My latest tthoughts concerning the "problem of evil" argument.

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 123
#61
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Course it applies to humans only who cares what tigers or deers are doing in their day-to-day life. They're off in jungles and forests doing their own thing they don't interfere with us. But to say there's no unifying moral principle is basically saying that human beings are pieces of s*** that want to do what they want to do and hurt others if that's how you want to live you're free to do that and when you get caught you'll go to prison.
ok, we both agree that humans are not animals (at least when considering morality)

do you have a coherent set of moral principles or do you mostly just consider your gut-feeling and or moral intuition ?

there are no "wrong answers"
#62
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
therefore this means that Saul is David is Solomon is Herod.
+ 1
#63
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
do you have a coherent set of moral principles or do you mostly just consider your gut-feeling and or moral intuition ?
If you're asking me if I've ever written them down in some sort of form where I could pass them off to somebody now. I wouldn't say I go with gut feeling, there's plenty of things that don't feel necessarily right to me that I know other people have no problem with and there's no reason to consider them immoral or evil because nobody's getting hurt. I certainly think I have a moral intuition and that intuition says if what you're doing is hurting someone to the point that they have to carry it with them the rest of their life yeah you probably shouldn't be doing it. And there's plenty of s*** that's immoral that isn't evil.
#64
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
With our strengths combined we did it guys. 
Secs  " problem of evil " argument.
Solved 
He wiil be happy when we dump     S is to D is to S is to H on him.  

Sooo yeah,  ' kicks dirt ' 
That wraps that up. 
" Evil problem  "  no more . 
With this out of the way. 

Next week we can " TOGETHER " start this long awaited. 
The  Writing down and the  updating  of the  "morals "  
The knew TRUE standard.  


 WANKERS.  




#65
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
and there's no reason to consider them immoral or evil because nobody's getting hurt.
for example perhaps you could comment on something like "copyright infringement" ?
#66
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Next week we can " TOGETHER " start this long awaited. 
The  Writing down and the  updating  of the  "morals "  
The knew TRUE standard.  
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
#67
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
You don't feel the original artist is getting screwed when someone infringes on their copyright? 
#68
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You don't feel the original artist is getting screwed when someone infringes on their copyright? 
there is no such thing as "original" art

all ideas are "inspired" by pre-existing ideas

what we call "original" is merely a recombination of pre-existing ideas

ideas cannot be owned (ideas are NOT property)

not to mention,

The first federal copyright act was the Copyright Act of 1790. It granted copyright for a term of 14 years "from the time of recording the title thereof" with a right of renewal for another 14 years if the author survived to the end of the first term. The act covered not only books, but also maps and charts.

also,

people often try to contend that copyright breeds innovation, but this is contrary to the evidence

clothing designs cannot be copyrighted, and yet innovation abounds in fashion

food recipes also cannot be copyrighted, and yet innovation abounds in the culinary industry
#69
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes but, copyright involves those ideas being put into a medium. Whether it's an actual painting, a book, a song. I still think people should have some right to their ideas not just being blatantly copied. I also believe that the copyright should eventually run out nobody should be paying anybody for the Happy Birthday song. I certainly think if a chef has written a book about their recipes that there should be a copyright there. As far as publishing the book that's the same. 
#70
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I certainly think if a chef has written a book about their recipes that there should be a copyright there.
the artwork and or photography and or descriptions and or stories in a cookbook can be copyrighted, but the recipes themselves cannot be copyrighted

also dictionaries cannot be copyrighted because "facts" (like definitions) are not considered "original ideas"
#71
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Well for using the recipes in your home yes and of course you can't copyright a dictionary it's just definitions. But I certainly don't think that if you have a published book of recipes someone should be able to just take that book slap their name on it and publish the same exact thing.
#72
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
But I certainly don't think that if you have a published book of recipes someone should be able to just take that book slap their name on it and publish the same exact thing.
The courts don’t necessarily consider food intellectual property. The U.S. government refuses to issue copyrights to recipes, which it describes as “a mere listing of ingredients or contents, or a simple set of directions.” Some restaurants have argued their recipes are trade secrets. A few large chains use trademark symbols on their menus, which, if enforceable, only protect the name of the dish.

Are you still thinking about which specific "coherent-moral-principle" this might violate ?
#73
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Stealing. Again there's going to be things that I think are immoral other people don't think are immoral. But to me it's stealing. But I think comparing whether or not somebody copies a recipe to whether or not there I don't know raping somebody's a pretty big difference in degree. Usually those big absolutes are immoral no matter what. But if you want to argue like little things like that we can go on all day that's fine.
#74
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Saul referred to himself as the king of Israel.

so did David.

so did Solomon.

so did Herod. 

hmmm.  I reckon that therefore this means that Saul is David is Solomon is Herod.  Wow. glad someone decided to raise that question.
NOPE!
Read your bible thicko.

Herod - a puppet king put in place by Rome - had no covenant with the god of Israel. Regardless of what he claimed to be. And wasn't of "the root and off spring of David".
Saul was rejected by god. Regardless of what he called himself. And  obviously wasn't of "the root and offspring of David".

And although David and Solomon acted much worse than Saul in my opinion, they were forever favoured by god- for all their sins. In fact they were called "sons of god" by god himself.

None of this explains the dilemma that Jesus The Morning Star AND the root and offspring of David according to Christians  (Revelation 22:16) seems to also be the same Morning Star spoken of in Isaiah 14:12

Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star(Revelation 22:16), son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 

the above is believed to be a reference to Lucifer ( light bringer), Satan, devil , great dragon and the serpent of old etc.

And then...... Jesus refers to himself as: 

"  the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” (Revelation 22:16)…

If I am wrong in my opinion then simply explain why I am wrong, Reverend Munchausen. 





#75
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Usually those big absolutes are immoral no matter what. But if you want to argue like little things like that we can go on all day that's fine.
yes, atrocious atrocities are atrociously atrocious

setting a 14 year limit on copyright (with one optional 14 year extension) seems reasonable to me

a coherent-moral-framework needs to be practical and intuitively applicable to NORMAL DAILY DECISION MAKING (and not just atrocious atrocities)

stealing a physical object is "wrong" because it deprives the owner of access to that object

"stealing" a song or an idea or a story does not deprive the "creator" of anything at all
#76
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Yeah I just don't agree. I feel like poetry and song lyrics and song music and characters and stories while they might be similar if they're still unique element to it and it should be considered stealing to just take that and run with it. Like I said I understand they're being limits especially if the artist is deceased. But I still feel like you know if you're going to record a song that's exactly like another song or  remake a song that you should pay the original artist.
#77
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
But I still feel like you know if you're going to record a song that's exactly like another song or  remake a song that you should pay the original artist.
yeah, you think that, but nobody did that before 1790

the new "morality" of copyright was created out of thin air, in order to protect corporate profits (they don't give a flip about "artists")
#78
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Well take the case of led Zeppelin for instance. So  there are certain blues riffs and certain phrases and lyrics are repeated in various songs. Now before there were recordings you basically got paid to go and perform and you could pretty much sing what you wanted to and they were probably blue standards that people wanted to hear. But then you get into a situation where guys who could play and sing were recorded and once the recordings happened they had unique material that might have had some of the elements of other songs but they were original songs. So groups like specifically in this case led Zeppelin took those recorded songs and recorded them in a rock style without really changing anything but the style the song was done in. The court found that by not giving credit to the original recorded artist that they were stealing that song. They had to pay out quite a bit of money to at least one blues artist that was still alive or it was his family's estate that had managed to be maintaining the records. And I believe that they had a right to pursue those funds because it wasn't a matter of just somebody up on a stage getting paid to sing these items have been recorded and the family of the artist was do funds whenever the songs were used.Now you can state that it wasn't anything before the 1700s but being able to record the music is part of the reason that's become a thing. And it's not just a matter of corporate that gentleman's family benefited from the fact that his material have been recorded and he had been giving credit for those recordings.
Led Zeppelin has gone on to make millions off of these songs.
And most artists today will tell you that they do not want their material to not be copyrighted.
#79
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
and you could pretty much sing what you wanted to and they were probably blue standards that people wanted to hear.
and those records dramatically reduced the number of local performers
#80
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't believe it all that recording music reduces live performances. One thing if an artist records albums and doesn't tour they make no money.
#81
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
most artists today will tell you that their record companies OWN all their songs and pay them a tiny fraction of a fraction of the money those songs generate
#82
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I don't believe it all that recording music reduces live performances. One thing if an artist records albums and doesn't tour they make no money.
before radio, every decent sized town had at least 50 professional piano players that would play at local pubs and restaurants and performance halls

after radio, you're lucky if you can find 2 in the same town
#83
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
This is very way off of any sort of religious topic so I'll just say this final thing and then I'm kind of done with this line because it's turning into more of a political discussion. Radio may have reduced the number of live performances but there are still plenty of live performances people can go and see and any recording artist has to tour or they don't make the money that the ones that don't tour me. Today most artists know to hold on to the rights to their music and any of the ones worth the salt have done that. Every time technology changes people lose jobs. A major complaint of people is that they're not a cashier they don't want to use the self checkout these same people go and use ATM machines all the time. I know when I worked for the bank I was basically told by the tellers who had been there for 15 years before me that ATM machines decimated the number of people who were hired as tellers. It's the way things work when technology comes around. And while recording companies do make money off of recording artists if you're not making money off of your own material you had a s***** lawyer or s***** agent. At this point if we're going to be discussing morality it really needs to be more religion related and not a topic that revolves around people's hatred for capitalism or for people that make more than $200,000 a year.
#84
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
i do appreciate your patience

let me just say, i believe this topic (copyright) is a perfect example of how "morality" (which many attribute exclusively to "religion") applies to REAL LIFE.
#85
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Excluding the outcomes of imagination and hypothesis.....(Basically the same I know)......And working upon the premise, that a material reality is in fact real.

Then what is UNREAL LIFE?
#86
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Then what is UNREAL LIFE?
anything that "could happen" but "hasn't happened" and furthermore "probably will never happen"

more specifically in regard to this specifically specific conversation,

i have never and will very likely never encounter a situation where i will be forced to make a decision between committing an atrocity and NOT committing an atrocity

this stands in stark contrast to the ridiculous vitriol i actually do encounter on a regular basis regarding what i can type and what art i can share with people over the webinternets
#87
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Thats deep fucking as  man.  

A  glimps into the life we now not know as   (  The  un real  )  ' twilight zone music '   


I am not a believer of that. 
But

I myself believe,  actually,  i think ,  There are absolutely " NO RULES "    and i I have trouble explaining what i think i  mean by that.   
I felt your post was going towards that. 

But back to your post. 
 
The last paragraph.
Oh that last paragraph


Your like a fucking enigma. 


Talking about never and not done anything deemed as atrocious.  
I'm close to positive  You've killed humans before. 
Deep as. 

Cool post.
The vibe 

P s  .  Lets do lunch. 
 

#88
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Bonus points for use of the word (  vitriol ) 
#89
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
And a further bonus point if you can say . 

(  More specifically in regards to this specifically specific conversation )  

Three times real fast. 
#90
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3

Pacific is a ocean