|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 02/06/2006 : 07:17:30
|
Morals, relative or absolute?
If morals are relative then how can anyone make a judgement of other people's morals, or lack there of?
If morals are absolute then what, and who, dictate the standard?
Several of the SFN regulars have publicly made known their distaste for child molesters and the wrongness of this type of behavior. But if morals are relative then the judgement they pass can be snubbed by the child molester as intolerant as his morals have no problem with child/adult sex.
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.-
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
 Posted - 02/06/2006 : 08:06:37 [Permalink]
|
| Morality is an illusion |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 08:30:21 [Permalink]
|
I guess slavery was moral too, since it was legal and a majority of people used to be in favor of it.
Maybe we should bring it back.  |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 02/06/2006 08:31:31 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 08:31:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
1. So are morals relative or our they absolute?
Neither. They are a set of behaviors which society considers proper/improper behavior of varying degrees. Within a country's borders, several societies may be housed. As morals are set by a society, they evolve over time to fit the pressures and challenges of the society. Individual groups which do not agree with the pervailing morals continually try to convince the rest of society to adopt sections of their ethical code.
Morals are set by society. Ethics are set by indivduals.
quote:
2. Is man the only social anamal with morals, knowing right from wrong?
I think the society of naked mole rats were brought up to show that moral codes are not unique to humans. Societal morals are also common to primate clusters as well.
quote:
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?
Morals are neither relative nor absolute. The current moral standard places the change the wish to propose as immoral or not currently moral. The act of which is illegal. Centuries past, society considered what they were doing moral. It is no longer. What the ACLU was defending was their right to voice their disagreement and associate with like minded individuals for the purpose of effecting legislative change.
quote:
1. The majority of the population is against it, therefor it is immoral.
A majority of population does not consider gay marriage to be proper due to the co-mingling of religious marriage and legal marriage done by gay marriage opponents. The two are different as one is a religious ceremony and unaffected by government and the other is a legal contract imbuing the union with legal benefits and duties.
quote:
2. Many states in the union still have laws on the books that say homo sex is illegal and immoral.
Which have been completely wiped off due to Lawrence v. Texas. And laws only define what is illegal, not immoral. Morality is defined by societies. There are laws which have moral basis.
quote:
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.
Actually, their battle cry is "Equal protection under the law". Something they believe is granted to them by the 14th Amendment. They are right and Lawrence v. Texas made laws against sodomy unConstitutional. Some elements of the society still believe it is immoral, but it is no longer illegal. As this is a section of morality which is in flux, there are sections of societies which are resisting the change.
quote:
Why can't nambla make the same argument against filthy who says man/boy sex is immoral and illegal?
Because your premise is fundamentally flawed. The argument is a 14th Amendment "equal protection" one, not tolerance. The "tolerance" argument is an attempt to change morality to accept them as full members. As such, the NAMBLA argument fails because there is equal protection under the law concerning pediophilla.
quote:
Why can't people who want to have sex with their farm animals in public use the same argument?
Because sex in general pubic areas is illegal in all cases. They have no 14th Amendment argument.
quote:
What can't people who want to smoke meth at the smoking lounge in the mall use the same argument?
Same stuff here. Crystal meth is an illegal controlled substance. No 14th Amendment problem here.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 02/06/2006 08:34:28 |
|
|
|
lord_hevonen
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 10:03:37 [Permalink]
|
Bill, your question implies that all moral values could be considered a whole that is either relative or absolute. However, some morals are considered globally true (killing for no reason is wrong), while some are in a gray area (is selling your body wrong?). In this sense morals are a bit like scientific theories.
I am for the "cause no harm"-basis for morals. No, it is not written anywhere in the Book of Creation, i just happen to think it is a useful guideline for maximizing common wellbeing. 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".
In effect most criminal laws operate on this "harm" principle. Harm to another being, society by large or yourself. I definitely don't think that most folks know what is good for them, so democratically elected governments should enforce laws on the people.
|
| Edited by - lord_hevonen on 02/06/2006 10:04:44 |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 10:18:07 [Permalink]
|
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. |
"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 : 10:18:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
1. So are morals relative or our they absolute?
Neither. They are a set of behaviors which society considers proper/improper behavior of varying degrees. Within a country's borders, several societies may be housed. As morals are set by a society, they evolve over time to fit the pressures and challenges of the society. Individual groups which do not agree with the pervailing morals continually try to convince the rest of society to adopt sections of their ethical code.
Morals are set by society. Ethics are set by indivduals.
quote:
2. Is man the only social anamal with morals, knowing right from wrong?
I think the society of naked mole rats were brought up to show that moral codes are not unique to humans. Societal morals are also common to primate clusters as well.
quote:
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?
Morals are neither relative nor absolute. The current moral standard places the change the wish to propose as immoral or not currently moral. The act of which is illegal. Centuries past, society considered what they were doing moral. It is no longer. What the ACLU was defending was their right to voice their disagreement and associate with like minded individuals for the purpose of effecting legislative change.
quote:
1. The majority of the population is against it, therefor it is immoral.
A majority of population does not consider gay marriage to be proper due to the co-mingling of religious marriage and legal marriage done by gay marriage opponents. The two are different as one is a religious ceremony and unaffected by government and the other is a legal contract imbuing the union with legal benefits and duties.
quote:
2. Many states in the union still have laws on the books that say homo sex is illegal and immoral.
Which have been completely wiped off due to Lawrence v. Texas. And laws only define what is illegal, not immoral. Morality is defined by societies. There are laws which have moral basis.
quote:
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.
Actually, their battle cry is "Equal protection under the law". Something they believe is granted to them by the 14th Amendment. They are right and Lawrence v. Texas made laws against sodomy unConstitutional. Some elements of the society still believe it is immoral, but it is no longer illegal. As this is a section of morality which is in flux, there are sections of societies which are resisting the change.
quote:
Why can't nambla make the same argument against filthy who says man/boy sex is immoral and illegal?
Because your premise is fundamentally flawed. The argument is a 14th Amendment "equal protection" one, not tolerance. The "tolerance" argument is an attempt to change morality to accept them as full members. As such, the NAMBLA argument fails because there is equal protection under the law concerning pediophilla.
quote:
Why can't people who want to have sex with their farm animals in public use the same argument?
Because sex in general pubic areas is illegal in all cases. They have no 14th Amendment argument.
quote:
What can't people who want to smoke meth at the smoking lounge in the mall use the same argument?
Same stuff here. Crystal meth is an illegal controlled substance. No 14th Amendment problem here.
There are several societies in the United States alone, which one do you want to compare moral codes vs. homosexuality. The general consensus of a society determines morals and weight given to individual morals.
(bill) Well the majority of American society believe homo sex is immoral. So by your definition home sex is immoral in American society.
A majority of population does not consider gay marriage to be proper due to the co-mingling of religious marriage and legal marriage done by gay marriage opponents.
(bill) Well that and society has deemed it immoral based a majority rules moral standard.
The two are different as one is a religious ceremony and unaffected by government and the other is a legal contract imbuing the union with legal benefits and duties.
(bill)So who in society sets the codes? Majority or gov.? Here the majority of Americans do not want gay marriage so this sets standard for morality. But wait a crack pot judge just said gay marriage was legal. Who trump who when "society" sets the standard? The majority want no gay marriage so the gays ignore this and sue the state. So much for majority rules. This leaves it to the gov. to set standards for morality and law. Gays say homo sex is moral and anyone to say it is not we don't except your morals. Th |
"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 : 10:19:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
I guess slavery was moral too, since it was legal and a majority of people used to be in favor of it.
Maybe we should bring it back.
bill)My point exactly. In the south the majority found no problem with slavery and would not consider it immoral. While in the north slavery was considered immoral by most. The south thought the north had no right to dictate morality to them. What makes your morals trump the south when you condemn slavery. Their society and laws had no problem with it. So who are you to force your values and laws on them? If morals are relative? Again you and I may find slavery immoral but the southern had their law and their societies morals to tell you your 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.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 10:28:50 [Permalink]
|
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. |
"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 : 10:40:07 [Permalink]
|
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! |
"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
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 02/06/2006 10:40:58 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 10:48:26 [Permalink]
|
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.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 11:06:12 [Permalink]
|
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.
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?
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.
Morals, however, evolved. Society, via science, acknowledged that doing so is harmful for children.
(bill) nambla would not agree with this. Besides we know homo anal sex is one of the most dangerous and unhealthy was to have sex. Science said so, yet it still went from illegal to legal. Society (American) still views homo as immoral and science shows it is a very risky behavior so what does the gov. do? They legalize it and then bitch about how much money they have to pump into aids and aids care and the fringe groups still want more. After society told them they were involved in immoral and unhealthy activity and science warned on the dangerous of aids. Homosex sky rockets in the wake of this news and the gov. makes it legal. Just great, this happens in the bazzaro world.
That kids of 12 aren't ready to be mothers.
(bill) I wish adult/child sex advocates agreed with your morality.
That kids of twelve aren't mature enough.
(bill) I wish adult/child sex advocates agreed with your morality.
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?
Morals change with the times, just like everything else.
(bill) So murder for no reason might become moral someday?
|
"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 : 11:18:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
There are several societies in the United States alone, which one do you want to compare moral codes vs. homosexuality. The general consensus of a society determines morals and weight given to individual morals.
(bill) Well the majority of American society believe homo sex is immoral. So by your definition home sex is immoral in American society.
Except that American society doesn't exist. There are several groups laying claim to that title. There are the Eco-freaks, vegitarians, fundies, etc. Homosexual sex is immoral to most people in America. But that number is dwindling.
quote:
A majority of population does not consider gay marriage to be proper due to the co-mingling of religious marriage and legal marriage done by gay marriage opponents.
(bill) Well that and society has deemed it immoral based a majority rules moral standard.
But a majority support gays being allowed the same legal status as marriage allows. Only 1/3rd of people in the US oppose gays having any sort of legal status. That makes it moral to a supermajority (2/3rds) of US citizens.
quote:
The two are different as one is a religious ceremony and unaffected by government and the other is a legal contract imbuing the union with legal benefits and duties.
(bill)So who in society sets the codes? Majority or gov.? Here the majority of Americans do not want gay marriage so this sets standard for morality. But wait a crack pot judge just said gay marriage was legal. Who trump who when "society" sets the standard? The majority want no gay marriage so the gays ignore this and sue the state. So much for majority rules. This leaves it to the gov. to set standards for morality and law. Gays say homo sex is moral and anyone to say it is not we don't except your morals. Then they turn around and say that man/child sex is immoral and illegal and they have no problem making judgment on these vile people. Hello, your making a judgment on the morals of these people just as you said gov. and society have no right to force morals on you.
Scuse, me? Societies set morals, government set law. Gays say that homosexual sex is moral. Some heterosexuals say homosexual sex is moral. They say that man/child sex is immoral. They say that they will not be held by morals which are unreasonable within some societies. They still agree with the morals concerning age of consent and the laws enforcing it. They say that government outlawing the mode by which they have sex between consenting adults is incongruent with Constitutional guarantees for equal protection under the law as it pertains to sexual conduct between consenting adults.
quote:
Which have been completely wiped off due to Lawrence v. Texas.
(bill)Why can't nambla get same ruling for their sex lifestyle? Under what basis or standard has the gov. found homo sex legal and man/boy sex not legal. If I was nambla I would sue with same homo gripes. "How can the gov. decide homo sex is legal and nambla sex is not? What right do they have to make such a intolerant judgment? Once the homos got their sex tough it will be just a matter of time before every form of debauchery and deviant behavior uses the same ol argument, might me immoral as decided by "society" but will be legal by the gov. because they were sued for taking away the homo, molester, bestiality right's and were dictating morality. How can gov. make a call that molester is illegal sex but if they do the same for homo sex they are intolerant and homophobe driven.
Did you bother reading any of the replies I made on this subject? Do you understand the difference between adults and children and how children cannot legally give consent for sexual contact? Something that is not barred to adults.
quote:
And laws only define what is illegal Morality is defined by societies.
(bill)So the gov. has said it is illegal and now legal while the morality of Americans say it is immoral all along.
There are laws which have moral basis.
(bill) who's moral bases?
Depends on the legislation. I reget I lack the ability to reduce complex issues down to sound-bite format for you.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 02/06/2006 11:27:29 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 11:26:36 [Permalink]
|
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. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 11:29:19 [Permalink]
|
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.
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?
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.
Morals, however, evolved. Society, via science, acknowledged that doing so is harmful for children.
(bill) nambla would not agree with this. Besides we know homo anal sex is one of the most dangerous and unhealthy was to have sex. Science said so, yet it still went from illegal to legal. Society (American) still views homo as immoral and science shows it is a very risky behavior so what does the gov. do? They legalize it and then bitch about how much money they have to pump into aids and aids care and the fringe groups still want more. After society told them they were involved in immoral and unhealthy activity and science warned on the dangerous of aids. Homosex sky rockets in the wake of this news and the gov. makes it legal. Just great, this happens in the bazzaro world.
That kids of 12 aren't ready to be mothers.
(bill) I wish adult/child sex advocates agreed with your morality.
That kids of twelve aren't mature enough.
(bill) I wish adult/child sex advocates agreed with your morality.
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?
Morals change with the times, just like everything else.
(bill) So murder for no reason might become moral someday?
First, the claim that people "died at 18" is just absurd. They didn't. They may not live as much as they do now (well into their 80s and 90s), but not '18' - I'll assume you simply got some arbitrary number to put girls of 12 as middle aged. They married at 12 because that's when girls usually get fertile.
You say people at NAMBLA don't agree that kids are hurt by adult-kid sex; they probably don't, which is why they stand a snowball's chance in hell from legalizing their mental illness.
Oh, and you know an universal code of morality? Please point me to it! I have the impression I know which code it is, but it's a code that also endorses genocide, says nothing on pedophilia and also endorses slavery from not-chosen people.
Please point me to the peer-reviewed research that says homo sex is more dangerous than any other type of sex.
And while you're at it - yeah, it's quite possible such a society will emerge. In fact, I believe Aztecs did think that sacrificing virgins to the gods was quite a moral thing. As well as some Amazon tribes who believe consuming their enemy's heart is respectful to them. But it's unlikely that such ideas will resist for long or get much acceptance - humans are social creatures. They form bonds. They feel empathy for their fellows (well, those not affected by mental disorders, at least, to various degrees). |
"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
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 02/06/2006 11:35:03 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 11:49:54 [Permalink]
|
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.
|
"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
