Random alert!.
Took a walk. More awesome and splendid than man’s handiwork. All of Atlanta didn’t move me as much as simple walk through this. Conserve it for generations to follow.
“Learn from the way the wild flowers grow. They do not work or spin. But I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was clothed like one of them.”
[quote]kamui wrote:
No. I came in and challenged one of Severiano’s claim. the claim that our current non-religious ethics are superior to previous religious ethics.
My point, or rather one of my points was that irreligion doesn’t have any shared and defined ethics to speak about. Yet.
Hence the expression “morally lost”.
[quote]
I gave plenty of evidence for why I think we are either better or tied. You’re the one saying worse.[/quote]
Which is not my point, and not the issue. In other words : strawmen and diversions.
[quote]
So apparently (to you) our predecessors were a we and did have a moral north and now we don’t have one?[/quote]
They were closer to being a we than we are now. They had at least a theoretical moral north. We don’t have one, neither in practice nor in theory.
[quote]
Where was that compass during the Inquisition? French Revolution? African slave trade? When did right now become less moral and how can you prove it?[/quote]
Are you trying to use the prevalence of crimes to disprove the existence of the law ?
[quote]
This is lunacy my man. We NEVER shared a common moral system. You mean the same moral system that led to wars of religion between Protestants and Catholics? The same moral system that had slavery? The same moral system that started World War 1 and 2? The same moral system that had blacks and whites separated? The same one that had 0 rights for women? The same one that kicked Native Americans off their land?[/quote]
I never realized that moral systems were so powerful and could do so many things. That’s impressive.
But it’s actually interesting to note that everything you quote still exists today to some extant. Despite all our “moral progress”. (you know, the idea i initially “came in” to challenge).
Let’s me check if i understand you correctly :
When our current (non-religious) culture do something good, that’s because we are morally superior. And we can congratulate ourselves.
When our (christian) predecessors did something bad, it was because they were morally inferior. And we can blame them. A posteriori.
When our current (non-religious) culture do something bad, that’s not our fault. It’s demography. side effects and collateral damages.
I get it.
But now i wonder… when our (christian) predecessors did something good, despite their awful inferior morality, what was it ? Luck ?
[quote]
You think we were EVER a we?! Fuck no we weren’t and never have been. If we were a we then “we” were all immoral as fuck and your premise is lost on that alone.[/quote]
To challenge my premise you have to prove that we were amoral. Not immoral.
[quote]
You started from a disadvantaged position (we are less moral now than we used to be) and you’ve been trying to shift things to prove your point. You are no closer right now my friend than you were when you began.[/quote]
Again … was not my point, is not my point, won’t be my point, but that won’t prevent you from arguing against it. Again, and again, and again.
That being said, i note that auto-congratulation and early proclamation of victory are really your thing. You do not only do it with history of civilization, you do it with internet discussions.
Actually this is what I responded to FROM you:
[quote]I think it’s beyond naive to think our culture is morally superior to its predecessors. If anything, i think we are morally lost
we have thrown our old religious standards away, but we haven’t replaced them, yet.
So we are flying without instruments right now.
The sooner we admit it, the better our chances to avoid the crash.[/quote]
Your specific point that you believe we may be morally lost compared to our predecessors. Since then you’ve been ducking, diving, juking, trying to change that point into something that someone may be able to agree with.
I don’t see how you can claim strawmen when the above is SPECIFICALLY what I responded to. Them being closer to being a we is completely your opinion and is not based on anything else. You cannot prove that in any sense of the word. In fact I’d say the less amount of warfare we have seen in the 21st century compared to the 20th might directly refute that emotion based opinion.
Again I never claimed that we were some type of morally superior culture. YOU claimed we were morally inferior or lost. That was the quote I responded to by saying if we are so morally inferior how come all these metrics are down?
The rest is actually YOU (not anyone else) creating strawmen for me. I never said ANYTHING about us being morally superior right now because of religion. You’ve invented that position for me. I challenged (again I’ve said this) your OPINION (which it is, nothing else) that we are morally lost compared to our predecessors.
Most of your posts have been conjecture and opinion. You don’t actually have any evidence for most of what you’ve said.
I don’t know how you can claim it is not your point right now when that is the first thing that caught my attention and made it worth responding to. Your SPECIFIC words man.
And you have to realize stuff like we’re burning our children’s future is pure opinion and not something you can remotely prove. How about comparing that to dropping two atomic bombs? When’s the last time we did that? Wasn’t in the 21st century.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
H, you’ve had your ass handed to you.
You’re gallant in efforts, however, you have arrived at your Gallipoli.[/quote]
Some people are trying to have a conversation and if you could troll elsewhere that would be great.
Now if you have something of substance that’s a good time to post, but right now adults are trying to have a discussion and we don’t need the random little kid jumping in attempting to play judge when we don’t really care what the immature kid says (K or myself). I get that you don’t like me, but is that really a reason to follow me around and attempt to ruin discussions with people? I don’t like to have to put people on ignore, but I have no time for pure trolls so it would be great if you’d stop.
Move along and troll elsewhere so you don’t clog this thing up.
[quote]kamui wrote:
How is it possible since :
-we are more moral and more aware now than at any time in human history
-we are more capable than ever before to deal with challenges ?
Something doesn’t add up.
[/quote]
This is your basis for why we are less moral? The idea that the human population has grown and thrived and become more peaceful and lived longer so we have encroached on animal territory and are potentially harming them more than we did 1,000 years ago?
I guess if that is your metric you’re correct Al Gore. Right now in 2014 humans are doing MORE good things for the environment and are more environmentally minded than any other time in American history.
Short of genocide what do you think humans should have done to prevent their increase? And if more people is as bad as you say what should we do? Kill grandma? I think if you believe humans should die earlier and we shouldn’t try to make life longer and healthier then you’re going to find yourself in the vast minority or people arguing that.
I don’t see how that makes us less moral than our predecessors. You think early Americans or Americans in the 1900’s actually gave a fuck about the environment? That pretty much ignores all history again.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we have the luxury of living off the spoils of the victors. The bloodiest work has already been done for us. Now we get to live in the powerful nation-states (with their well-developed militaries, unspeakable WMDs, and police forces) that developed from it, using the resources secured and captured so we can make pace-makers, air-conditioning, and our i-phone.
Was it bloody? Yeah. We would do better? I seriously doubt a hyper-secular, materialistic-consumerist people would let ignorant superstitious savages impede the securing and use of resources needed for forming the nation-state and global economy needed for their cheap consumer products today.
The question is always was it bloody. How about was it constrained relative to what it could have been? I know there are secularists and even atheists who admit that religion helped maintain order among a people, at least. So what if even those sensibilities lost out to some some hypothetical materialistic secular-acquisition. Would those hunting grounds and waters been left undeveloped, to the use or non-use of the traditional societies using them? Absolutely not. The fact that our morality is now being measured by a wealth, and the monopolization of power of larger nation-states, made possible by the taking and settling of resources and borders in yester-year certainly doesn’t suggest it.
Will the religious be commanded to participate in the economy in ways that violate their moral conscience? Sure. Will it happen relatively peacefully? Sure. Why? Because nation-states monopolized their power longer ago.
[/quote]
I would say we have the luxury of living in times where we finally realized how fucking stupid it was to kill over and over again in the name of God and developed human ideas about things like religious tolerance.
Do we still kill in the name of God some? Sure, probably always will. We kill in the name of other things as well and probably always will.
We war with other nations less than we did in the past and the 21st century so far has seen a lot of relative peace compared to previous times.
I never really attempted to say we are definitely more moral, but I took a big contention with the idea that we are less moral. If we are less moral than our predecessors then what are we basing that on? So far it has been K’s opinion largely. He has nothing measurable. Nothing concrete.
He says we don’t respect our elders at a time when society can do more for elderly people to help them live longer and healthier than ever before. He mentions our children in a time where our children are healthier, have access to more education, and are forced to work less than any other time in history. My niece is almost 18 months old. She is INFINITELY better off than the average kid born in 1914 or 1814. Her future is so much brighter. She will get to be educated, she will have access to all sorts of comforts, she will be able to participate in elections and society based on how she feels and what SHE wants to do.
The idea somehow that kids right now are worse off than before is preposterous. How many young people fought in wars in the older days? TONS of them.
Of course none of this plays well and never has because all anyone wants to talk about is how great it used to be (horseshit) and how horrible it is right now and will be tomorrow (double horseshit). Part of this is because it is EXACTLY how politicians talk.
In 2008 McCain and Obama BOTH talked about how horrible right now was and how if you trusted them they will fix things and make the future better. In 2016 Dems and Republicans will do the same thing again. Until 2020 and 2024 where we will repeat that.
[quote]
Actually this is what I responded to FROM you:
[quote]I think it’s beyond naive to think our culture is morally superior to its predecessors. If anything, i think we are morally lost
we have thrown our old religious standards away, but we haven’t replaced them, yet.
So we are flying without instruments right now.
The sooner we admit it, the better our chances to avoid the crash.[/quote]
Your specific point that you believe we may be morally lost compared to our predecessors.[/quote]
Yes. Lost.
[quote]
Since then you’ve been ducking, diving, juking, trying to change that point into something that someone may be able to agree with.[/quote]
Nope. I stand by this point. And many people here will agree with it. As is.
[quote]
YOU claimed we were morally inferior or lost.[/quote]
That’s not the same thing.
Lost doesn’t mean inferior or worse.
That’s your conclusion, your equation, not mine.
In my mind, it means that :
[quote]
we have thrown our old religious standards away, but we haven’t replaced them, yet.[/quote]
hence the various, numerous expressions i used :
we haven’t see the end of the movie
this is a crisis
a transition
we are “in between”
uncertain times
it’s to early to judge
etc
none of which means that we are bad, or worse, or evil, or inferior, or [insert another strawman without even trying to understand here]
[quote]
And you have to realize stuff like we’re burning our children’s future is pure opinion and not something you can remotely prove. How about comparing that to dropping two atomic bombs? When’s the last time we did that? Wasn’t in the 21st century. [/quote]
This comparison is entirely irrelevant, and perfectly stupid, and i rarely use such words, even on PWI.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
Actually this is what I responded to FROM you:
[quote]I think it’s beyond naive to think our culture is morally superior to its predecessors. If anything, i think we are morally lost
we have thrown our old religious standards away, but we haven’t replaced them, yet.
So we are flying without instruments right now.
The sooner we admit it, the better our chances to avoid the crash.[/quote]
Your specific point that you believe we may be morally lost compared to our predecessors.[/quote]
Yes. Lost.
[quote]
Since then you’ve been ducking, diving, juking, trying to change that point into something that someone may be able to agree with.[/quote]
Nope. I stand by this point. And many people here will agree with it. As is.
[quote]
YOU claimed we were morally inferior or lost.[/quote]
That’s not the same thing.
Lost doesn’t mean inferior or worse.
That’s your conclusion, your equation, not mine.
In my mind, it means that :
Ok so this has been a massive waste of time then.
This is a crisis (completely your opinion). A transition (also opinion). We are in between (in between what, opinion again). It’s to early to judge (judge what, when will we know, when did we start, also opinion).
When you said we were morally lost I put down tons of metrics showing how we were doing things better RIGHT now than we used to do morally for me. I’ve presented PLENTY of evidence for why I feel as if I do, but you keep bringing up opinion based things like we are mortgaging the future or we are in a crisis or whatever.
If 2000-2014 has been a crisis then what in the same hell was 1900-1914? Armageddon?
If we “had” religion back then to guide us then why in the fuck did we kill each other over and over again, force people into slavery, have children work and people die at work, etc times a million?
I don’t see how one could conclude that that old flying instrument was helping us make moral decisions. Uhmm, American Civil War anyone? Seemed awful moral!
You’re right though I can’t argue with these times are awful, they are going to be worse, and we are morally lost.
This is all opinion based statements that if you won’t really attempt to defend them then I can’t do anything with them. You’ll just say something inane like we are at the halftime point of a bad movie. Don’t review it until you’ve seen the end (even though you already tried to review it).
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
How is it possible since :
-we are more moral and more aware now than at any time in human history
-we are more capable than ever before to deal with challenges ?
Something doesn’t add up.
[/quote]
This is your basis for why we are less moral? The idea that the human population has grown and thrived and become more peaceful and lived longer so we have encroached on animal territory and are potentially harming them more than we did 1,000 years ago?[/quote]
potentially ? lol
Again : the rate of species loss is greater than at any other time in human history. A lot greater.
It’s not potential, it’s actual.
(and, for the nth time, i never said we were less moral)
[quote]
I guess if that is your metric you’re correct Al Gore. Right now in 2014 humans are doing MORE good things for the environment and are more environmentally minded than any other time in American history.[/quote]
Again, the cynical play with proportions and absolute numbers.
the metric : good thing we do for the environment progressed
But
in the same time
the metric : bad things we do to the environment progressed a lot more
but yes, feel free to hide an unexcusable reality behind a meaningless percentage.
[quote]
Short of genocide what do you think humans should have done to prevent their increase?[/quote]
I, for one, is not a fan of a posteriori judgment.
Oh, maybe we will kill grandma.
But then we won’t do it for environmental reasons, but for economical ones. And we will call that “ethical”, or even “bio-ethical”.
[quote]
I think if you believe humans should die earlier and we shouldn’t try to make life longer and healthier then you’re going to find yourself in the vast minority or people arguing that.[/quote]
Don’t panic.
I simply think human should act better. But even that is probably too much to ask.
[quote]
I don’t see how that makes us less moral than our predecessors. You think early Americans or Americans in the 1900’s actually gave a fuck about the environment? That pretty much ignores all history again.[/quote]
A challenge :
Try to wrote a post which won’t contain “you think …”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
You are right, that isn’t specifically what is wrong with the church. It’s that they lag behind even the most obvious moral comparatives and tend to be among the last to change their positions. Long after the majority of society accepts things like black skin not being some evil mark (like with mormons) or homosexual acts being anyones business since everyone seems to have premarital sex, but it’s only the homosexuals who go to hell for example… How do you answer that? They are clearly behind, and they clearly change their stances.
[/quote]
You missed the mark. The church was out front in the abolition movement. [/quote]
Many were, many weren’t. A lot depended on whether they were in the North or South.[/quote]
Still…the church was out in front in the abolition movement. Period.
In fact they were out in front, virtually alone.[/quote]
“There were churches/preachers/congregations that were out ahead.” That’s the phrasing that gets a period.
There were also churches/preachers congregations that were supporting slavery, as an institution, emphatically, and until the very end (See, to take one of many examples, Birney, The American Churches, The Bulwarks of American Slavery).
Since there was no “American Church,” you can’t really say “the church,” as a concrete entity, did anything at all. You could talk numbers or averages, but you don’t seem to be doing that, and I’m not even sure anyone could.
What is true is that the abolitionist movement was closely tied to churches, where it flourished. But not churches in Mississippi.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Random alert!.
Took a walk. More awesome and splendid than man’s handiwork. All of Atlanta didn’t move me as much as simple walk through this. Conserve it for generations to follow.
“Learn from the way the wild flowers grow. They do not work or spin. But I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was clothed like one of them.”
[/quote]
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
How is it possible since :
-we are more moral and more aware now than at any time in human history
-we are more capable than ever before to deal with challenges ?
Something doesn’t add up.
[/quote]
This is your basis for why we are less moral? The idea that the human population has grown and thrived and become more peaceful and lived longer so we have encroached on animal territory and are potentially harming them more than we did 1,000 years ago?[/quote]
potentially ? lol
Again : the rate of species loss is greater than at any other time in human history. A lot greater.
It’s not potential, it’s actual.
(and, for the nth time, i never said we were less moral)
[quote]
I guess if that is your metric you’re correct Al Gore. Right now in 2014 humans are doing MORE good things for the environment and are more environmentally minded than any other time in American history.[/quote]
Again, the cynical play with proportions and absolute numbers.
the metric : good thing we do for the environment progressed
But
in the same time
the metric : bad things we do to the environment progressed a lot more
but yes, feel free to hide an unexcusable reality behind a meaningless percentage.
[quote]
Short of genocide what do you think humans should have done to prevent their increase?[/quote]
I, for one, is not a fan of a posteriori judgment.
Oh, maybe we will kill grandma.
But then we won’t do it for environmental reasons, but for economical ones. And we will call that “ethical”, or even “bio-ethical”.
[quote]
I think if you believe humans should die earlier and we shouldn’t try to make life longer and healthier then you’re going to find yourself in the vast minority or people arguing that.[/quote]
Don’t panic.
I simply think human should act better. But even that is probably too much to ask.
[quote]
I don’t see how that makes us less moral than our predecessors. You think early Americans or Americans in the 1900’s actually gave a fuck about the environment? That pretty much ignores all history again.[/quote]
A challenge :
Try to wrote a post which won’t contain “you think …” [/quote]
What do you think humans should do to be more environmental right now? Do you think humans are working harder to be environmentally better in 2014 than they were in 1914? Why or why not? IF more humans has been a problem (I wouldn’t argue with that) then what SHOULD we do about that?
The answer is almost assuredly yes, and yet this is your basis for why we are in trouble. And the irony is the people who are agreeing with you in this thread are the first ones to jump like hell at any “liberal” type environmental talk.
A challenge for you my friend: When making arguments attempt to make them without saying stuff no one can attempt to argue with like we are in a crisis or in transition. I guess I will just have to take your word for it. I’d say we have been in MUCH worse crisis in previous times than right now. None of that pushes along a discussion because you can’t prove “transition, crisis, ending, etc.”
Of course humans should act better. We can and always have needed to act better. This doesn’t really help any of your points. Who’s arguing humans are acting great right now? I’m simply saying if you think we are bad right now, what in the fuck did you think about us 100 years ago? 200? I’ve pointed out numerous rational reasons for how we are acting better now than we did 100 years ago.
Maybe we will kill grandma. Another opinion. Maybe we will kill all grandmas with brown hair in the future. Maybe we won’t. Maybe bringing that up is largely trivial considering we can’t predict what men will do in the future?
You say you don’t want to make past judgments, but all you’ve done is talk about how “we” didn’t do anything about population control. So I asked what should we have done. Then you turned that around to say I’m arguing for genocide.
No, we have made life for humans tons better over the last 100 years. This has been an AMAZINGLY moral thing and an AMAZINGLY good thing for humanity. I have NO idea how anyone could think otherwise.
We DO have environmental challenges (we had them 100 years ago as well and see the pollution and smog American cities used to have) and they do require attention.
The environment is getting more human attention in 2014 than it was in 1914 agree or disagree? Holy cow have you missed green energy? Have you missed wildlife preserves? Have you missed the coming back of numerous populations of animals in America? Are you attempting to argue that humans in the past 200 years cared more for the environment than now? If no then how is this a basis for how we are less moral.
Religion has nothing to do with any of this. Hell the people who do the most for the environment right now are probably less religious than some of the people who do the least. Let me show you all the recycling programs and green energy of the Bible belt compared to more secular places.
I suspect you won’t like this answer but …
We should acknowledge that :
The well-being and flourishing of human AND nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves
We should acknowledge that :
These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
We should acknowledge that :
Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
We should acknowledge that :
Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs.
We should acknowledge that :
The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
We should acknowledge that :
Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
We should acknowledge that :
Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
We should acknowledge that :
The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
(FYI, i’m lazy, so i copy-pasted the platform of the “deep ecology” movement. Which i happen to agree with, or at least mostly agree with.)
[quote]
The answer is almost assuredly yes, and yet this is your basis for why we are in trouble. And the irony is the people who are agreeing with you in this thread are the first ones to jump like hell at any “liberal” type environmental talk.[/quote]
Not sure Sloth will disagree that much with the above.
And not sure i like “liberal type environmental talk”, either .
[quote]
Maybe we will kill grandma. Another opinion.[/quote]
Yes, you got this one right. This one is actually an opinion. That’s what i said “oh, maybe”.
But you know, there IS a movement to kill grandma right now. And another movement to make grandma work too. I suspect we will end up doing both.
I won’t disagree with any of that, though I can tell you with “environmental” threads on the past in here you’d be a minority on some of this thinking especially from right minded thinkers.
The second part I’m not even going to bother getting into as both of those things are currently as unlikely as it gets. Raising the retirement age is something that probably needs to happen though if we are going to have serious entitlement reform.
Although wouldn’t the decree like killing grandma because that would lead to a substantial decrease in the human population? Things that make you go hmm…
FWIW I would love to see an increase in contraceptive use worldwide to limit population growth. Some of the people standing in the way of that? The religious people like kneedragger who feel it is like abortion. Let’s stop that kind of nonsense talk and get serious about preventing unwanted pregnancies.
And morally? I think we are in fantastic shape compared to some of the barbaric things humans USED to do to one another. We still aren’t perfect and never will be, but we are a shit ton better and that IS my opinion.
[quote]
You say you don’t want to make past judgments, but all you’ve done is talk about how “we” didn’t do anything about population control.[/quote]
What ? Where did i say that ?
[quote]
No, we have made life for humans tons better over the last 100 years. This has been an AMAZINGLY moral thing and an AMAZINGLY good thing for humanity. I have NO idea how anyone could think otherwise.[/quote]
ok again :
this assertion is based on percentage, average and broad generality.
even if it is true, it means that it is an “amazingly good thing” for a part of humanity. not “for humanity”.
even if it is true, it doesn’t prove anything about the costs of such a prowess. or its sustainability .
even if it is true, this doesn’t mean it’s an amazingly moral thing.
That’s not the same thing, i already explained why, and it would be obvious to you if you knew what morality mean.
So religion has something to do with it, or not ?
Kamui: You got a bad short term memory 
Your thoughts on population from earlier:
[quote]Yes.
IE : something we did not control, do not control and can not control.
We are speaking about a huge, massive, enormous demographical transition, at a worldwide scale.
This transition is the root cause of most of the “wrong” things AND “good” things that happened during the last two centuries.
This is what we call a “crisis”. And it’s an unfinished one.[/quote]
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
You say you don’t want to make past judgments, but all you’ve done is talk about how “we” didn’t do anything about population control.[/quote]
What ? Where did i say that ?
Sigh
I was bothered by you saying we were morally lost (which isn’t something you can prove anyways). Hence my posts since then. My argument was if we are morally lost right now then what in the fuck were we in the past? Morally mentally challenged?
Your argument that without religion (which we still have a shit ton of religious people, far out numbering non religious people) we are flying without anything to guide us is nothing but opinion. And we hardly have an absence of religion anyways.
AND if it is so bad where is the evidence? And if religion has anything to do with the environment why aren’t places with more religious people cleaner?
How do we know flying without our previous instruments is bad? How many people died because of those instruments anyways?
given the choice, i would take bad short term memory over bad faith and bad reading comprehension.
You said :
In a context where we are speaking about “past judgments”, this imply that i make this specific past judgment :
“we should have done something, and we did nothing, this is baaaad”.
the passage you quote explicitly say that we couldn’t have done anything.
About a fucking tidal wave.
If i made a “past judgment”, it was to innocent, not to accuse.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Random alert!.
Took a walk. More awesome and splendid than man’s handiwork. All of Atlanta didn’t move me as much as simple walk through this. Conserve it for generations to follow.
“Learn from the way the wild flowers grow. They do not work or spin. But I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was clothed like one of them.”
[/quote]
[/quote]
Huh?
[quote]kamui wrote:
given the choice, i would take bad short term memory over bad faith and bad reading comprehension.
You said :
In a context where we are speaking about “past judgments”, this imply that i make this specific past judgment :
“we should have done something, and we did nothing, this is baaaad”.
the passage you quote explicitly say that we couldn’t have done anything.
About a fucking tidal wave.
If i made a “past judgment”, it was to innocent, not to accuse.
[/quote]
I apologize for misconstruing some of your arguments I just thought they were honestly poorly phrased for getting someone to understand your position.
I would probably make the same mistakes again when seeing morally lost and how bad it may be that we are “flying without instruments.” Again though my apologies and I should have attempted to clarify your position earlier. I still stand by the position that if we are morally lost now and were not in the past then we sure did fuck tons of things up morally back then!
I’d say we know our previous instruments were broken and if we are flying with different ones well at least we are trying something that may work! Maybe today’s morally lost is better than previous generations morally found?
