Even if a robot doesn't feel, you're, as the creator, foisting plain, vanilla existence on it, oui? It didn't choose to exist and that's wrong, no? — Agent Smith

It’s not bound by a human or animal condition. How does ethics apply? You tell me. Besides that it merely exists.

It’s not bound by a human or animal condition. How does ethics apply? You tell me. Besides that it merely exists. — schopenhauer1

Good point! :up:

Ethics applies to imposition simpliciter as it seems to treat human beings as robots! :chin:

I know too little, sir! However, from what I think I understand about the commingling of madness that happened in 1947, the violence was primarily between Muslims on one side and Hindus/Sikhs on the other. Most Sikhs fled the region now called Pakistan into the Republic of India.

Untouchability is a curse and serves as a reminder of the misery that dogma and an insatiable thirst for power can create. May we move beyond this sooner rather than later.

@Athena I hope that this is of some help!

Ethics applies to imposition simpliciter as it seems to treat human beings as robots! :chin: — Agent Smith

Huh?

Huh? — schopenhauer1

:smile:

Explain please.

I know too little — DA671

I think we all know too little about such horrific events.
Based on a quick google search:
‘Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.’
The quote is most likely due to writer and philosopher George Santayana, and in its original form it read, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

WE CAN ALL DO BETTER! And imo, we need no help from god fables but I understand, (if my analysis of her intent is correct) @Athena's very honourable 'mission'/intent, to find common ground / values / purpose and foster a more positive dialogue between theists and anti-theists. I would have to always admit to my own personal preference for abandoning all theism however, as to do otherwise, would be disingenuous on my part.

Btw, I had to google 'commingling.' That's a new one on me. Breach of trust, yes?

Nature made mothers, nature made every female and male archetype. — Athena

I wanted to pull this sentence out separately and 'complain' about its 'intent' connotation.
'Nature' is often 'objectified' in the sense that some people often try to assign it a concrete form like 'mother nature!' etc. Nature has no such concrete form and has no intent. Such thinking created the original pagan deities and animism(the belief that all objects and living things possess a soul or spirit).
Many early gods were some human/animal hybrid or sun/moon/river/forest god. I think we should stop objectifying/anthropomorphising the natural processes or 'nature,' in this way.

As long as one isn't an absolutist with a pernicious agenda (which you most certainly aren't), it's indubitably important to stand by the truth as one understands it. The alternative is to live in a superficial world with meaningless interactions.

That quote is quite apposite! Although, I would say that my knowledge about the world, in general, is fairly limited. That's why I am eternally grateful to wiser people like you and others (even those I disagree with at a profound level) for sharing their insights.

I am sorry if I accidentally betrayed you! It sincerely was not intentional.

:lol: Despite your humility and insistence that you have limited knowledge of the world, you still keep adding to my vocabulary. I was not familiar with 'apposite,' either.
Again, google to the rescue. Apposite meaning apt. If English is a second language for you, the word range you know is impressive.

Thank you for your kind words. I am quite confused by:

I am sorry if I accidentally betrayed you! It sincerely was not intentional. — DA671

Please explain. Was it these words below that made you think I was referring to your belief system?
If so, its me that should be apologising.

WE CAN ALL DO BETTER! And imo, we need no help from god fables — universeness

I did not intend these words to be a direct insult to all Hinduism, as you, yourself have explained to me that many Hindus express their belief system in many ways, including ways that do not include anything supernatural.

See you in the Lounge.

Explain please. — schopenhauer1

I'm no good at that! All I can say is that to impose one's wishes, including but not limited to thinking on someone's behalf, herein the child to be born, amounts to treating the child as if s/he were an inanimate object (like robots). That's unethical, oui?

This discussion would merged into Life Sucks: (General Anti-Life Discussion)

See you in the Lounge. — jgill

:rofl:

Ubi vita, ibi dolor?

I've just imbibed these words by reading people a lot more eloquent than I could ever hope to be and tried my best to enhance my lexical resource. Thank you for your charitable words! And yes, English is indeed my second language.

Oh, I am sorry. I was referring to this:

"Breach of trust, yes?"

You wrote this at the end of your previous comment. I was attempting to put forth a partially facetious response.

I, for one, would be glad if others could think for me and provide me a good that I can't solicit yet. Of course, it's another matter that the idea of calling an act a gift/imposition seems to be debatable. Perspectives will vary, I suppose. Nevertheless, it's a good thing that awareness regarding nature and scale of what we have lost is growing. Once recognition occurs, realisation of what could be would also follow suit.

Perspectives will vary — DA671

:up:

:clap:

English is indeed my second language. — DA671

:clap: :clap: English (with scots dialect) is my first language and your vocabulary range seems wider than mine, well done!
When I looked up 'Commingling' its meaning was reported as 'breach of trust,' does this match your use of it in.

However, from what I think I understand about the commingling of madness that happened in 1947, the violence was primarily between Muslims on one side and Hindus/Sikhs on the other. — DA671

?

Muslims on one side and Hindus/Sikhs on the other — DA671

It looks like though Sikhism is a syncretism of Hinduism & Islam, it's more saffron than green.

It has its own distinct identity, but it certainly shares certain beliefs with Hinduism (such as dharma, moksha, etc.).

:pray:

The definition you read seems to be a legal definition. I was using it in the sense of something being mixed or blended.

:ok:

Ok I see. I actually think the 'betrayal of trust' is more apt for you words:

However, from what I think I understand about the commingling of madness that happened in 1947, the violence was primarily between Muslims on one side and Hindus/Sikhs on the other. — DA671

They did betray their own religions as all three of them claim to be religions of peace and they betrayed everyone's trust that these claims were true.

They did betray their own religions as all three of them claim to be religions of peace and they betrayed everyone's trust that these claims were true. — universeness

:up: Epic fail!

:smile: And I will bet a years retirement pension that @DA671 will agree!

:grin:

The idea itself does make sense. However, in the sentence wherein it was used, I believe that the definition that I had in mind is befitting. "Breach of trust of madness" wouldn't sound particularly coherent, I think!

Here's the definition from Wikipedia:

"In law, commingling is a breach of trust in which a fiduciary mixes funds held in care for a client with his own funds, making it difficult to determine which funds belong to the fiduciary and which belong to the client."

So, we can see that this also refers to something being mixed.

Of course I agree. They didn't just breach the trust; it was pulverised entirely. It took the collective effort of Mahatma Gandhi, Pt. Nehru, Maulana Azad, and countless individuals to prevent absolute insanity from prevailing. And even then, the violence only truly declined after people saw with horror as Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu who believed in pluralism, being killed by an extremist. Absolutists who don't appreciate the rainbow of perspectives that lies before us often end up causing serious harm.