It seems very clear to me that it's quite easier — Antinatalist

I'm lazy.

Personally, I would not have a child if I even somehow could, for ethical reasons
If I have to kill a person in some "life or death" -situation, I don´t consider that wrong - at least in some circumstances. — Antinatalist

That's fine, but are you going to tell me not have children?

If you tell me it's unethical to have children, I don't care. :kiss:

But are they morally equivalent? Having children is not illegal, neither is getting drunk.

Even if it's morally wrong, people are still going to have children anyways. Antinatalism is useless. You'd have to pass a law!

Should laypeople go with the 97% consensus on climate change? — Xtrix

They can either attack the 97% statistic, or go with the 3% :cool:

I hope to see a debate or discussion regarding the anti-scientific sentiments or movement towards the decay of science — Caldwell

It's a common saying that science is a self-correcting system.

Is Science Broken?Or is it self-correcting?

My point is that because having a child is a decision of someone else´s life, and those risks will fall to the child — Antinatalist

I can just as well say that adults are responsible for children.

The problem is in the imbalance of powers. If Christianity/secular humanism is tolerant towards Islam, Muslims would feel empowered to throw acid on girls.
So the best solution would be to be intolerant of the intolerant and keep those animals behind a wall. — stoicHoneyBadger

MLK preached tolerance!

My mistake.

Here's an article about religious toleration. link

The basic argument is as follows:we have no moral right to cause something that radically changes the existence  of another individual or –  to be more precise: from non-existence to existence or vice versa (in other words, from a non-individual/+ non-existence into existence or vice versa is also regarded as a change here), or to directly affect the existence of another human being if it is not possible to hear this individual in the matter.

Such arguments have been made concerning the act of having a child that one cannot affect something that does not exist. Is this argument justified? — Antinatalist

I don't see anything wrong with speculating about child birth. If you believe that having children is risky because your child might suffer, it is good judgement to decide not to have children. I believe it is a risk assessment decision rather than it being about morality.

Choosing not to have children is a personal risk assessment decision, it has nothing to do with wrong-or-right morality. Just my two cents...

Christianity got there first. It's a consequence of the intolerance inherent in monotheism. — Banno

You're just angry at the Christian right.

Was Marin Luther King JR intolerant??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.

Totally different things. (apples & oranges)

Interest in intelligence dates back thousands of years. But it wasn't until psychologist Alfred Binet was commissioned to identify students who needed educational assistance that the first intelligent quotient (IQ) test was born. Although it has its limitations, and it has many lookalikes that use far less rigorous measurements, Binet's IQ test is well-known around the world as a way to compare intelligence. https://www.verywellmind.com/history-of-intelligence-testing-2795581

Late 17th century (in nous (sense 2)): from Greek, ‘mind, intelligence, intuitive apprehension’.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/nous

Here's a lecture about Nous. YouTube

Hinduism is polytheistic but discriminates based upon a rigid caste system and isn't what I'd consider "tolerant." — Hanover

Not to mention intolerance against Muslims. Source

intolerance
1765, "unwillingness to endure a differing opinion or belief," from Latin intolerantia "impatience; unendurableness, insufferableness; insolence," from intolerantem "impatient, intolerant" (see intolerant). https://www.etymonline.com/word/intolerance

Economic growth is measured by GDP. The real question is, why do we need GDP?

"The research of Phil Zuckerman at Pitzer College, demonstrates that secular societies, such as Sweden and Denmark, among others, are more likely to enjoy broadly shared prosperity and a high level of societal health and happiness than traditionally religious ones, and certainly more so than the United States.

Gregory Paul has done a similar comparison, as well as one between states within the US, and found parallel results. Which way the causal arrow goes is an interesting question: does secularism foster healthy caring, or does religiosity die away in societies where people care for one another? Paul himself says, “once a nation’s population becomes prosperous and secure, for example through economic security and universal health care, much of the population loses interest in seeking the aid and protection of supernatural entities.” Times

:lol:

Good luck! :sparkle:

My point is that art must reflect mind activity - that is the constant in art - the only constant - everything else is variable and open ended, just like consciousness! — Pop

Yeah, im not following you... :confused:

a definition of art that is falsifiable — Pop

Who's going to gather all the data??

I don't think Art (with a capital 'A') can be boiled down to a definition.

Here's Britannica's page on art. Link

Orator: Recorded in English c. 1374, with a meaning of "one who pleads or argues for a cause", — Wikipedia

Which comes from Aristotle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

their (apparent) delusions about living for ever and ever, — Michael Zwingli

There's also the concept of an unembodied mind:

Before I put forth the argument — Sam26

I rather watch a video. :smirk:

https://youtu.be/UwLN7HVr28o

:point: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nazi-s-defense-of-just-following-orders-plays-out-in-the-mind/

Intriguing no, how people don't seem to realize that they're inflicting pain on others? :point: Milgram Experiment (Stanley Milgram) — TheMadFool

You learn that in social psychology. :nerd:

Nothing ever gets through you. :sweat:

:up:

The "intellectual" parts of society are not as immune as they think. In fact, their arrogance may make them more susceptible to being told what they want to hear. — Tzeentch

Some of them are moderators...

Yeah, and I feel bad for all those poor victim grad students who are assigned Hegel's The Phenomenology of Spirit as a reading project. :razz: :gasp:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_sports#:~:text=Politics%20and%20sports%20or%20sports,and%20negative%20implications%20over%20history.