This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Broshiesq's Profile

Broshiesq's Avatar Joined almost 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Broshiesq

More Discussions by Broshiesq

Latest Comments by Broshiesq

Go to: Charlotte Pop Fest 2009

Broshiesq's Avatar Jump to comment 40 by Broshiesq

Matthew Sweet: multiple songs from 'Girlfriend'

Not to mention better guitar work than in anything mentioned on this post so far.

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:05:00 UTC | #354669

Go to: To defame religion is a human right

Broshiesq's Avatar Jump to comment 88 by Broshiesq

Huzonfirst: Well, Dune010, this is sheer sophistry of the most cold-blooded kind…

Dune010: Firstly, I don't think that it's necessary to insult me. It is a special kind of arrogance that allows someone to attack someone else's motives on the basis of their own interpretation of an argument. When I disagree with someone, I tell them why I disagree, I ask them questions, I do so politely and I wait for a response.

First, Dune, if that’s all it takes for you to feel insulted to the point that you must comment on it, your indignation meter needs adjustment and you might not survive on this site. Second, I submit that it is YOUR special kind of arrogance that implies someone else must disagree with you “politely,” in keeping with your own rules. (No room for objective morality, but objective politeness?)

If you throw a puppy off a cliff and no else knows about it, is it of no moral significance?

It's not something that I would particularly want to do, but…

You sound less than convincing.

The moral obligation would not be towards the puppy, it would be an obligation not to harm the puppy on account of it being owned by a member of society. This matters because I like society. Society protects me and my property. If I break the rules of society then I could be punished by the law or perhaps excluded from the protection of society.

So the reason you would not steal the neighbor’s puppy and throw it off a cliff is merely because you acknowledge the practical aspect of “getting along” with society. Not because you think it moral to avoid causing emotional (and likely psychological if there are children involved) suffering to the puppy’s owner? And not because it’s moral to avoid inflicting suffering upon this sentient creature? Killing a girl’s puppy is no different from stealing her toy? It’s just property? The law would disagree. Although animals are still considered property of their owners, more and more anti-cruelty laws are being enacted. Gee, I wonder why.

This does not mean that we have to go around butchering every animal we can lay our hands on, but it does mean that I have no obligation to become a vegetarian.

“…have to..” ??? Wouldn’t “should” have worked better here? Once again, although this may not be your goal, you’re not doing a very good job convincing, me, at least, that you don’t have some issues to work through, at best.

Thu, 16 Apr 2009 06:36:00 UTC | #348664

Go to: Morality Originates in Religion...Not

Broshiesq's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by Broshiesq

RedPen: ...arrogant individuals who believe they are an integral part of the Cosmos.

You mean the red sox? Oh, wait, I keep forgetting he's gone. Sorry.

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:08:00 UTC | #347580

Go to: Saudi judge refuses to annul 8-year-old's marriage

Broshiesq's Avatar Jump to comment 106 by Broshiesq

Christopher Davis: Mohammed (10-15 be upon him) was a paedophile.

Good stuff.

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:57:00 UTC | #347578

Go to: 'The Gathering Storm'

Broshiesq's Avatar Jump to comment 70 by Broshiesq

robotaholic: Why do straight gay supporters always go out of the way to state they're not gay.

I’m nominating that for the “oxymoron-of-the-week” award.

…even the straight supporters have to avoid the horrible possibility of accidentally being misclassified.

Must be nice to never have to deal with that one, I suspect.

I just proved your premise incorrect.

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:53:00 UTC | #347576

More Comments by Broshiesq