• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Leah Remini to tackle Jehovah's Witnesses

RAMOSS said:
Well, there are some native american tribes where that would not make sense. For example, if someone needs a tool, they would just take it. Then,they would have the tool until someone else needed it, and that other person would have it to use. Is that stealing? It's taking without permission, and with no intent to give back.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a situation where the tribe as a whole (or in other words, 'nobody') "owns" the tool, and it doesn't sound like the tool is being taken "without permission", as the concept of permission in this situation of "ownership" doesn't logically follow... In the end, this is purely a discussion of moral epistemology and has no bearing on moral ontology.
 
gfm7175 said:
That sounds like a situation where the tribe as a whole (or in other words, 'nobody') "owns" the tool, and it doesn't sound like the tool is being taken "without permission", as the concept of permission in this situation of "ownership" doesn't logically follow... In the end, this is purely a discussion of moral epistemology and has no bearing on moral ontology.
Click to expand...

And, it does show that your example is not relevant. because.. the concept is stealing and ownership is conceptual in nature, and as such is subjective.
 
devildavid said:
The point is that ownership is not objective so stealing is not objective. It is a subjective view created by man. Stealing can't be an objective moral wrong independent of what man thinks it is. There couldn't have been an objective moral code about stealing that man discovered because man invented the concept of ownership.
Click to expand...
Really? So if I come along and claim (in my opinion) that you don't own your home/car/possessions/etc, then you don't actually own them?

So those possessions can be freely taken from you on those grounds without my action of taking them from you being morally wrong?

That's just downright ridiculous in every conceivable way...
 
gfm7175 said:
Really? So if I come along and claim (in my opinion) that you don't own your home/car/possessions/etc, then you don't actually own them?

So those possessions can be freely taken from you on those grounds without my action of taking them from you being morally wrong?

That's just downright ridiculous in every conceivable way...
Click to expand...

It depends on my attitude and yours. If a family member takes something from me it may or may not be stealing. Why is that?
 
devildavid said:
It depends on my attitude and yours. If a family member takes something from me it may or may not be stealing. Why is that?
Click to expand...

If you gave them permission to take it, it is not stealing.

If you did not give them permission to take it, then it is stealing.


That's why...
 
gfm7175 said:
If you gave them permission to take it, it is not stealing.

If you did not give them permission to take it, then it is stealing.


That's why...
Click to expand...

And, if they took it without asking, but you don't care?

It's all subjective.
 
gfm7175 said:
If you gave them permission to take it, it is not stealing.

If you did not give them permission to take it, then it is stealing.


That's why...
Click to expand...

What if nothing was said about permission?
 
RAMOSS said:
And, if they took it without asking, but you don't care?

It's all subjective.
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the fact that they took something that doesn't belong to them from someone else.
 
gfm7175 said:
That doesn't change the fact that they took something that doesn't belong to them from someone else.
Click to expand...

And??? It doesn't matter, unless the person who had the previous possession on it cared.
 
RAMOSS said:
Why, yes it does. That is exactly what matters.
Click to expand...

Why, no it doesn't. That is exactly what does not matter. The action itself is what matters, not the reaction to the action.
 
gfm7175 said:
Why, no it doesn't. That is exactly what does not matter. The action itself is what matters, not the reaction to the action.
Click to expand...

That seems to be a difference of opinion that can not be resolved. That's why it's subjective.
 
RAMOSS said:
That seems to be a difference of opinion that can not be resolved. That's why it's subjective.
Click to expand...

How exactly does a difference of opinion automatically make something subjective?

You could be correct about this and I could be wrong about this, and vice versa, which would be evidencing objectiveness.

You always like to skip over that little (big) detail...
 
gfm7175 said:
How exactly does a difference of opinion automatically make something subjective?

You could be correct about this and I could be wrong about this, and vice versa, which would be evidencing objectiveness.

You always like to skip over that little (big) detail...
Click to expand...

Because of the definition of objective you used.. something that is true independent of what people think of it. When it comes to the example, it is precisely what people think about it that makes it immoral or not. Shakespeare said it well, in Hamlet act 2, scene 2.

"Why, then, 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so: "

of course, that is not a new idea, even back then.
 
RAMOSS said:
Because of the definition of objective you used.. something that is true independent of what people think of it. When it comes to the example, it is precisely what people think about it that makes it immoral or not. Shakespeare said it well, in Hamlet act 2, scene 2.

"Why, then, 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so: "

of course, that is not a new idea, even back then.
Click to expand...

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH...

I really don't know what else to say without this going in circles.
 
gfm7175 said:
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH...

I really don't know what else to say without this going in circles.
Click to expand...

You can't.. because your subjective opinion makes you unable to show your claims are true.
 
Had some JW's come knocking on my door not long ago.

Tactics they're starting to use more often is bringing a small child with them and having the child be the "front person" to start the conversation off.
I guess part of the thought process is people will be less likely to be rude if there's a child present.

The boy who began our little talk could not have been more than 7 years old.
I felt like asking the kid if he wouldn't rather be out playing with the other kids in his neighborhood, but I knew exactly what his answer would be.

I actually feel more disdain for the entire JW organization when they have their little robot kids doing the dirty work for them.
 
Dragonfly said:
Had some JW's come knocking on my door not long ago.

Tactics they're starting to use more often is bringing a small child with them and having the child be the "front person" to start the conversation off.
I guess part of the thought process is people will be less likely to be rude if there's a child present.

The boy who began our little talk could not have been more than 7 years old.
I felt like asking the kid if he wouldn't rather be out playing with the other kids in his neighborhood, but I knew exactly what his answer would be.

I actually feel more disdain for the entire JW organization when they have their little robot kids doing the dirty work for them.
Click to expand...

I have seen the JW brainwashing of children. They are adults now and have left the cult.
 
Dragonfly said:
Had some JW's come knocking on my door not long ago.

Tactics they're starting to use more often is bringing a small child with them and having the child be the "front person" to start the conversation off.
I guess part of the thought process is people will be less likely to be rude if there's a child present.

The boy who began our little talk could not have been more than 7 years old.
I felt like asking the kid if he wouldn't rather be out playing with the other kids in his neighborhood, but I knew exactly what his answer would be.

I actually feel more disdain for the entire JW organization when they have their little robot kids doing the dirty work for them.
Click to expand...

Fear not, kind sir!

Leah Remini to the Recue!

She'll give those annoying JWs what-for on behalf of bigots everywhere!​




Angel said:
The Bigot's Bimbo

AqHcBu1.jpg


Barefoot and impregnable, TV's Leah Remini confronts Carmelite nuns in parking lot over her morning latte.
​
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom