- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 60,458
- Reaction score
- 12,357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Yeah. He grows up from between where Salman Khan's thighs meet..........................
Too much information.
Yeah. He grows up from between where Salman Khan's thighs meet..........................
"The" moral position against theft? LOL! No, you're trying to make me defend your moral position and I have no interest in doing that.What is obvious is that you haven't countered my argument that they are not upholding the moral position against theft.
Too much information.
"The" moral position against theft? LOL! No, you're trying to make me defend your moral position and I have no interest in doing that.
You asked, Henrin, and I answered....................
I guess I didn't expect crushes on the crotch, but more like deities.
That doesn't make morality some innate thing - it's a human construct and you've just shown it by invoking realization and reason. Reasoning is something that's learned, too, as anyone who's spent time looking through the various forums here can plainly see. Some small bit of reasoning is innate but it's very limited. Certainly philosophical concepts are beyond simple, animal reasoning.And unless you're stupid or insane, you realize that if you do that to me, then someone will do it to you. So we collectively agree not to do these things, and we all benefit. Our own survival and prosperity drives us to protect one another and not abuse each other. Empathy is biological. Learned behaviors are biological. Morality is biological.
Yeah. He grows up from between where Salman Khan's thighs meet..........................
Admit, what? That I don't feel obligated to defend your moral position? I could have told you I wouldn't do that a dozen posts ago.No, I was trying to get you to admit something and you did. Thanks.
Admit, what? That I don't feel obligated to defend your moral position? I could have told you I wouldn't do that a dozen posts ago.
No, that's how you extinguish all the morality. "Society" is not real - it is an abstraction; individuals are real - they are actual living human beings. If a society punishes an individual who did no harm to any other individual but "harmed the society" (whatever it means), we can tell right away that this society is very, very sick.
Everyone. For example: no raping children. Do you have a problem with that? Do you think anyone does?
I do not have a problem with this at all but a pedophile may well disagree with you. So no there is not a universal moral consensuses. You can even look at murder or killing. There are those who can even justify this. So you cannot base Law on moral thoughts based on individuals.
Under some circumstances, raping children is ok?
Morality is a social construct and not a matter of individual decision. It's no more debatable than reality.
2. My response is straight forward and makes two points. I will make them in two colors:For example: no raping children. Do you have a problem with that?
The first part of this statement states I have no problem with what you are saying so I stand in agreement. The second part of the phrase states that pedophiles may disagree with you. This is not a difficult phrase to understand.I do not have a problem with this at all but a pedophile may well disagree with you.
after using this quote of mine as if to say what my words reflect is that I support the raping of children.Under some circumstances, raping children is ok?
Misrepresenting someone is no way to debate or discuss. It is especially in poor taste when it involves the sensitive topic. I find your tactic deplorable and you despicable. Debate with you over. You should check and see if you have moral qualities before you try and debate them.Quote Originally Posted by katiegrrl0
I do not have a problem with this at all but a pedophile may well disagree with you.
The absolute morality against theft is societal. To allow an exception for extreme cases is individual. And that's exactly what I said in my first post.Your original argument was one where the morality against theft had an exception to the rule for the poor man that needed to steal for his survival. Of course, that never made any sense to begin with.
The absolute morality against theft is societal. To allow an exception in extreme cases is individual.
To you "theft is theft" but your morality doesn't dictate someone else's morality nor the morality of society. You continue to prove my point.No, society does not view theft as always bad and in fact will allow for it in certain cases. An example of that is found in the Kobe Bryant's case against his mother. Apparently if you leave something at someones house for X amount of time you lose it and they gain ownership. Another example of course is taxes. Morally speaking however, it is your property no matter the amount of time that passes and no matter if its government or someone else taking your property. Morally speaking there is no exceptions to theft. Theft is theft.
I have come to the end of my debate with you. If the only way you can prove your point is to misrepresent what someone said i feel sorry for you. You owe me an apology. You also know what you did. so I find it ignorant on your part.
1. You make a short statement and ask:
2. My response is straight forward and makes two points. I will make them in two colors:
The first part of this statement states I have no problem with what you are saying so I stand in agreement. The second part of the phrase states that pedophiles may disagree with you. This is not a difficult phrase to understand.
3. In the third quote you ask the question: after using this quote of mine as if to say what my words reflect is that I support the raping of children.
Misrepresenting someone is no way to debate or discuss. It is especially in poor taste when it involves the sensitive topic. I find your tactic deplorable and you despicable. Debate with you over. You should check and see if you have moral qualities before you try and debate them.
You missed the point.
In the circumstance of someone being a pedo, is child rape ok? No. Thus, your argument about pedos disagreeing is nonsense.
To you "theft is theft" but your morality doesn't dictate someone else's morality nor the morality of society. You continue to prove my point.
Obviously the cases you cited aren't theft.
Does it exist? If so, what is it?
Just like the example with the gunman above, situations you guys always ignore, when it comes to life and death (and even severe injury) there are exceptions. There's nothing illogical or immoral about it.All that I continue to prove is that your stance is neither logical or based on morality. You must abuse someone else for your stance to exist making it immoral.
I'm sure in your mind someone can commit legal theft. Again, I disagree with you. To me that's like saying it's legal murder.Obviously they are. The only question that was ever open is if they are wrong. Since there is no logical basis to decree they are not wrong, they are in fact wrong.
You mean, the immoral, collectivist objections?
That's kill. Impossible? Of course, the Law is damnation and cannot save. Still, we should do our best; just like with every other commandment. This idea that it is 'murder' and not 'kill' comes from some kind of delusion that the goal is attainable. It's not attainable, it represents God in the premonition of His Son.
Society and how we're raised are both outside forces.