to do. You’re saving them by outlawing homosexuality or other similar shit. However, there’s no evidence that God even exists, let alone what he wants you to do or that he can grant eternal life. Therfore, we should make sure our morality works without the existence of higher powers we have no way of detecting.
Belief in things that don’t affect our material world can make behaviors that cause great harm seem rational. There are amazing people with strong faith, and terrible people with none at all. I just recognize that our common ethical principles cannot be determined by unfalsifiable ideas. Laws shouldn’t be guided by religion.