vegetarianism being biased against?..
where is here?
can you explain this bit a little more?
Do you sin against God or man?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
vegetarianism being biased against?..
where is here?
can you explain this bit a little more?
Incorrect.
Firstly, you're using the term "law" here incorrectly.
What you describe here are called "laws" in an entirely different sense from when one uses it to describe prescriptions for behaviour.
Secondly, these kinds of 'natural' 'laws' are indeed determined by us, as any scientific axiom is.
An inept metaphor.
In that kind of case, that authority is given to those parties, by us, as an implicit choice, by participating in that kind of society.
And thus, we are each god.
lol
True enough.
I was loathe to wade into this discussion, but the subject matter is close to my heart, so to speak....
And I never have a problem with being the contrary man...
wow. here in the states many of our kids are obese and malnourished at the same time. childhood diabetes is rampant. they're all on drugs for adhd, and autism is a growing epidemic. here kids are fed a steady diet of fast food, MSG, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial colors and sweeteners, and chemicals, while sitting on their fat butts playing video games and watching tv. go figure.
no, they exist and operate even if we don't "determine" them.
and i don't know why you would perceive such a difference. a law is a law. actions have consequences that governments can't interfere with or control, try as they may.
No they don't.
Apparently you've never studied science.
What does exist and 'operate' is the behaviour of the physical systems we observe.
The 'laws' themselves are merely our means of describing this behaviour....
See above.
Or... go read a high school science book..
Yes and scientists choose to use the word "law" to describe it just like I do.
I've read plenty, full of laws, and that's a start. I've gone even further to apply what I've learned though.
people have apples fall on their heads every day. some people see law, and some people just cuss and moan.
Last edited:
whatdaya mean kids....adults too!
Some places in Europe, and as far as I know, parts of US too.
the authority is far, far, far more than the mere sum of its parts.
For instance regardless whether you choose to be part of a society or not, murder, fraud and rape will get you in a lot of hot water very quickly anywhere on the planet you care to mention (unless of course you establish your position under the umbrella of an existing authority - for instance a solider technically carries out murder, but provided he does it to a designated enemy within the confines of designated rules of engagement, he stands to be rewarded)
not at all (unless you would want to include puny gods in the same category as god ... but it wouldn't really fit with the definition of god being outside of any authority)
there are a host of authorities we submit to, from the socially derived ones from the political structures we exist in (eg, police, tax, one's boss (or one's clients/peers if one is self-employed), council bylaws for everything from hygiene to architecture, etc etc) to the physical ones that we submit to at practically every second of the day (ranging from the environment, like floods and earthquakes to mere hot weather, from one's own body and mind, like a tooth ache to depression to old age or even the requirement to go to the bathroom on a regular basis (or even the requirement to go to a separate room to perform such business) , and from the bodies of others, like if a monkey breaks into your house and steals all your bananas or a big muscly guy punches you in the nose before relieving you of your wallet)
clearly there is a big difference to being able wield some authority (like, say, authority over cooked cauliflowers (that one has paid for) on one's plate ... and even then provided one isn't in the immediate vicinity of monkeys partial to cooked cauliflower) and not being under any authority
To be sure, the philosophy of law would have a lot to say about whether laws are in fact prescriptive or not, or which ones and in what sense.
I don't think there is an article in secular law that would actually state "It is forbidden to kill humans", for example.
There are of course numerous laws that state what the consequences for killing a human are.
Generally, we tend to conclude that if there is a punishment prescribed for a certain act, that that act is then wrong/immoral/forbidden.
But on the other hand, there is the view that maintains that laws do not deal with matters of morality, but only with some practical issues of life and death.
Courts establish culpability according to the charge, the laws and the evidence, but they are not per se interested in the truth.
regardless of how you know (or don't know) such things, you seem capable of making active decisions on the topic, despite there being a myriad of potentially controversial, conflicting or even false philosophies, options and treatments
That is so only if we are aware that we are doing something illegal, but choose to do it anyway.
In that case, it is indeed a choice.
It is possible to engage in an activity while having no awareness that it is illegal in the country we live in.
In such a case, we will still be subject to the law, and LG's analogy applies. But then, we cannot speak of there being an implicit choice, since we had no knowledge of the illegality of our activity.
Ignorantia iuris nocet.
They can hardly be called decisions. More like actions out of panic.
A person normally feels a degree of contentment with their decisions, and I have no such contentment.
What point would you like to make with this analogy between becoming sick and choosing a particular religious tradition?
Heh.
I was just thinking about Spidergoat's comment elsewhere the other day, where he claimed that liquid water is not ordered, but snowflakes are.
I was reminded on how the states of matter are described in school textbooks - claiming that (the movements of molecules in) gases are disordered or chaotic. If they would truly be disordered or chaotic, we could not make any calculations about gases. But obviously, we can and we do.
I mean, there is a sketch of a gas, the caption says "the molecules move at random in a gas" and below is a formula for calculating the kinetic energy of those molecules etc. Uh!
In the ideal case, the two are in perfect alignment, though.
This is the whole thrust behind the concept of "laws" and the effort to find out what they are.
(All those definitions, formulas etc. were not meant as a mere theoretical exercise.)
I fully agree with you Signal.
But to mistake these laws for something that they are not (as Lori does) is simply wrong.