Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think I understand what you're saying here. The dog, in this case, is the Natural Man. The Natural Man is a carnal creature whose instincts and physical appetites are never put aside, never minimized or made to wait. We all have a Natural Man inside of us, even those who devote themselves to God and the discipline of religion.
Why force a dog to be a man?
My question is, Why must a man surrender to his bestial instincts when he is clearly more than a beast?
the thread starting post wasn't exactly flawlessly designed, but the idea was supposed to be that, it seems like a lot of the things people view as evil are the result of governments trying to perfect the populace...communist governments trying to scrub religion away...monarchies punishing people for not being part of their religion. We all have different ideas for what those lower bestial urges are. To many atheists, for example, religion is a bestial urge...a weakness which is also damaging. To many theists, religion takes strength and atheism is a weakness...the falling into those bestial urges. To be honest, atheists probably do look at more internet pornography than some of the more strict religious groups...I doubt we'll hurt anyone more than any theist would, but those kinds of things which only affect oneself in a way that doesn't seem damaging to oneself if one doesn't hold religious beliefs...we'd have little reason to think of it as quite as wrong as some religions...gross and not something to brag about, but not as wrong. (of course I never look at internet porno). We'd also be more likely to be okay with something like, making multiple clonings of one's body and downloading one's thoughts into multiple new bodies in order to live forever, and maybe even play all the positions on a baseball team all at once...which could very possibly drive members of certain religions groups into rages. The same case can be said of abortion and stem cell-research.
I was thinking that if people didn't punish others for viewpoints, think of all the tragedies which could have been avoided. There'd be no Nazis...or maybe ones with the goal of conquering other nations, but at least not ones with the goal of purging the impure. There'd be no abortion bombings. There'd be no hangings of homosexuals. Religions would never have become illegal under communisms...and doing this would involve merely encouraging others to be "better" people, but never forcing them...never forcing them to be more than whatever a given group views as a dog...or whatever their given sect views as worse...unless the dog person in question directly causes harm.
Basically, nobody force anyone to change their viewpoint...all the way down to sociopaths. Punishing certain actions is okay, but not viewpoints. We should probably have a system of rewards and punishments making even sociopaths desiring to exist peacefully in society anyway. Being a good person ideally would not be something anyone is required to do...encouraged to do, but not required. Only being a mildly tolerable person would be required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
The end of the philosophical treatise is missing! Moderator cut! What happened? What's the end? Aaaahhhhh!
I tried your advice today, and licked a dog's face, but he bit me, and here I am in the hospital getting rabies shots, and facing a massive hospital bill I will never be able to pay, because my insurance was pawned for some nice bourbon. Dang it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.