world population

Population wouldn't be such an issue if people were aware of their connection with nature.
We poison waters without recourse to how much harm it will do.
We burn fossil fuels without knowing just how much oxygen we need in our air.
We throw away plastic. Kill animals. Fish stocks to minimum,etc.

Living 101 people. It need not bite us in the arse.
Science has the answers. The internet allows for instant communications. Sustainable living has an answer. We just have to get on the same page in time. Doing nothing much about it doesn't help

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I never claimed that my personal opinions create a moral dilemma for you, that is your claim.

At the bottom of page 13 you repeated your personal opinions about morality (for the umpteenth time) and finished off by claiming that the stuff you'd said about your opinion created a moral dilemma for me.

Originally posted by FMF
At the bottom of page 13 you repeated your personal opinions about morality (for the umpteenth time) and finished off by claiming that the stuff you'd said about your opinion created a moral dilemma for me.

I stated that your belief (rape is always wrong) doesn't logically follow your assumption (there are no moral absolutes).

Moral absolutes don't exist - Rape is always wrong (illogical)
Moral absolutes do exist - Rape is always wrong (logical)

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I stated that your belief (rape is always wrong) doesn't logically follow your assumption (there are no moral absolutes).

Moral absolutes don't exist - Rape is always wrong (illogical)
Moral absolutes do exist - Rape is always wrong (logical)

The fact that I believe rape is always wrong does not draw upon or create a "moral absolute".

The fact that you believe homosexual acts are always "evil" does not draw upon or create a "moral absolute".

You defined "moral absolutes" as coming from a supernatural moral law giver.

As I have explained, this is superstitious nonsense to me. I totally disagree with all the assertions you make about "moral absolutes" and their source.

Your personal opinions about "moral absolutes" have no bearing on my condemnation of rape.

I think you should just agree to disagree with me; I accept and comprehend your disagreement 100%. No doubt the stuff you say might succeed with a fellow superstitious person.

I think you have made your case very clearly and certainly very repeatedly. So you should take comfort from the fact you have not been misunderstood.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
We burn fossil fuels without knowing just how much oxygen we need in our air.

I feel compelled to point out that burning fossil fuels has no discernible impact on the amount of oxygen in the air unless you burn them in a confined space.

Sustainable living has an answer. We just have to get on the same page in time. Doing nothing much about it doesn't help
Part of the problem is we don't all agree on priorities. Merely keeping nature as it was isn't necessarily beneficial - yet a lot of people put forward that goal as if it is obvious that it is desirable - especially when it applies to countries other than their own. It tends to annoy me when people come to Zambia and preach about preserving the wildlife whilst ignoring the fact that people are starving and ignoring the fact that in their own countries there are practically no wild areas left.
I love game parks, but I also recognise that if they are only there for the rich, they may not always be the best option.

Originally posted by FMF
The fact that I believe rape is always wrong does not draw upon or create a "moral absolute".

The fact that you believe homosexual acts are always "evil" does not draw upon or create a "moral absolute".

You defined "moral absolutes" as coming from a supernatural moral law giver.

As I have explained, this is superstitious nonsense to me. I totally d ...[text shortened]... ainly very repeatedly. So you should take comfort from the fact you have not been misunderstood.

If you disagree with the how I have used 'moral absolute' how would you define it?

My definition: "Moral absolutism is the philosophy that mankind is subject to absolute standards of conduct that do not change with circumstances, the intent of the acting agent, or the result of the act. These standards are universal to all humanity despite culture or era, and they maintain their relevance whether or not an individual or a culture values them. It is never appropriate to break a law that is based on one of these absolutes. Moral absolutism does not dictate which acts are moral or immoral, however, merely that absolute morality does exist."

https://www.gotquestions.org/moral-absolutism.html

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you disagree with the how I have used 'moral absolute' how would you define it?

I don't use the term to talk about morality. The word ~ as you use it, in the wholly superstitious way in which you use it ~ is all yours. Do with it what you want. Have you not read - and understood - anything I have posted these last few weeks?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you disagree with the how I have used 'moral absolute' how would you define it?

My definition: "Moral absolutism is the philosophy that mankind is subject to absolute standards of conduct that do not change with circumstances, the intent of the acting agent, or the result of the act. These standards are universal to all humanity despite culture or ...[text shortened]... merely that absolute morality does exist."

https://www.gotquestions.org/moral-absolutism.html

So you believe in moral absolutes but you don't know what they are?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you disagree with the how I have used 'moral absolute' how would you define it?

My definition: "Moral absolutism is the philosophy that mankind is subject to absolute standards of conduct that do not change with circumstances, the intent of the acting agent, or the result of the act. These standards are universal to all humanity despite culture or ...[text shortened]... merely that absolute morality does exist."

https://www.gotquestions.org/moral-absolutism.html

How is that your definition if its entirety is enclosed in quotation marks?

I thought you had left the cult? Why are you not able to vocalise your own view without reliance on a cut and paste?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I feel compelled to point out that burning fossil fuels has no discernible impact on the amount of oxygen in the air unless you burn them in a confined space.

[b]Sustainable living has an answer. We just have to get on the same page in time. Doing nothing much about it doesn't help
Part of the problem is we don't all agree on priorities. Merely ke ...[text shortened]... also recognise that if they are only there for the rich, they may not always be the best option.[/b]

Agreed. Not everyone is going to agree.

I think the point about relying on fossil fuels is that they will run out. But I suspect you knew that.

My post was over simplified. And in reality there are huge chasms between one mans answer and another.
I just know that those 2nd and 3rd world countries mainly hanker for material wealth like in the capitalist countries. This sort of thinking will prove very detrimental and, as always, education is the key.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
You,yeah why not?

But I didn't say "manipulate"
Life is precious in all it's forms, let's not destroy nature before we've had chance to preserve it.

So I take it you are against abortion except in cases where the mother would likely die.

Originally posted by Eladar
So I take it you are against abortion except in cases where the mother would likely die.

Ideally. Yes.
But in reality I realize that my politics shouldn't extend into a womans vagina- especially if the abortion is in the first trimester

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I think the point about relying on fossil fuels is that they will run out. But I suspect you knew that.

No, I didn't know that. We will not run out of fossil fuels. We need to stop using them long before they run out because of global warming.

I just know that those 2nd and 3rd world countries mainly hanker for material wealth like in the capitalist countries. This sort of thinking will prove very detrimental and, as always, education is the key.
Education doesn't stop people hankering for material wealth. Bill Gates is well educated. The best solution of course is to change what we use to measure status. But it probably won't happen. So the next best thing is to change the impact our 'material wealth' has on the world.

The number one thing everyone can do is move into a city and live near where you work. Those two things will cut your impact by well over 50% and maybe as much as 10 times. Suburb and rural living does the most damage to the environment and takes the most material costs.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Ideally. Yes.
But in reality I realize that my politics shouldn't extend into a womans vagina- especially if the abortion is in the first trimester

So in other words, no.

Originally posted by Eladar
So in other words, no.

Fine, believe what you want.