Serial Switching for Rewards. Not good.

System

dreaming wrote: »

So I think this is an interesting train of thought. It is possibly something I will bring up with my philosophy group when we next meet which is, to my mind, a more fitting arena for this discussion.

I'd be really interested to know how the discussion goes. I know groups like that can be very thought provoking. A Buddhist meeting I once attended was discussing a problem of rats in a Buddhist monastery. It was very interesting. The monks were absolutely opposed to killing the creatures, but had to get rid of them. With Buddhism being about taking the middle ground and being somewhat pragmatic the solution they decided on was to move out while the rats were disposed of by the appropriate agency. It seemed a bit of a cop out, but it obviously assuaged their principles.

System

MisterMotivated wrote: »

Attack, attack, attack

There really is no point. You and I are obviously poles apart on this issue. Let's just say you win and I am very, very wrong to feel as I do. I am sorry to have troubled you.

MisterMotivated

scgf wrote: »

A forum such as this exists to facilitate discussion

Yet, despite the alternative viewpoints put forward, you now say you're just putting your feelings out there, which you cannot defend and are unwilling to change regardless of the opposing arguments being made. That's not a discussion, it's just a bigoted rant, and I don't see much point in the thread continuing to be honest.

System

MisterMotivated wrote: »

Yet, despite the alternative viewpoints put forward, you now say you're just putting your feelings out there, which you cannot defend and are unwilling to change regardless of the opposing arguments being made. That's not a discussion, it's just a bigoted rant, and I don't see much point in the thread continuing to be honest.

I completely agree.

MisterMotivated

scgf wrote: »

You and I are obviously poles apart on this issue

Well on that, we can agree.

dreaming

scgf wrote: »

I'd be really interested to know how the discussion goes. I know groups like that can be very thought provoking. A Buddhist meeting I once attended was discussing a problem of rats in a Buddhist monastery. It was very interesting. The monks were absolutely opposed to killing the creatures, but had to get rid of them. With Buddhism being about taking the middle ground and being somewhat pragmatic the solution they decided on was to move out while the rats were disposed of by the appropriate agency. It seemed a bit of a cop out, but it obviously assuaged their principles.

"Bit of a cop out"? I hope you told them that if they should practise what they preach (not that Buddhists tend to preach but you know what I mean I am sure). In my opinion their decision is hypocritical - is it really ok to follow the path of non-harm to all living creatures but not only turn away when others do so but pay them as well, I presume. I wonder what Jesus would have done?

masonic

scgf wrote: »

I'll tell you why. You may have good skills when it comes to debating a topic and were we debating something of a more factual nature I would engage more fully. I'm putting my personal feelings out there with the expectation of being attacked, but feelings are not always easy to defend and I can't accept they are necessarily a result of faulty logic. A personally held point of view is not destroyed by a good debater.

I am not not trying to personally attack you, nor am I trying pass any sort of judgement on your feelings or trying to destroy your point of view. If you feel like that is what I have been doing then I apologise.

If you'd stated merely that you just get these feelings when you think about the act of serial switching, and that don't really understand why you feel that way, but you can't help it, then this discussion would have been very different.

I can't speak for others, but the reason I have become incredibly frustrated with your conduct in this thread is that you have not put this across as your personal feelings that you can't really explain. Instead you have asserted as a fact, unquestionably established. You've also suggested that you should have the right to hold other people to account for acting in such a way, or at least discourage that behaviour because it is wrong for them to behave in such a way.

If I am now to understand that these are just your feelings, which you can't rationalise in any meaningful way on a discussion forum, then I honestly don't understand what you were hoping to achieve.

I interpreted your intent on this quite differently. I thought you were willing to enter into a discussion about the moral implications of this activity with an open mind, willing to enter into a discussion about how this activity was harmful and why you considered it, above other possible activities you could have singled out, to be worthy of such condemnation. Imagine my disappointment when my questions and invitations to elaborate on your position were ignored. Now I'm beginning to understand why.

I have been on the other side of the fence being attacked by parents when I've tried to promote LGBT positivity in school. Apparently being gay is wrong because God says so. There really is no way to argue that one. In the era of Thatcher's Section 28 where it became effectively illegal to promote homosexuality in schools I ignored the law and carried on doing what I felt was right. Had it come to it I could not have defended myself in a court of law by saying I felt I was doing the right thing.

Good for you! There is a good rational justification for why such action taken on your part is morally right and commendable: homosexuality and other LGBT expressions and behaviours are not morally wrong because they don't harm anyone, rather they create more well-being than if they were prohibited. Educating children on such matters is also the right thing because it helps some of them personally (as they will identify as LGBT in the future) and it breeds tolerance from others who might otherwise be convinced to be intolerant of such people. That's the sort of reason and discourse I've been inviting on the subject of serial switching.

What I'm trying to say rather clumsily is that I cannot easily defend my feelings. You may feel you're running circles around me but it's all rather ineffective when it comes to how I feel.

Trust me, I don't think I am running circles around you at all. I am merely trying to make you see how you are coming across to me and others.

System

dreaming wrote: »

"Bit of a cop out"? I hope you told them that if they should practise what they preach (not that Buddhists tend to preach but you know what I mean I am sure). In my opinion their decision is hypocritical - is it really ok to follow the path of non-harm to all living creatures but not only turn away when others do so but pay them as well, I presume. I wonder what Jesus would have done?

Lol! Interesting nonetheless and fascinating to discover how others interpret their morality.

masonic

Were the rats actually killed, or trapped and released?

System

masonic wrote: »

Were the rats actually killed, or trapped and released?

Now that information I can't remember - I suspect it was the former.