Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI disagree with you, as you know, for the reasons laid out on more than one recent thread. Your personal opinions about morality create no moral dilemma whatsoever for me.
What you are saying only makes sense if there is a universally correct moral standard (that we can know about ) of what is 'morally sound'. Because from your perspective 'what is morally sound' depends on each individual's perspective. Which means means what you believe to be morally sound is different to what Nazi Germany believes to be morally sound. ...[text shortened]... hat your definition of what is morally sound is universally correct. This is your moral dilemma.
06 Feb 17
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThis is the second time you've come up with this golden rule label. It's not what I said, and it's not something I follow. That you think I do underlines how incapable you are of reading a response which disagrees with your position and understanding it. Instead you attempt to blindly pigeonhole it so that you can trot out another one of your stock arguments and repeat some of your tired old kneejerk nonsense.
I don't expect you to question your golden rule. I don't think you are capable of that because it's an absolute you keep on running away from.
06 Feb 17
Originally posted by avalanchethecat"Would you, as the potential rapist, be ok with having somebody rape you while you were in a coma?" - implying it's not ok to do something you don't want done to yourself. Also when you say it's always wrong to rape someone you are affirming a moral absolute.
This is the second time you've come up with this golden rule label. It's not what I said, and it's not something I follow. That you think I do underlines how incapable you are of reading a response which disagrees with your position and understanding it. Instead you attempt to blindly pigeonhole it so that you can trot out another one of your stock arguments and repeat some of your tired old kneejerk nonsense.
06 Feb 17
Originally posted by EladarAnd you are one of those who will not see if you claim that there are no left-leaning Christians. To make this claim, you must necessarily not understand what it means to be left-leaning and/or Christian.
Leftist ideology is for the left what scripture is to orthodox christians.
Of course you can't see it because of your ideological beliefs.
Of course you can't see it because you don't want to see it. They call this willful ignorance.
06 Feb 17
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou really don't need to quote my own words, I am fully aware of what I have said. I asked you a question, which I note you - in your typical fashion - never even acknowledged, let alone replied to.
"Would you, as the potential rapist, be ok with having somebody rape you while you were in a coma?" - implying it's not ok to do something you don't want done to yourself. Also when you say it's always wrong to rape someone you are affirming a moral absolute.
You should make yourself aware of the difference between an inference and an implication.
As for your final point, you are mistaken, I have never stated such a belief.
06 Feb 17
Originally posted by avalanchethecatOk so if you do not make a moral decision based on whether you would want someone to do the same to you, upon what do you base your moral decisions?
You really don't need to quote my own words, I am fully aware of what I have said. I asked you a question, which I note you - in your typical fashion - never even acknowledged, let alone replied to.
You should make yourself aware of the difference between an inference and an implication.
As for your final point, you are mistaken, I have never stated such a belief.
06 Feb 17
Originally posted by EladarThe point is that as a species, for the first time as far as anyone is concerned, we have a chance to actually control a lot of what happens to us. Should we just leave that control upto nature or should we, as a species, grow up?
Nature has a way of dealing with this without evil people trying to choose who to allow to live and who is not.
06 Feb 17
Originally posted by PudgenikWe prolly need a lot of that "space" to keep some sort of balance with nature. You do want your grankids to see animals and stuff,right?
i drive semi in USA. There is so much open space, it is unreal. The only reason people complain is the cities are over populated.
My son was with me last summer. At 45 miles from the outskirts of New York city, it is all forest. Even at 25 miles, there was hardly any population. So why does so many people want to live in such a small area.
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by karoly aczelWho gets to manipulate the species?
The point is that as a species, for the first time as far as anyone is concerned, we have a chance to actually control a lot of what happens to us. Should we just leave that control upto nature or should we, as a species, grow up?
Me?
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by PudgenikLet alone places like Texas, Kansas and Colorado.
i drive semi in USA. There is so much open space, it is unreal. The only reason people complain is the cities are over populated.
My son was with me last summer. At 45 miles from the outskirts of New York city, it is all forest. Even at 25 miles, there was hardly any population. So why does so many people want to live in such a small area.
Hop on I-40 and see how much open space is in this country.
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by FMFI never claimed that my personal opinions create a moral dilemma for you, that is your claim. That fact is without an objective moral standard you cannot claim that anything is objectively wrong.
I disagree with you, as you know, for the reasons laid out on more than one recent thread. Your personal opinions about morality create no moral dilemma whatsoever for me.
07 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYou said something is wrong if:
I have already explained this quite carefully.
(a) It would cause suffering to that person
(b) It would cause suffering to people for whom that person is important
(c) Consequent to (a) and (b) it would cause suffering to one's self (not believing in god doesn't mean that one doesn't have a conscience)
(d) It could lead to negative consequences socially and legally for one's self
So then I asked you would it be wrong for a rapist to rape someone who is in a coma if no one found out and it brought the rapist pleasure. Because in this case neither a,b,c, or d is violated. So therefore by your logic it can't be wrong.