|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 02/05/2006 : 14:34:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Who decides what is moral in your world?
I do! So do you in yours. So does everyone in theirs.
So morals are relative? Each is to his own on his moral belief? So while I hold child/man sex immoral those in nambla at the same time can hold that it is moral? And so man/child sex is both moral and immoral at the same time depending on who you ask? If morals are relative then how can anyone make man/child sex illegal? They have made a JUDGEMENT that man/child sex is immoral in spite of the fact that a group excists that finds man/boy sex perfectly moral. In a purly material universe who's athority was used to make man/boy sex immoral and therefor illegal? Just because you or I might say man/boy sex is disturbing at the very least and highly immoral who are we to make such an intolerant judgemant on the homo child pervert when morals are relative? In a world where morals are relative the child rapist/murderer is no better, or worse, then Mother Teresa.
Who made having sex in public immoral and illegal and what right did they have to make such an intolerant judgment. The website for having sex on public sidewalks seems to think that it is moral and healthy. Who are we to say they are wrong if morals are relative? I understand that most people want morals to be relative so they can be free to do whatever they want. But reality show us that if morals were relative then anarchy would prevail as nothing, not even the most vile or wicked behavour could be judged as immoral and therefor wrong.
My point is made: you in yours, I in mine, and society -- we are after all, social animals -- decides what is acceptable for the general welfare and enforces it by rule of law. Thus, criminals including child molesters get locked up, one hopes, for a good, long time.
All very simple, yes?
|
"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! 
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2006 : 14:36:40 [Permalink]
|
| BILL - There are other topics on this forum. If you want to debate over whether homosexuality is natural or not (by the way, it's pretty damn transparant that what you really want to talk about is whether it is moral or not) then START A NEW DISCUSSION. And if you want to bitch about moral relativism, START A NEW DISCUSSION. Both of those topics could go on and on for pages and would be interesting discussions. So just do it! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2006 : 16:37:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Who decides what is moral in your world?
I do! So do you in yours. So does everyone in theirs.
So morals are relative? Each is to his own on his moral belief? So while I hold child/man sex immoral those in nambla at the same time can hold that it is moral? And so man/child sex is both moral and immoral at the same time depending on who you ask? If morals are relative then how can anyone make man/child sex illegal? They have made a JUDGEMENT that man/child sex is immoral in spite of the fact that a group excists that finds man/boy sex perfectly moral. In a purly material universe who's athority was used to make man/boy sex immoral and therefor illegal? Just because you or I might say man/boy sex is disturbing at the very least and highly immoral who are we to make such an intolerant judgemant on the homo child pervert when morals are relative? In a world where morals are relative the child rapist/murderer is no better, or worse, then Mother Teresa.
Who made having sex in public immoral and illegal and what right did they have to make such an intolerant judgment. The website for having sex on public sidewalks seems to think that it is moral and healthy. Who are we to say they are wrong if morals are relative? I understand that most people want morals to be relative so they can be free to do whatever they want. But reality show us that if morals were relative then anarchy would prevail as nothing, not even the most vile or wicked behavour could be judged as immoral and therefor wrong.
My point is made: you in yours, I in mine, and society -- we are after all, social animals -- decides what is acceptable for the general welfare and enforces it by rule of law. Thus, criminals including child molesters get locked up, one hopes, for a good, long time.
All very simple, yes?
quote:
My point is made: you in yours, I in mine, and society -- we are after all, social animals
Do all social animals have morals or is man the only one?
quote:
-- decides what is acceptable for the general welfare and enforces it by rule of law.
Who gets to decied what is acceptable if all morals are relative? The namba freaks think man/boy sex is moral and should be legal. If morals are relative who are you to tell nambla that man/boy sex is immoral, let alone ilegal? If someone does "decide what is acceptable" have they not made a judgement, which is vey intollerant in the moral relative universe?
quote:
Thus, criminals including child molesters get locked up, one hopes, for a good, long time.
How can you judge the molesters when morals are relative. That is very intollorant of other peoples morals, which according to you, they have the right to make up their own morals.
quote:
All very simple, yes?
I see your very judging of the fate of molesters. Under what authority do use to say that the molesters are immoral, let alone illeagal? Remember, just because you say molestation is immoral they think it is moral. So who are you to force your beliefs and moral code on the molester?
Do you yet see how siily and out of controll society would be if everybody got to make thier own moral code of right and wrong?
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2006 : 18:27:05 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: Who gets to decied what is acceptable if all morals are relative? The namba freaks think man/boy sex is moral and should be legal. If morals are relative who are you to tell nambla that man/boy sex is immoral, let alone ilegal? If someone does "decide what is acceptable" have they not made a judgement, which is vey intollerant in the moral relative universe?
AND
How can you judge the molesters when morals are relative. That is very intollorant of other peoples morals, which according to you, they have the right to make up their own morals.
AND
I see your very judging of the fate of molesters. Under what authority do use to say that the molesters are immoral, let alone illeagal? Remember, just because you say molestation is immoral they think it is moral. So who are you to force your beliefs and moral code on the molester?
Do you yet see how siily and out of controll society would be if everybody got to make thier own moral code of right and wrong?
and every time Bill fails to see the two glaring errors in his logic:
1.) Just because one thinks morals are relative from a detached, objective point of view, does not mean that one should ignore their personal values and only support an "anything goes" society.
2.) Just because one thinks that human morality is ultimately a subjective thing does not mean that there are no basic common values that are solely based on the natural human condition. In other words, the human animal find physical pain unpleasant, and so they all get pretty pissed off when someone intentionally causes pain in someone else. The human animal forms emotional attachments to other people for the sake of social stability, and so they also get pretty pissed off when someone kills or hurts their friends. We don't need any outside force to have generally common desires and experiences.
By the way, can you please explain to me how the global human society ISN'T "silly and out of control"? We constantly rage wars based in shallow prejudices, mis-distribute resources, hell - more than half the world is starving and in abject poverty.
Bill, you have a tremendous talent for simplifying everything from biology, to philosophy, to law.
And once again, I URGE you to start separate threads to discuss moral relativism and homosexuality. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/05/2006 18:30:49 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2006 : 18:53:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
[b]
1.) Just because one thinks morals are relative from a detached, objective point of view, does not mean that one should ignore their personal values and only support an "anything goes" society.
2.) Just because one thinks that human morality is ultimately a subjective thing does not mean that there are no basic common values that are solely based on the natural human condition. In other words, the human animal find physical pain unpleasant, and so they all get pretty pissed off when someone intentionally causes pain in someone else. The human animal forms emotional attachments to other people for the sake of social stability, and so they also get pretty pissed off when someone kills or hurts their friends. We don't need any outside force to have generally common desires and experiences.
By the way, can you please explain to me how the global human society ISN'T "silly and out of control"? We constantly rage wars based in shallow prejudices, mis-distribute resources, hell - more than half the world is starving and in abject poverty.
Bill, you have a tremendous talent for simplifying everything from biology, to philosophy, to law.
quote:
1.) Just because one thinks morals are relative from a detached, objective point of view, does not mean that one should ignore their personal values and only support an "anything goes" society.
Like I said, everybody has different personal values. If morals are relative you do not have a basis to condem child molestation. Obviously the child molester has different personal values then most but if values are relative who is to say that his personal values are immoral and illeagal and by whose authority? If morals are relative then your making an untollerant judgemant of the child molester.
quote:
2.) Just because one thinks that human morality is ultimately a subjective thing does not mean that there are no basic common values
1. Ever heard of nambla? You would think that everybody would carry these "basic common values" that man/boy sex was immoral. But the country seems to be full of nuts who have no problem with it. And if morals are relative then who can say the molester is immoral?
2. Who gets to decide what the "basic common values" are? What seems like common values to us is not to nambla child molester. If morals/values are relative he can snup your "common values" of not having sex with children as intolerant.
3. Do other social animals besides man have morals?
4. If so are their morals relative as well?
5. If man is the only animal with morals does that make him distinct from animals?
|
"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 - 02/05/2006 : 19:01:11 [Permalink]
|
Bill, you've got to start reading a little closer.
I do not decide what is moral or otherwise. You do not decide it, either. NO individual decides this; the existing society decides it.
Of course, societies change over time and with that, the definition of morality might change as well. But at this precise time, in this society, NAMBLA can do their wishful dreaming, but had best keep their fucking hands to themselves.
And yes, all social animals, particularly mammals, have codes that they live by. I suggest that you do a little research on the societies of wolves, chimpanzees and gorillas, baboons, horses and other herding herbovores, cape hunting dogs, and so forth.
Hey, look up naked mole rats -- I've got an essay on them around here somewhere. They live in actual hives and have a social code that is as ridged as it gets.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2006 : 19:18:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Bill, you've got to start reading a little closer.
I do not decide what is moral or otherwise. You do not decide it, either. NO individual decides this; the existing society decides it.
Of course, societies change over time and with that, the definition of morality might change as well. But at this precise time, in this society, NAMBLA can do their wishful dreaming, but had best keep their fucking hands to themselves.
And yes, all social animals, particularly mammals, have codes that they live by. I suggest that you do a little research on the societies of wolves, chimpanzees and gorillas, baboons, horses and other herding herbovores, cape hunting dogs, and so forth.
Hey, look up naked mole rats -- I've got an essay on them around here somewhere. They live in actual hives and have a social code that is as ridged as it gets.
quote:
And yes, all social animals, particularly mammals, have codes that they live by.
You seem to want to have it both ways. You say that morals are relative, up to each indavidual. Then you talk about "codes". marknock said "basic common values." Do you not yet see? There are no right or wrong "values", "codes", or "morals" when morals are relative. Your "common value" or "code" that child molestation is immoral is snubed by the molester in a moral relative universe as intolerant. |
"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 - 02/05/2006 : 19:27:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Bill, you've got to start reading a little closer.
I do not decide what is moral or otherwise. You do not decide it, either. NO individual decides this; the existing society decides it.
Of course, societies change over time and with that, the definition of morality might change as well. But at this precise time, in this society, NAMBLA can do their wishful dreaming, but had best keep their fucking hands to themselves.
And yes, all social animals, particularly mammals, have codes that they live by. I suggest that you do a little research on the societies of wolves, chimpanzees and gorillas, baboons, horses and other herding herbovores, cape hunting dogs, and so forth.
Hey, look up naked mole rats -- I've got an essay on them around here somewhere. They live in actual hives and have a social code that is as ridged as it gets.
quote:
i]do not decide it, either. NO individual decides this; the existing society decides it.
What does society use to determain what is moral? What is immoral? By what standard is right and wrong determanded? How did the US founding fathers determain moral from immoral when creating the founding documents?
|
"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 - 02/05/2006 : 19:58:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You seem to want to have it both ways. You say that morals are relative, up to each indavidual. Then you talk about "codes". marknock said "basic common values." Do you not yet see? There are no right or wrong "values", "codes", or "morals" when morals are relative. Your "common value" or "code" that child molestation is immoral is snubed by the molester in a moral relative universe as intolerant.
I said no such thing, and quit tossing out red herrings. I have already explained: the society defines the morals, not the individual(s), whatever they might think is right or wrong. To prove this, examine the differences, modern and historic, in the world's scoieties -- say, Mid-Eastern as opposed to western European.
Now, I suggest that you study this site and this one.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2006 : 20:12:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
You seem to want to have it both ways. You say that morals are relative, up to each indavidual. Then you talk about "codes". marknock said "basic common values." Do you not yet see? There are no right or wrong "values", "codes", or "morals" when morals are relative. Your "common value" or "code" that child molestation is immoral is snubed by the molester in a moral relative universe as intolerant.
I said no such thing, and quit tossing out red herrings. I have already explained: the society defines the morals, not the individual(s), whatever they might think is right or wrong. To prove this, examine the differences, modern and historic, in the world's scoieties -- say, Mid-Eastern as opposed to western European.
Now, I suggest that you study this site and this one.
1. So are morals relative or our they absalute?
2. Is man the only social anamal with morals, knowing right from wrong?
3. If morals are relative are you not making an intolerant judgemant on nambla for your stance that man/boy sex is immoral, therefor illeagal? |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 04:23:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
1. So are morals relative or our they absalute?
2. Is man the only social anamal with morals, knowing right from wrong?
3. If morals are relative are you not making an intolerant judgemant on nambla for your stance that man/boy sex is immoral, therefor illeagal?
Morals are most certainly not absolute. There may be a few like murder that are closer to being universal than say depicting Mohammad in a political cartoon.
Knowing right from wrong depends on what you mean. I know my dogs are aware they weren't supposed to dig big holes in the yard when they cower with tails between their legs or roll over when they see me. But whether they think the holes were a bad thing or just know I think it was bad is open to speculation.
I just don't get comment #3. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 05:05:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
1. So are morals relative or our they absalute?
2. Is man the only social anamal with morals, knowing right from wrong?
3. If morals are relative are you not making an intolerant judgemant on nambla for your stance that man/boy sex is immoral, therefor illeagal?
I cannot believe that you are this obtuse. I have already answered you several times.
Apparently, you haven't visited the Logical Fallicies sites yet.
B'gal, #3 is just another straw man, and I casually piss molten lead on it....
Now, I'm off to the VA, where I will whine about my osteo-arthritis and they will tell me to lose weight and offer me narcotics.  And I will promise to try, and refuse the junk -- I have access to an oxycodone prescription that Rush would fellatate a syphiletic hyena to get hold of, and I don't take the miserable things. They're hard on my stomach and mess up my head even beyond what it already is.
"Better your pain, than be caught by co'dine" -- Buffy St. Marie
How in the hell can anyone get addicted to that shit? 
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 05:26:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
1. So are morals relative or our they absalute?
2. Is man the only social anamal with morals, knowing right from wrong?
3. If morals are relative are you not making an intolerant judgemant on nambla for your stance that man/boy sex is immoral, therefor illeagal?
I cannot believe that you are this obtuse. I have already answered you several times.
Apparently, you haven't visited the Logical Fallicies sites yet.
B'gal, #3 is just another straw man, and I casually piss molten lead on it....
Now, I'm off to the VA, where I will whine about my osteo-arthritis and they will tell me to lose weight and offer me narcotics. And I will promise to try, and refuse the junk -- I have access to an oxycodone prescription that Rush would fellatate a syphiletic hyena to get hold of, and I don't take the miserable things. They're hard on my stomach and mess up my head even beyond what it already is.
"Better your pain, than be caught by co'dine" -- Buffy St. Marie
How in the hell can anyone get addicted to that shit?
quote:
Apparently, you haven't visited the Logical Fallicies sites yet.
I just want to here it in your words. Not be wisked away in cycber space. The question is very simple.
1. So are morals relative or our they absolute?
2. Is man the only social anamal with morals, knowing right from wrong?
quote:
B'gal, #3 is just another straw man, and I casually piss molten lead on it....
Please tell me more. I will repeat the question.
3. If morals are relative are you not making an intolerant judgemant on nambla for your stance that man/boy sex is immoral, therefor illeagal? If your not making a judgement then your not saying man/boy sex is immoral or illegal, you can't be. The only way you can say nambla is discusting, wrong, distirbing is if you make a judgement on their morals or lack there of. By who's authority, or by what standard did you come to the conclusion that your belief of what is moral out trumped namblas belief in what is moral and make a judgement on them?
quote:
I have access to an oxycodone prescription that Rush would fellatate a syphiletic hyena to get hold of, and I don't take the miserable things. They're hard on my stomach and mess up my head even beyond what it already is.
"Better your pain, than be caught by co'dine" -- Buffy St. Marie
How in the hell can anyone get addicted to that shit?
I have heard the same thing from co-workers who went through back surgery. |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 07:15:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
[quote]Yep, natural as death, which doesn't mean it's moral. See my point? Natural, but not necessarily moral. I don't condone murder, not at all, pretty boy Natural, in my conception, does not equal moral. If it does in yours, then it's your problem.
You told me last post that because we see homo sex in nature (does this nature include or exclude man?)that means it is not immoral for man. I point out that in "nature" mothers eat thier young, cats kill for sport etc... You next say just because it happens in nature, this by default, does not make it moral. So which is it? Do other animals have morals? Who decides what is moral and what is unmoral?
Societies decide what is moral and immoral (where did you come up with unmoral anyway?).
As such, the actions which are deemed moral and immoral shift over the ages. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 07:20:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
[quote]Yep, natural as death, which doesn't mean it's moral. See my point? Natural, but not necessarily moral. I don't condone murder, not at all, pretty boy Natural, in my conception, does not equal moral. If it does in yours, then it's your problem.
You told me last post that because we see homo sex in nature (does this nature include or exclude man?)that means it is not immoral for man. I point out that in "nature" mothers eat thier young, cats kill for sport etc... You next say just because it happens in nature, this by default, does not make it moral. So which is it? Do other animals have morals? Who decides what is moral and what is unmoral?
Societies decide what is moral and immoral (where did you come up with unmoral anyway?).
As such, the actions which are deemed moral and immoral shift over the ages.
If "society" decides what is moral and immoral then who in society is making these decisions? The Gov.? Is it the Gov. who dictates right and wrong? Is it what ever the genuine consensus is, majority rules? If the majority of the people think murder is immoral and illegal then it is? By either standard then we can say that homo sex and marriage is immoral.
1. The majority of the population is against it, therefor it is immoral.
2. Many states in the union still have laws on the books that say homo sex is illegal and immoral.
But in the last 10 years the homo community has really stood up and become vocal. And their battle cry is "tolerance." Who are the Christians, the politicians, general society, that they can dictate morality and tell us what is right and wrong. We don't care if is against the law and the majority of society frowns on it. (sodomy) It is a perfectly moral activity in our book and that is all that matters.
Why can't nambla make the same argument against filthy who says man/boy sex is immoral and illegal?
Why can't people who want to have sex with their farm animals in public use the same argument?
What can't people who want to smoke meth at the smoking lounge in the mall use the same argument?
In a world where morals are relative who can make a right or wrong judgement about anything or anyone?
And please don't start with "codes" or "common personal values." The nambla freak has his own personal values and if morals are relative who are any of you to dictate your morals to him? |
"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.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
