|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 02/06/2006 : 11:54:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
Posted by Bill:Ever heard of aids? It hurts many and anal sex with infected partners in one way to catch it. If it is gay anal sex the risks increase even more. So gay sex can be very harmful and by your definetion that makes it wrong. Of coarse after the gov. and society were not allowed to tell the homo's that packing the fudge of another human was illegal and were labeled as intolerant they will be expected to pay for the heath care for those who contracted the disease despite warning
Your complete ignorance is nothing short of astounding. Obviously you are unaware that here in the US the group of people with the fastest growing number of HIV infected individuals is women of childbearing age.
There is some difference in the chance of transmition of HIV between vaginal or anal sex, but ask the people in a couple of the sub-saharan African countries with 70% of the population infected what the primary vector is. NewsFlash! Vaginal sex.
Your innane bigotry is just as tiresome as ever Bill.
But to answer you question from the OP... morality is entirely subjective. I find you to be one of the least moral/ethical people who post on these boards. You are often offensive, and always ignorant. Your open bigotry, your incredible ignorance, and your intolerance of those who don't think exactly like you are all signs of your own inferior morality. The fact that you don't think your morality is flawed clearly demonstrates that the concept is one of pure subjectivity.
Your complete ignorance is nothing short of astounding. Obviously you are unaware that here in the US the group of people with the fastest growing number of HIV infected individuals is women of childbearing age.
(bill)Fastest growing. The number of gay males infected with aids far out numbers any group despite gay men accounting for maybe 1% of pop. on a good day.
There is some difference in the chance of transmission of HIV between vaginal or anal sex, but ask the people in a couple of the sub-saharan African countries with 70% of the population infected what the primary vector is. NewsFlash! Vaginal sex.
(bill) Because they have risky unprotected sex with the masses and this is not considered immoral in their society and if it is they do it anyway. Wild, unbridled sex with the masses is a dangerous activity no matter who you have sex with. The gays in America found this out and so did hetro in Africa. Add in a high level of drug abuse on top of it and the risks skyrocket again.
Your innane bigotry is just as tiresome as ever Bill.
(bill) How can you call me a bigot? The majority of a society sets the moral standard. The majority in america have decided homo sex is immoral. So when I say homo is immoral that is society talking.
But to answer you question from the OP... morality is entirely subjective.(bill) really?
I find you to be one of the least moral/ethical people who post on these boards.
(bill) I don't care because morals are subjective so I find your morals that you judge me by not so moral. And so does society in whole.
You are often offensive,
(bill)By your moral code not mine or society's.
Your open bigotry, your incredible ignorance, and your intolerance of those who don't think exactly like you
(bill) If society decides morality then it is you who are a bigot. The american people have spoke and homo sex is immoral for society. If you want to call me names because I agree with society's morals then knock your socks off..
are all signs of your own inferior morality.
(bill) My morality is shared my the majority so it trumps your morality.
The fact that you don't think your morality is flawed clearly demonstrates that the concept is one of pure subjectivity.
(bill) If morals are subjective then who are you to say ANYONE'S are flawed?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 11:58:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by lord_hevonen
For example, consentual gay sex clearly doesn't harm anyone so it's OK. Sex with a farm animal could be argued to be animal abuse, smoking meth is quite probably harmful for the smoker, so those could be considered "wrong".
Ever heard of aids? It hurts many and anal sex with infected partners in one way to catch it. If it is gay anal sex the risks increase even more. So gay sex can be very harmful and by your definetion that makes it wrong. Of coarse after the gov. and society were not allowed to tell the homo's that packing the fudge of another human was illegal and were labeled as intolerant they will be expected to pay for the heath care for those who contracted the disease despite warning.
Erm, ANY way of unprotected sex (including your precious heterosexual, penis-to-vagina sex) is a way to catch AIDS. Isaac Asimov died from AIDS acquired through a blood transfusion. A drop of infected blood in a wound is a way to catch AIDS. An infected needle is a way to catch AIDS.
I know! Let's just ban sex altogether! Woo!
Erm, ANY way of unprotected sex (including your precious heterosexual, penis-to-vagina sex) is a way to catch AIDS.
(bill) The poster I was answering had said that because smoking meth was harmful to the body it was wrong and man/man sex hurt no one. I simply asked him if he has heard of aids? Which I think you and he will agree has hurt many gay men.
Isaac Asimov died from AIDS acquired through a blood transfusion. A drop of infected blood in a wound is a way to catch AIDS. An infected needle is a way to catch AIDS.
(bill) I would agree. And all those who are involved in these activities have been warned of the dangers. If you get a blood transfusion you need to be careful. If your a drug addict who uses needles you are in danger. If you are a active hetro sex you are in danger. If your a homo who engages in anal sex your in even more danger. What they do with the warning depends on their personal morality and is up to them
I know! Let's just ban sex altogether! Woo!
(bill) Or we just go back to one women and one man as the moral standard and watch the social ills and the disease drop like a rock. This would be a absolute.
Or one man/woman or two men or two women. Promiscuity is the key here, not gender. There's no chance for AIDS if both gay men (or women) protect themselves. Gay women are even more protected, then, following your logic. As Dude pointed out, vaginal sex is the most common cause of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, where most people are infected.
But if you really think sexually transmitted diseases and social ills will end by outlawing homosexuality... then you're deluded. And if you think people will simply stop being promiscuous on a base of morality... you're even more deluded. Regardless of their morals or their society's morals, people do stuff. People are just that. People. Sophisticated animals.
Science, research, education, understanding, on the other hand... |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 12:25:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
A little note. Bill, if you've ever studied history, you'd know that in the Dark Ages, in spite of being extremely bound by religion, sex with children was ok. In fact, most girls were married by the age of twelve. In fact, that's a practice that still exists in parts of India and in some indian tribes, here in Brazil for exemple. But in Europe's medieval period, it was quite normal and absolutely not immoral to marry tender girl-children at such age.
Morals, however, evolved. Society, via science, acknowledged that doing so is harmful for children. That kids of 12 aren't ready to be mothers. That kids of twelve aren't mature enough. Likewise, we've discovered that black people have nothing to set them as a inferior race. I'm sure you'll remember that in U.S.'s past, it was quite moral to own slaves and even torture and rape them.
But people change. We get to understand the world, to know the world better. We know bleeding people doesn't help them get better (though at times, people forget that). We know animals feel pretty much as we do. We know black people aren't at all inferior to whites. Morals change with the times, just like everything else.
A little note. Bill, if you've ever studied history, you'd know that in the Dark Ages, in spite of being extremely bound by religion, sex with children was ok. In fact, most girls were married by the age of twelve.
(bill) Do suppose that the fact that the average age to die in the darkages might be 18 or so might have anything to do with this? At 12 years old in the dark ages your middle aged and an old maid if not married yet.
Try 30, Bill. But your lack of research doesn't surprise me.
quote:
In fact, that's a practice that still exists in parts of India and in some indian tribes, here in Brazil for exemple.
(bill) That is immoral, don't you think?
Immaterial. Immoral to her is not immoral to the society in which it is prevalent. You cannot expect a society to change it's morals because you insist that it does. You are free to consider it immoral against your moral code.
quote:
But in Europe's medieval period, it was quite normal and absolutely not immoral to marry tender girl-children at such age.
(bill) She's middle aged at 12.
Nope. Thanks for playing.
quote:
That kids of 12 aren't ready to be mothers.
(bill) I wish adult/child sex advocates agreed with your morality.
But they don't. Go figure.
quote:
Likewise, we've discovered that black people have nothing to set them as a inferior race. I'm sure you'll remember that in U.S.'s past, it was quite moral to own slaves and even torture and rape them.
(bill) While in the north it was not legal. And the north and south went to war over this. The south had laws and society agreed that slavery was legal and moral. In the north they had laws and society dictated that slavery was illegal. So who right? Both had laws and both had the majority of their society to make their point of view both legal and moral.
While you might say slavery is immoral who are you to contemn the south with a judgment of morals? They had the laws on the book to make it legal and the majority of society made it moral. Yet you still say that slavery is wrong. May I ask what standard or by who's authority do you make that judgement on the south? I know some "code" or "common personal values" that universally tie us together.
You just assume that murder for no reason is immoral. I am sure I could find in the world plenty of people who will piss on your "common values" and have no moral problem at all with murder for any reason. Who are you to force your common values on them?
You assume she does. I feel that slavery is wrong. I don't hold people in the South during that time period responsible to the moral standards of the North. It is illogical to do so.
quote:
Morals change with the times, just like everything else.
(bill) So murder for no reason might become moral someday?
Possible, but not likely.
Try 30, Bill. But your lack of research doesn't surprise me.
(bill) which makes 12 the time to get married. By 15 your already middle aged.
You assume she does. I feel that slavery is wrong. I don't hold people in the South during that time period responsible to the moral standards of the North. It is illogical to do so.
(bill)So that makes it illogical for you to say the south was racist and immoral for slavery. They had their law and their morality that said slavery was legal and moral. Do you think that your morals trump the south? If not then you have no basis to make a judgement on them or their practice of slavery.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 12:55:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by lord_hevonen
For example, consentual gay sex clearly doesn't harm anyone so it's OK. Sex with a farm animal could be argued to be animal abuse, smoking meth is quite probably harmful for the smoker, so those could be considered "wrong".
Ever heard of aids? It hurts many and anal sex with infected partners in one way to catch it. If it is gay anal sex the risks increase even more. So gay sex can be very harmful and by your definetion that makes it wrong. Of coarse after the gov. and society were not allowed to tell the homo's that packing the fudge of another human was illegal and were labeled as intolerant they will be expected to pay for the heath care for those who contracted the disease despite warning.
Erm, ANY way of unprotected sex (including your precious heterosexual, penis-to-vagina sex) is a way to catch AIDS. Isaac Asimov died from AIDS acquired through a blood transfusion. A drop of infected blood in a wound is a way to catch AIDS. An infected needle is a way to catch AIDS.
I know! Let's just ban sex altogether! Woo!
Erm, ANY way of unprotected sex (including your precious heterosexual, penis-to-vagina sex) is a way to catch AIDS.
(bill) The poster I was answering had said that because smoking meth was harmful to the body it was wrong and man/man sex hurt no one. I simply asked him if he has heard of aids? Which I think you and he will agree has hurt many gay men.
Isaac Asimov died from AIDS acquired through a blood transfusion. A drop of infected blood in a wound is a way to catch AIDS. An infected needle is a way to catch AIDS.
(bill) I would agree. And all those who are involved in these activities have been warned of the dangers. If you get a blood transfusion you need to be careful. If your a drug addict who uses needles you are in danger. If you are a active hetro sex you are in danger. If your a homo who engages in anal sex your in even more danger. What they do with the warning depends on their personal morality and is up to them
I know! Let's just ban sex altogether! Woo!
(bill) Or we just go back to one women and one man as the moral standard and watch the social ills and the disease drop like a rock. This would be a absolute.
Or one man/woman or two men or two women. Promiscuity is the key here, not gender. There's no chance for AIDS if both gay men (or women) protect themselves. Gay women are even more protected, then, following your logic. As Dude pointed out, vaginal sex is the most common cause of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, where most people are infected.
But if you really think sexually transmitted diseases and social ills will end by outlawing homosexuality... then you're deluded. And if you think people will simply stop being promiscuous on a base of morality... you're even more deluded. Regardless of their morals or their society's morals, people do stuff. People are just that. People. Sophisticated animals.
Science, research, education, understanding, on the other hand...
Or one man/woman or two men or two women. Promiscuity is the key here, not gender. There's no chance for AIDS if both gay men (or women) protect themselves. Gay women are even more protected, then, following your logic.
(bill) I would agree. If two gay women or man meet each and have never had a partner and have sex with each other their whole lives they can avoid a disease. Just the same as hetro who stay together forever. If someone has many partners throughout life this will increase risk for gay and non gay. However, for some reason, the gale male population here in the states does not seem to be a very happy bunch to settle down with one. Many lead a very promiscuous sex life and this has caused the spread of aids to move like brush fire in their community. In the 80's they were warned by the gov. and society continued to call this lifestyle immoral. The hetro's were warned as well about sleeping around. Many gay and hetro did not care for warning and have no one to blame. So aids seems to affect gay males in disproportional amount over any other group in the states????
As Dude pointed out, vaginal sex is the most common cause of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, where most people are infected.
(bill) I never said it was a gay only disease. It effects those who engage in unprotected sex. In the US it has hit the gays the hardest while in afirica everyone. In US many gays have many unprotected partners and in Africa they have many unprotected partners. No surprise to see these results.
But if you really think sexually transmitted diseases and social ills will end by outlawing homosexuality... then you're deluded.
(bill) Well add in monogamy and it well help.
And if you think people will simply stop being promiscuous on a base of morality...
(bill) There own morality yes. Someone else's morality no
you're even more deluded. Regardless of their morals or their society's morals, people do stuff. People are just that. People. Sophisticated animals.
(bill) Right. Like when society says this is immoral and science says it is dangerous and people do it anyway. Their crazy and have no concept of the results they may face for their ignoring of the obvious. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 12:56:43 [Permalink]
|
Something of intrest on the edges of the matter -- or maybe not....: quote:
Crappy Cartoons and Burning Flames:
If, say, in the middle of Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen, Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark unveiled a giant bronze statue of Mohammed on his knees getting teabagged by a smiling, standing Jesus Christ as throngs of gathered Danes, all hoisting sugary Danishes in the air, sang, "There Is a Lovely Land" before they pelted Mohammed and his scrotum-filled mouth with thousands of sticky buns, well, shit, okay, then we'd have something to talk about.
But the thuggery that's being done allegedly in the name of a few shitty sketches of Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper is smoke and mirrors, a bullshit blow-up over a few bullshit cartoons that a bunch of bullshit opportunists used to create bullshit advantage to their bullshit causes. Such utter nonsense, because not only are the cartoons themselves six months old, but that Mohammed's kisser's been "depicted" since, you know, say, the start of Islam. So, hey, hush, don't let anyone know that Mohammed's one of the Super Best Friends on South Park or they might start burning Cartman in effigy.
The majority of the riots went something like this: Some idiot with a megaphone yells how everyone needs to show how much they love them some Mohammed. One guy tells another guy in the protest crowd that he loves Mohammed more. Guy 1 says, no; in fact, he loves Mohammed more. Guy 2 says oh, yeah, he'll show you how much he loves Mohammed, and Guy 2 breaks a window. Guy 1 says, fuck you, fucker, he'll show you how he loves Mohammed more, and launches a Molotov cocktail through the broken window. Guy 3 announces that there's shit to steal and all hell breaks loose, as man with megaphone looks on proudly. This is not to mention whoever sent megaphone man out there in the first place.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 13:08:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Right. Like when society says this is immoral and science says it is dangerous and people do it anyway. Their crazy and have no concept of the results they may face for their ignoring of the obvious.
Ah yes, the problem is, people do stupid things. They drive too fast, drink too much, smoke and use drugs quite dangerous and they know it's dangerous. But do it anyway. In spite of indoctrination, in spite of people forcing morality down their throats, in spite of scientific warnings, in spite of themselves. Why? I don't know, but they do.
And even promiscuous people can be relatively safe if they wear protection. So it's not a hazard anymore - except, perhaps, in sub-Saharan Africa.
At least we agree that the presence or lack of homosexuality is irrelevant when it comes to social ills and disease? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 13:28:44 [Permalink]
|
Siberia Stated: quote:
A little note. Bill, if you've ever studied history, you'd know that in the Dark Ages, in spite of being extremely bound by religion, sex with children was ok. In fact, most girls were married by the age of twelve. In fact, that's a practice that still exists in parts of India and in some indian tribes, here in Brazil for exemple. But in Europe's medieval period, it was quite normal and absolutely not immoral to marry tender girl-children at such age.
In my opinion, that's a good argument for a "societal relativism" hypothesis of morality. My thought is that such early marrying in Medieval times was probably driven by the horrendous infant mortality, plague, famine, and war of the time. Society simply needed every person of even marginal childbearing age to reproduce as much as possible, just to make up for the mortality rates. Much of what was accepted as "moral" then is considered, rightly, immoral now, given our far different societal cirumstances.
Morality has always evolved through history.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/06/2006 13:38:20 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 14:22:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) How can you call me a bigot?
Surely you jest.
Your hatefull rhetoric and intolerant nature are plain for all to see.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 15:05:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by lord_hevonen
For example, consentual gay sex clearly doesn't harm anyone so it's OK. Sex with a farm animal could be argued to be animal abuse, smoking meth is quite probably harmful for the smoker, so those could be considered "wrong".
Ever heard of aids? It hurts many and anal sex with infected partners in one way to catch it. If it is gay anal sex the risks increase even more. So gay sex can be very harmful and by your definetion that makes it wrong. Of coarse after the gov. and society were not allowed to tell the homo's that packing the fudge of another human was illegal and were labeled as intolerant they will be expected to pay for the heath care for those who contracted the disease despite warning.
Erm, ANY way of unprotected sex (including your precious heterosexual, penis-to-vagina sex) is a way to catch AIDS. Isaac Asimov died from AIDS acquired through a blood transfusion. A drop of infected blood in a wound is a way to catch AIDS. An infected needle is a way to catch AIDS.
I know! Let's just ban sex altogether! Woo!
Erm, ANY way of unprotected sex (including your precious heterosexual, penis-to-vagina sex) is a way to catch AIDS.
(bill) The poster I was answering had said that because smoking meth was harmful to the body it was wrong and man/man sex hurt no one. I simply asked him if he has heard of aids? Which I think you and he will agree has hurt many gay men.
Except that AIDS is not unique to homosexual acts. Smoking meth and direct harm to the body are a causal relationship. The activity actually causes the damage. Anal sex (homosexual and heterosexual) is a risk sexual behavior if one of the partners is infected with AIDS. Before the advent of testing for AIDS, transmission by transfusion was more common and the risks were not relayed to the recipients. It's a bullshit justification.
quote:
Isaac Asimov died from AIDS acquired through a blood transfusion. A drop of infected blood in a wound is a way to catch AIDS. An infected needle is a way to catch AIDS.
(bill) I would agree. And all those who are involved in these activities have been warned of the dangers. If you get a blood transfusion you need to be careful. If your a drug addict who uses needles you are in danger. If you are a active hetro sex you are in danger. If your a homo who engages in anal sex your in even more danger. What they do with the warning depends on their personal morality and is up to them
Not anymore with transfusions as the blood is now tested much better than before. If you are heterosexual and engage in anal sex you are at the same risk as a homosexual couple.
quote:
I know! Let's just ban sex altogether! Woo!
(bill) Or we just go back to one women and one man as the moral standard and watch the social ills and the disease drop like a rock. This would be a absolute.
I'm calling bullshit on this one. STD's have been a clear and present problem throught history. What usually works is concerted efforts at education for affected communities. While AIDS is all the rage when people bitch on and on about homosexual sex and how it "degrades moral fibres" and "aids the spread of disease", the truth of the matter is that new cases are down in the places where education is in place. In fact, Clamydia(sp) is more of an issue than AIDS. Ghonnorrhea(sp) was big in the 70's. Syphillis(sp) was big in the 40's-60's. So your moral outrage over homosexual sex is a big smokescreen to ignore STD's as a constant problem throughout the ages. The only "absolute" about the whole thing is that you are "absolutely" misinformed about medical history. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 15:11:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Try 30, Bill. But your lack of research doesn't surprise me.
(bill) which makes 12 the time to get married. By 15 your already middle aged.
No Bill, you can't justify your absurd contention this way.
quote:
You assume she does. I feel that slavery is wrong. I don't hold people in the South during that time period responsible to the moral standards of the North. It is illogical to do so.
(bill)So that makes it illogical for you to say the south was racist and immoral for slavery. They had their law and their morality that said slavery was legal and moral. Do you think that your morals trump the south? If not then you have no basis to make a judgement on them or their practice of slavery.
Which is why I don't, Bill. Do you not read or just ignore the parts which negate your strawmen arguments. Also, please show me where I called the South racist in this thread.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 15:21:13 [Permalink]
|
Bill proposed: quote:
Or we just go back to one women and one man as the moral standard and watch the social ills and the disease drop like a rock. This would be a absolute.
"Go back"? "Absolute"? What if we go back to King David or especially King Solomon, and their absolutely huge collections of wives? That's Biblical precedent. But neither most Jews, nor most Christians, would consider polygamy "moral" these days.
My "societal relativism" point, again.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/06/2006 15:39:50 |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 16:55:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
...They had the laws on the book to make it legal and the majority of society made it moral...
All of this simply involves consensus opinions that vary vastly with time and culture (geography.) Had I been an adolescent in the late 1930s Germany, I would have been taught and nurtured to believe that Adolph Hitler was the greatest thing since sliced bread and butter, and that assisting him in every way I was able to achieve his goals was the morally upstanding path. Laws similarly are just sets of rules to retain order- sometimes they are necessary or beneficial, other times neutral, sometimes harmful. There's nothing "etched in stone" about any of this (at least from the perspective of the non-theist.) Some acts are widely considered "inherently evil" and whereas I would tend to agree that they are deplorable in many instances, I still accept that it's all just the opinions of people and nothing more. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 17:14:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
...They had the laws on the book to make it legal and the majority of society made it moral...
All of this simply involves consensus opinions that vary vastly with time and culture (geography.) Had I been an adolescent in the late 1930s Germany, I would have been taught and nurtured to believe that Adolph Hitler was the greatest thing since sliced bread and butter, and that assisting him in every way I was able to achieve his goals was the morally upstanding path. Laws similarly are just sets of rules to retain order- sometimes they are necessary or beneficial, other times neutral, sometimes harmful. There's nothing "etched in stone" about any of this (at least from the perspective of the non-theist.) Some acts are widely considered "inherently evil" and whereas I would tend to agree that they are deplorable in many instances, I still accept that it's all just the opinions of people and nothing more.
... I wrote that quote? When? [confused] |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
lord_hevonen
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 22:08:39 [Permalink]
|
| By the way, continuing what i wrote earlier, it is common to say that morals depend completely on the culture, but i would really like to see the culture that allows killing for no reason... |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 22:11:10 [Permalink]
|
| Sorry- too many indents to keep track of. I give up. |
Ron White |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
