What color is the sky in your world? Originally Posted by pjorourkeYou know, that really was funny. I needed a grin this am!
Elisabeth
WTF is cruel Elisabeth?The swordsman who is the cruelest is the one who isn't doing his manly duty by me. I find it one of life's ironies that being an escort doesn't mean having (at least somewhat) a consistent state of sexual fulfillment.
Can we define cruel?
Which one is cruel the swordsman on the right or the swordsman on the left? Originally Posted by WTF
LOL
Third, my current example of cruelty is having a teenager in the household.
Is that a start, WTF?
Most sincerely,
Elisabeth Originally Posted by ElisabethWhispers
LOLBoy did you just dodge a bullet.Dolphins are famous for their attempts at molesting divers
Dolphins raping other dolphins.....and to think I was swimming with those lil horny bastards last week! Good thing they did find me sexy... Originally Posted by WTF
I would say that the word (actually, concept of) cruelty is essentially normative rather than comparative. And if you are saying that the validity/truth of evolution somehow implies that judgements or moral/normative values are "impossible" or meaningless, I think that is a a debatable stance (to put it mildly)...a sort of reductionist fallacy, imo.evolution supposedly proceeds by abberation..its worth is established in abberation not in stasis; if cruelty is a non-normative value, what makes it so if it aids in personal survival, some societal stricture? where other than in man would you apply the concept of cruelty?
-Ww Originally Posted by Wwanderer
evolution supposedly proceeds by abberation..its worth is established in abberation not in stasis; if cruelty is a non-normative value, what makes it so if it aids in personal survival, some societal stricture? where other than in man would you apply the concept of cruelty?I can't follow what you are saying above in any detail (starting, for example, with the point that I called cruelty a normative concept in my previous post, the one you quote, not a non-normative one), perhaps because I was and still am being misled by sarcasm...always a tricky mode of expression in this medium. Anyway, here are a couple of possibly relevant comments that might make my point a bit clearer:
of course, you make my point, which may have been obscured from you, having been couched in sarcasm, allowing for moral values in full light of natural processes, only i take it that you would ascribe morality to some totality or hidden combination which, while explainable by darwinian views, remains only unexplained to date, which is convenient, and in itself is a sort of reductionism. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought