First, I didn’t say I wanted to criminalize people having another relationship if a spouse dies. It seems completely wrong and awful to me, however I understand that not all people are going to hold the same views and values. I can only live by mine to the best of my ability, I don’t try to impose them on others. But yes, me doing that would very literally would make a lot of the things I’ve said in the past lies.
Again, we’re polar opposites on this. I’m not making a false equivalence. I’m trying to explain my level of revulsion on this issue as it’s not something you’d understand. It’s something I find to be completely and absolutely immoral.
It changes the primary focus and most important aspect from the bond of love and dedication between two people, to not having to be lonely and go without fucking someone. It seems base, and degrading to anything that should hold true meaning and value.
You’re making it, even if it’s as something you think or feel, that doesn’t change the fact that the logical structure of that reasoning is a false equivallence — killing and cannibalizing someone can’t never compare to just get someone else after you lost someone before — and if you say that it’s for some kind of respect, that seems really creepy, if I died tomorrow, I wouldn’t want my couple to be sentenced to be alone (in a romantic and sexual way) the rest of their life, even if they promised that to me.
I never said killing someone. I said eating a dead human. Like eating the body of a dead human, getting into a relationship with another person after having been married is a thing that doesn’t physically harm anyone in any way but that I find to be completely wrong and morally repugnant.
That’s not a false equivalence, it’s just an actual equivalence that you don’t like hearing.
It’s still not comparable. Only what causes any kind of verifiable harm (physical, reputational, economic, psychological, psychiatric, etc.) can be considered bad, immoral, and unethical.
Anything that does not is simply amoral.
Thus it is a false equivalence.
First, I didn’t say I wanted to criminalize people having another relationship if a spouse dies. It seems completely wrong and awful to me, however I understand that not all people are going to hold the same views and values. I can only live by mine to the best of my ability, I don’t try to impose them on others. But yes, me doing that would very literally would make a lot of the things I’ve said in the past lies.
Again, we’re polar opposites on this. I’m not making a false equivalence. I’m trying to explain my level of revulsion on this issue as it’s not something you’d understand. It’s something I find to be completely and absolutely immoral.
It changes the primary focus and most important aspect from the bond of love and dedication between two people, to not having to be lonely and go without fucking someone. It seems base, and degrading to anything that should hold true meaning and value.
You’re making it, even if it’s as something you think or feel, that doesn’t change the fact that the logical structure of that reasoning is a false equivallence — killing and cannibalizing someone can’t never compare to just get someone else after you lost someone before — and if you say that it’s for some kind of respect, that seems really creepy, if I died tomorrow, I wouldn’t want my couple to be sentenced to be alone (in a romantic and sexual way) the rest of their life, even if they promised that to me.
I never said killing someone. I said eating a dead human. Like eating the body of a dead human, getting into a relationship with another person after having been married is a thing that doesn’t physically harm anyone in any way but that I find to be completely wrong and morally repugnant.
That’s not a false equivalence, it’s just an actual equivalence that you don’t like hearing.
It’s still not comparable. Only what causes any kind of verifiable harm (physical, reputational, economic, psychological, psychiatric, etc.) can be considered bad, immoral, and unethical. Anything that does not is simply amoral. Thus it is a false equivalence.
No. You’re preaching a philosophical ideology as if it were a factual reality everyone agreed upon.
Not ideology, but ethical system. And it’s because is really better than other systems that involve unverifiable or unfalsable propositions.