4,237 Forum Posts by "Samuel-HALL"
At 1/18/06 03:37 PM, ReiperX wrote:At 1/18/06 01:27 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: 1) Is child labor absolutely, without a doubt, 100% wrong, or is it relative to the country's economic development? Remember that all of the great economic powers today have employed children at one time.Right and wrong is objective really, and even depends on the situation. While I don't like it on a personal level I do understand it being used in countries without much of an education system. I still don't agree with it, but then again thats just my personal opinion. Other countries are sovereign and shall run themselves as they see fit. But right and wrong are just morals, they are purely objective.
What the fuck is wrong with you? You're not very good at expressing yourself, without constantly mentioning that 'this is just my opinion'.
Your above post consists of five sentances. Four of those sentances contain the sentiment 'everything is subjective and this is just my opinion'. Not only is that redundant, it's completely fucking unneccesary.
We know you're expressing your personal opinion. I realize you were answering a specific question...but Jesus God. Everytime I see you post, you express your opinions in this matter.
It makes you look really....unsure of your own opinions.
I'm going with what Fli said. Sometimes, it is neccessary. That doesn't mean it's fantastically enjoyable, or condonable, or what-the-fuck-ever. It's not something that should be exploited. Children working to get every extra penny that they can for their family is one thing; children being used to build a booming economy is something else.
At 1/19/06 08:55 PM, sea_food wrote: "No matter who disagreed with them, even other philosophers, Aristotle's ideas - whether right or wrong - usually won out"
-Isaac Asimov
"Aristotle's teachings were unquestioned. After eighteen centuries, universities accepted them as if they had been written in stone."
-John Appeldoorn
Pfffft. To justify the worth and truthfulness of one man's opinion, you post the opinion's of two other men?
Way to fucking go.
At 1/19/06 10:08 AM, Pandaman64 wrote:At 1/17/06 12:51 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote:The constitution has amendments to it because it wasn't perfect. It is not the end all be all of right and wrong, or fairness and unfairness. All it dictates is the law, which I disagree with. I'm sorry you feel differently...At 1/17/06 11:40 AM, Pandaman64 wrote:Yes, it's fair, right, and just.
Read the constitution, numbskull.
No, I'm sorry you feel differently. You're the one that's forced to conform, or not vote at all.
The law, and the majority, stands behind me. There's no reason to pity my platform.
Then, my father's friend preceeded to gather his three bros. all of whom didn't know who the running vice presidents were, and got them to vote for kerry too. That's a problem. Aside from who bush and kerry were, these three knew nothing of politics. They don't watch debates. They don't read the papers.
So? The 'right to vote' isn't restricted by how much you watch television, and read newspapers. The beauty of democracy is that you don't have to know every facet of politics, to have your voice heard.
Obvoisly, this is hypothetical and not set in stone, so modifications would be necessary for a final version of this test. Opinions?
Besides the opinion of your being uneducated as Christ?
Look, you and JMHX think that no one but the intellectually elite should be able to vote.
Good for you. Luckily for the average America, the constitution, decades of precedant, and the majority of Americans stand against your bigoted beliefs.
The tiiiiimes, they are a chaaaaangin'.
At 1/17/06 05:47 PM, Proteas wrote: You bunch piss yourselves because the government "knew" before hand about the attacks on September 11th, and didn't alert the public, and now they are letting you know and you're laughing it off? Are you people on crack or something?
I said the same exact thing. In response, to that point, I got 'OMG BOY WHO CRIED WOLF'.
This is the mentality that our government has to discredit, to make any headway.
At 1/17/06 07:17 PM, JMHX wrote:At 1/17/06 06:56 PM, red_skunk wrote:Considering I based most of this off Aristotle's writings on government, he and I are going to go listen to some Seether and slash our wrists.
Why is everyone so up on Aristotle's cock?
If our government is watching out for attacks, they're 'just trying to scare up support for their legislation'. If they don't watch out for attacks, you call them incompetant and unfit for governing.
The whole lot of you need to get a fucking clue.
At 1/17/06 11:40 AM, Pandaman64 wrote: Is it fair, right, OR just for that person's vote to, in effect, nullify yours due to his incompetence?
Yes, it's fair, right, and just.
Read the constitution, numbskull.
Not nessisarily stupid people, hard to legally prove/define stupidity, but UNINFORMED people that know nothing of nothing, have no business having an opinion of who should win any elections.
My definition of 'uninformed' might be different than yours. The term is used relatively.
If a Republican hears a Democrat expounding the woes of the War in Iraq, the republican may call the Democrat 'uninformed', due to the fact that he's overlooking the things accomplished in Iraq. On the other hand, a democrat who hears a Republican talking about how positively the War in Iraq is going might use the term 'uninformed', because the republican is overlooking the difficulties we face.
Pro-abortion folk call anti-abortion folk 'uninformed and ignorant'...and vice versa.
Those who support the death penalty refer to those oppossing the issue as uninformed, and those oppossing the issue call folks who support it 'uninformed'.
Both yourself, and the topic starter, are using 'uninformed' in a sense that means 'that person has a different set of priorities than myself'.
At 1/16/06 09:22 PM, JMHX wrote: While it is impossible to know exactly how King would have felt about the current state of things, one can make an educated attempt at how he might have felt based on his writings and other work during his life. The goals he wrote about, preached about and spoke about were an overarching plan for the progress towards equality that he sought. While not an exact estimate of King's feelings on the modern day by any means, it provides some outline of the events he hoped to bring about and the things he hoped to achieve.
This is exactly what I was trying to get across.
No, we can't say, word for word, how King would have felt about this. It's logical, though, to make certain assumptions about certain things. The ''I have a Dream'' speech wasn't the only thing King did, you know?
At 1/16/06 09:46 AM, mackid wrote: Do you percieve the movie ratings and video game ratings that, as implimented by the MPAA and ESRB, respectively, are censorship?
They are warnings, and nothing more. Your logic would call the nutritional facts, required by the FDA, listed on food products 'censorship'.
It's my express right to watch and play what I please.
No, it's not. You can't show me one document that proves such a thing, either.
You can buy your video games when you turn 18, and become an adult. Until then, ask your parents really nicely to buy that new ultra-violent console game you've been yearning for.
At 1/16/06 09:54 AM, mackid wrote: Yeah, but why should I have to be 17 to see an R movie?
That's just the way it is. Scores of majorities of people have decided that they'll leave the ticket-buying to R movies up to the parents.
See, they don't want you (a minor) to buy the ticket, and have the parents (your legal guardian) come back and attempt recourse. They will, however, allow an adult to buy you a ticket. It's nothing personal.
You want to talk about rights? It's the definitional and constitutional 'right' of a private business to choose what to sell. They can also set rules on the sale of certain items.
For example, many private businesses have started to move certain cold medicines 'behind the counter', to prevent theft. Some stores make you sign for such medicines. Other stores make anyone who purchases a needle 'sign in'. If your name shows up too many times on the list, they'll stop selling the medicine to that person altogether (with the cold medicine), and will require proof from people who legitimately require the needles for prescribed medicinal use. Is that censorship?
Mom and pop convenience stores often won't allow more than two or three teenagers in the store at once, due to shoplifting. Most stores, big and small, will not allow a bookbag to be carried into the store.
Is that censorship, too?
At 1/16/06 06:18 PM, fli wrote
My God,
we can't know how King would feel about the current Black culture such as the "bling bling" and "baby's mama"! Never, ever-- ever because he is dead.
So what? Aristotle is dead...and yet people speculate on how he'd feel about democracy, or an economy, or what-the-fuck-ever. People do the same thing with Lincoln, and half a dozen other presidents. There's a thread every other day, here on NG, using such logic to spur conversation and debate.
Do you mean to imply that we just can't even predict, at all, how King would feel about an aspect of the black community making a mockery of themselves?
His legacy was about getting equality.
Oh, totally. And those were the only words that ever came out of his mouth. He never had any other opinions.
I believe he would be proud to know his work wasn't in vain.
Impovershed blacks living in a ghetto (usually with inadequate educational institutions), commiting violence on their neighbor...was that King's dream?
As Red pointed out...things are getting better everyday, as far as 'racism in America's culture' goes - but there's still a ways to goes. King would be proud of how far we've come, of course. I feel, however, that with all we know about the man, it would be safe to say he'd be appalled, outraged, and sickened over the aspect of black culture that we're speaking of in this thread. Whether you blame the blacks who live in the ghettos, or the white man who's 'holidng them down' (or anything in between): It is not King's dream.
Why does this proposal, in all it's lenghtiness and eloquence, sound much like the logic used by the pigs, in Animal Farm?
Oh, sure. Everyone else is just far too dumb to vote. The smart people, and the really couth and well-spoken folks, they know what's best for everyone. How can a sheep ever hope to know anything, save for the best ways to pull and chew grass?
Certainly, the best method is to let the smart one's decide for all the rest of us. We can all sleep well, wrapped in the safety and security that will be provided to us by the upper echilon of intelligence.
Sounds like a great plan.
Am I the only one who thinks the topic starter is blatently pompous, and arrogant to the point of outright calling the majority of America 'too stupid to vote'.
Not because of any particular reason, either, save for them supporting opinions and candidates that the topic starter does/did not approve of.
Fuck Aristotle.
At 1/16/06 02:20 AM, -Michael- wrote:At 1/15/06 04:11 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote: ''OMG AMERICA IS FAILING!''OMG, we need a, "Give Faggot Druids the Death Penalty!!1" thread in the general forum. Just to spice things up about this subject.
Hilarious.
Why did you quote me, while not responding to me?
At 1/16/06 01:15 AM, LordXanthus wrote:At 1/16/06 12:15 AM, Samuel_HALL wrote:Are you saying that the death penalty charge against Manson was part of a plan to have politicians executed, or am I misinterpreting?If ordering murders warranted an execution, then our politicians would find themselves in one hell of a shape.That very point helped bring a death-penalty charge against Manson.
What? No. I think something was misconveyed.
You said 'if ordering murders warranted an execution', implying that it doesn't. This man was in prison already, and his order led to three more dead bodies. If he had not given the order, they would not have died at the time they did, and in the way they did.
Those three deaths are on this man's head. He deserves the death penalty.
At 1/14/06 07:06 PM, Ravariel wrote:At 1/14/06 04:09 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote: State executions, war, abortion, and removing the elderly from life support are all justified reasons to take a life.So, justification of an action is the same as moral righteousness?
I said it was justified. You're the one who assumed I meant it was moral, too.
But let me know if you think you'll FEEL deep down in your most moral of places, that you did a morally right thing.
What's neccessary doesn't have to be moral. That's not even the issue at hand. We're talking about if something is moral, or not.
I don't see justification erasing the moral culpability of an action. It is ALWAYS wrong to take a life.
lol. Alright.
Even if the first is true, isn't it morally offset (if not "right"), by the protection and life-saving you just did for your family? Do we need the morality to be broken down for each action, or can it stand correct in a more general sense?
Not only did you ask a question that I'd already answered, you used my own example (about stealing for survival) to do it.
Way to go.
At 1/14/06 08:47 PM, ReiperX wrote:At 1/14/06 04:09 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote:Not always.At 1/12/06 04:02 AM, Ravariel wrote: Can there be a fundamental absolute morality?I believe so, yes.
Things like 'rape is always morally reprehensible' is a pretty good place to start.
Or 'unprovoked, cold-blooded murder is wrong, 100% of the time'.
Give me an example when it's right.
Or 'torture is always wrong'.To torture someone in order to get information out of them that could possibly save millions of lives? Is that wrong?
Neccessary and 'moral' aren't the same thing.
Morally, he is right in his own prospective.Does the fact that a rapist doesn't believe what he did was wrong make him correct?No. What you said is an argument many nihilists love to use.
They argue that 'rape is wrong' is not a real absolute moral, simply because the rapist thinks it's alright.
No, he's not. He's simply delusional.
You are confusing law with morals.
Incorrect. I said 'rape is always immoral'. I did not, however, say that's it's always illegal, in every culture.
Here's a question I want those people to answer: If a child molester rapes and kills a little girl, and he feels it's completely morally acceptable...was his act 'right', or 'wrong'? No bullshit dodges, or attempts to avoid the question...I want an either or answer. Is it moral, or immoral, to rape and kill little girls (assuming the rapist thinks it's right)?To me, he is wrong. Its immoral to me. To most people it is immoral. But still doesn't change that the person who did it it wasn't against their morals, therefore showing that morals are not absolute, they differ depending on your perspective.
Incorrect, again. The rapist is simply delusional. He's only justifying immorality.
I don't know, donating to charity isn't always moral in my eyes, but then again that is my perspective. To me, if you donate to charity just to escape a tax bracket, then you are immoral, you are getting out of paying extra taxes by giving some money to a charity that you may or may not even give two shits about. To me thats immoral, its just using a loophole to get out of paying taxes.
Yet the means, for 'getting out of taxes' is helping the poor and needy.
Helping the poor and needy cannot be 'immora'.
At 1/16/06 12:12 AM, LordXanthus wrote: Allow me to point something out: He is not being executed for the one murder he actually commited, but rather, the three that he ordered while behind bars, correct? That is utterly preposterous.
Clarence Allen did not kill those three people. He ordered other people to commit the murders.
Yes. Charles Manson only killed one person, too.
What sort of degenerate, half-witted lowlife would take orders from an old convict in the first place?
Ask the Manson Kids.
Suppose I were to tell you to kill someone for me. Are you going to go kill someone, based on my words, or are you going to realize that it's a damned stupid thing to do?
Ask the Manson kids, or those guys who drank the kool-aid.
If ordering murders warranted an execution, then our politicians would find themselves in one hell of a shape.
That very point helped bring a death-penalty charge against Manson.
It seems like conservatives ('conservative' in the 'American' sense) have moved right in, and set up shop, in Canada.
There was that story about your American thinking politician gaining support, and this, now.
Though I won't complain...what's the deal?
At 1/15/06 11:50 PM, CadillacClock wrote: I just recieved a review telling me to eat a bucket of chicken and a nice little "eh" at the end. I'm starting to dislike the rise of racism on newgrounds.
Lighten up. I find things like that hilarious.
At 1/14/06 05:43 PM, Quanze13 wrote: But no matter how many times the republicans play clips of democrats berating Alito, they won't be half as good as the democrats' clips of Tom DeLay being lead off to prison manacled to Jack Abramoff and Bob Ney.
Whoever the candidate is, for the republican party in 2008, can simply call those men immoral criminals who do not represent the 'true conservative mindset'. They'll take the whole 'good riddance' mentality.
Oh, c'mon. Leaving a girl in your car to slowly suffocate (while you shower, drink coffee, and call lawyers), in a five hour period, isn't near as immoral as disagreeing with abortion. Not even close, bub.
The most drastic thing he did wrong in that incident was drive drunk. The fact that the girl died wasn't his fault -- he tried multiple times to get her out of the car, then walked back to the party to try and get help.
The girl was alive in the car for five fucking hours. You're telling me no authorities that should have been alerted couldn't get to the vehicle for five hours.
Kennedy did not respond properly. He drank coffee. He showered. He called some friends. These were not the first things he should have done, while that woman slowly suffocated in the back of his car.
Accidents do happen.
And so do manslaughter charges. Unless you're a Kennedy, I mean.
At 1/15/06 07:02 PM, Quanze13 wrote: So he didn't call the police. Maybe he forgot.
HAHAHA.
There's a woman dying in the back of his car, and he just 'forgets' to call the police?
Is that what kind of 'moral core' Ted Kennedy has?
Get a fucking clue.
At 1/15/06 01:22 AM, -Buddhist- wrote: Personally I believe, in this case, that they should just let him pass on in a cell, rather than execute him. I mean, the guy's dying on his birthday, almost died on death row last year, is hard of hearing, blind, and can barely walk. That really wouldn't show any justice.
Justice? Justice, is it?
Was him ordering three executions 'just'? What does him being 'old and feeble' have anything to do with his crime? Does his crime exist less, because he's old? Does his age diminish the fact that he ordered the killing of three people?
He was given his sentance. His conviction is not in doubt. The evidence is not in doubt. There is no reason to forego the scheduled execution. All things are in order.
His age has nothing to do with it. 'We feel really sorry for this convicted criminal' isn't a good enough reason, children.
At 1/15/06 09:12 PM, -Buddhist- wrote: You don't think his karma has already affected him enough?
Karma (assuming that such a silly thing exists) has nothing to do with.
He was justifiably prosecuted, and convicted. The evidence is not in doubt. His scheduled recourse is the death penalty.
There is no legal, logical, or justifiable reason to not execute this man.
At 1/15/06 04:51 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:At 1/15/06 04:23 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote:At 1/15/06 04:20 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: If 13 year olds are mature enough to make that decision, than 18 year old college chicks are mature enough to decide on that issue.It has nothing to do with their level of maturity. The institution they reside in has, for whatever reason, decided they're not going to accept things like this.
That could be accurate, but when it is a public university (or an extension of the state) it is generally interpreted to follow state laws.
Oh? It's the set-in-stone law, in almost every state (all of them, unless I'm mistaken), that someone eighteen years of age (or older) is within all legalities when lighting up a cigarete...correct?
And yet, you'll be hard-pressed to find me a highschool that allows their eighteen year old students to smoke on school grounds. Most schools don't even let the teachers smoke.
In all fifty states, it is perfectly legal (and socially acceptable) for a girl to wear a mini-skirt, or a top that shows her stomache. Yet, there are loads of public highschools with dress codes forbidding this.
Don't try to tell me a public institution isn't still an institution. They still have rules, and regulations, and mandates. You can't smoke cigaretes in high school. There's a dress-code for some universities. And in this particular institution, it's far from acceptable for students to have strip-teases in their dorm.
If they don't like that, the students are more than welcome to find themselves an alternative university to attend.
At 1/15/06 08:35 PM, LordXanthus wrote:At 1/15/06 04:23 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote: The students don't have a choice, or a leg to stand on. They checked their rights at the door, when they entered institution property. They knew the rules, before deciding to come to that school.Alright. I live in an apartment. Does the property management company have a right to limit my activity in the apartment, beyond that which is specified by State law?
They sure as fuck do. Some apartment buildings don't allow smoking. If you're caught smoking cigaretes, it's a violation of your lease. As long as you're aware of such rules and regulations at the time of the contract signing, or the lease signing, your apartment management company can set any rule or regulation they want.
And if a rule that you did not approve of was presented...why, you could just find another place to live.
And what's more, there was nothing in the university's code addressing this issue. Do they have the right to alter their rules, and then to punish a student for actions committed before the new rules were enacted?
They surely do. They have a margin to define 'unappropriate behavior'...like any other institution of society.
At 1/15/06 05:37 PM, Dranigus wrote: The government's job is to insure the wellbeing of the community.
And that 'well-being' does not include someone else's money.
Sorry.
You are allowing the well being of rich people over the poor.
Incorrect. The rich are simply procuring their own well-being, with their money.
If you are unable to live your neighbors life, it doesn't mean your neighbor should be forced to give you what is his. That's your problem.
By the way no one needs to have more than a million dolors at all.
lol. You're an idiot.
It's 'dollars', by the way.
And since there are so many people with billions of unnecessary money, they could just give most of it away to the poor or to the government to insure better care for the community.
Oh, sure. A mass redistribution of wealth. Sounds like a great idea to me.
Call me after the riots, but before the nationwide strike.
Humans are corrupt and evil so this would be a bad idea over all, because no one wants to give up a billion or so dolors that is unneccesary for their survival. But they should, nonetheless.
Says you. People who actually work hard to make their money would disagree with you.
I don't understand why people have to be so god darn idiotic and prideful to not want to help out others, especially those that are less fortunate.
It's called 'capitilism'. You know...the reason you work. The 'American Dream'.
At 1/15/06 04:20 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: If 13 year olds are mature enough to make that decision, than 18 year old college chicks are mature enough to decide on that issue.
It has nothing to do with their level of maturity. The institution they reside in has, for whatever reason, decided they're not going to accept things like this.
The students don't have a choice, or a leg to stand on. They checked their rights at the door, when they entered institution property. They knew the rules, before deciding to come to that school.
At 1/14/06 08:45 PM, JoS wrote: My question is what role should a university take in the life of its students living on campus?
An institution like a university is expected to present a certain level or order, cleanliness, and lawfulness. Some universities don't allow students to have students of the opposite sex in their dorms, after hours. Some universities let of-age students drink, while others will expel a student for the first offense.
An institution, like a university, presents it's rules and regulations long before the student's first day at the school. All who pay tuition are well aware of what's expected of them, and what will not be tolerated.
My opinion? Maybe if college students spent as much time studying and learning as they did drinking and fucking, America wouldn't have the dumbest students in the world.
At 1/14/06 11:44 PM, JoS wrote: However, it occured in their dorm rooms, which students rent from the university, so it is essentially, in the eyes of the school and the law, the same as an apartment.
I don't think that's correct. A dorm, even when it's being paid for by the student, is still institution property. The property still belongs to the school, and you're still subject to the rules and regulations. In fact, many colleges establish a special set of rules regarding dorms, and their usage.
At 1/15/06 12:13 PM, fenrus1989 wrote: Why does it seem that your whole existance is on bashing america, or Christianity, or Republicans.
You gotta get used to that type of person. Just let the things they say roll right off your back. Better yet, develop a sense of humor that finds the things they say hilarious.
''OMG AMERICA IS FAILING!''
Hilarious.
At 1/10/06 02:24 PM, WolvenBear wrote:At 1/10/06 02:08 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote:Jesus, you're a dick.You guys are so fucking lucky NG doesn't let me perma-ban people.
Good call.
I think this whole topic is abhorrant. We're talking about (again) classifying a group of people as unworthy to live because of sexual orientation. Murder is murder, whether the child was gonna be black or white, gay or straight, Muslim or Hindu, whatever. Once we say "Hell, I don't want a gay kid, kill it", we're going into Nazi eugenics, and that never turns out well for anyone.
Do parents not have a right to choose their children? I mean, that's the core of this issue. If I want a child with blue eyes, should I be allowed to terminate any other eye-color of baby?
If (under American law), a fetus isn't a life and a minor doesn't have rights....what legal precedant would prevent people from doing this, assuming the technology exists?
At 1/10/06 04:43 PM, fli wrote:At 1/10/06 01:52 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote: He asked your opinion about an 'abortion to prevent homosexuals'. You did not give an opinion on that, but rather chose to say 'If people want to do that, fine by me''.I support abortion. Or rather, I support a parent's choice of abortion. Personally, I wouldn't abort if there was any other way. (Is that what you want to hear?)
There was nothing I 'wanted to hear'. I simply wanted you to elaborate a little more.
I believe you just want to scold me. I suspect you read my post because you know my stances on these issues, and that you want to wag your finger at me if I said I don't support gay abortions even though I'm gay and an abortion proponent.
As I said, I was simply pushing to find out more of your opinion on the matter. And you obliged me fully. It is appreciated.
At 1/10/06 09:52 PM, Tal-con wrote:At 1/10/06 01:52 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote: I chose. And yes, I woke up one day and said 'I think I'll give the pole a try'.Did you really? I'm sure there were more factors to it than "Well, I feel like doing this".
There weren't any other factors. It started as a lark that I ended up enjoying...much like drugs, and drinking.
You could be right, but I fell that there are so many factors that could've affected you subconciously that it might be hard to tell what the final straw to your choice was.
I honestly don't think so. I don't have 'repressed issues' like that. Nor have I ever.
I grew up in a stable household (emotionally and psychologically), I come from a nuclear family. I was never abused, mistreated, or neglected.
The only problem my family ever wrestled with was poverty. And when you can prove poverty leads to homosexuality, I'll suck your dick.
At 1/14/06 03:05 PM, Proteas wrote: I'm not worried about Alito not being confirmed. I'm actually enjoying this whole show the dems have been putting on this week... it's like watching an episode of the Simpsons where Mr. Burns attempts to give someone a "good thrashing."
My opinion is the same as yours. It's hilarious to watch the democrats run with this, in the way that they are. It's just a bunch of frenzied, long-winded moaning and groaning...and it's only going to end with Alito being confirmed.
And then, in 2008, long after he's confirmed...the republican party is going to use all of this as fodder against the left.
I fucking love it.
I mean, does nobody else here see the blatant irony in Ted Kennedy trying to give Samuel Alito a lecture on morals?
Oh, c'mon. Leaving a girl in your car to slowly suffocate (while you shower, drink coffee, and call lawyers), in a five hour period, isn't near as immoral as disagreeing with abortion. Not even close, bub.
At 1/12/06 04:02 AM, Ravariel wrote: Can there be a fundamental absolute morality?
I believe so, yes.
Things like 'rape is always morally reprehensible' is a pretty good place to start.
Or 'unprovoked, cold-blooded murder is wrong, 100% of the time'.
Or 'torture is always wrong'.
Does the fact that a rapist doesn't believe what he did was wrong make him correct?
No. What you said is an argument many nihilists love to use.
They argue that 'rape is wrong' is not a real absolute moral, simply because the rapist thinks it's alright.
Here's a question I want those people to answer: If a child molester rapes and kills a little girl, and he feels it's completely morally acceptable...was his act 'right', or 'wrong'? No bullshit dodges, or attempts to avoid the question...I want an either or answer. Is it moral, or immoral, to rape and kill little girls (assuming the rapist thinks it's right)?
Is the absolute morality, if it exists, comprehensive or basic?
It would be comprehensive.
For example, one cannot say 'the taking of a life is always wrong'...because we all know that some cases call for murder. Such a statement is too broad.
State executions, war, abortion, and removing the elderly from life support are all justified reasons to take a life.
Thus, it becomes 'the unprovoked, cold-blooded murder of a human being' that is the 'absolute moral'.
Meaning, are the only things that we can say for certain are moral absolutes, very basic principles, or can there be moral absolutes for every action?
I'd go for the first. Some things can be right and wrong (like stealing from a jeweler, compared to stealing to feed your family). Some things, however, are always either moral, or immoral.
Giving money to a charity that legitimately helps the needy is always moral (IMO), while rape is always immoral.
To me...these are very basic principles of right and wrong. Not everything is 'right or wrong'. Some are both. Some things, and acts, however, are covered in that 'absolute morality' business.
And finally, how do we figure out what these absolutes are?
I feel they are common sense. No one should have to be told that rape is always wrong. No one should have to be told that spouse abuse is always wrong. We shouldn't need to preach about how evil premeditated, unprovoked murder is.
We should already fucking know. People disagree with these very obvious moral absolutes simply to meet their own agenda.
For example, a politician who was caught stealing may try to justify his particular method of theft. A rapist may justify, in his own mind, the morality of rape. Someone who carried out a premeditated murder might console themselves by saying the victim 'deserved it'. People guilty of bigotry justify their prejudice by convincing themselves that the target of their hate is 'inferior'.
The morals never change. Racism never becomes a moral thing, and rape is never right. The only thing that changes is what people say about such things.
Slavery was just as immoral a hundred years ago as it is today, regardless of what the majority of the population thought. It doesn't matter what people's opinions about morals are. If a man says slavery is acceptable, does that change the common sense logic that enslaving another person and forcing labor is immoral?
At 1/14/06 01:47 PM, mofomojo wrote: What a dumbass, what part about wanting to force an entire cliched culture on a race isn't racist?
What part about Richard Pryer making light of the differences between whites and blacks not racism?
How is David Chapelle not a racist? He says 'nigga', makes jokes about hating black people, and mocks the 'white stereotype'?
Grow up. If you can't find the lighter side of racism, that's your problem.
Richard Pryer's material is funny. So is Dave Chapelle's. So is Mencia's. So is this guy's.
Shows like South Park, and Mr.Show, and a dozen other television shows make light of ethnicity. And yet, I bet Mofo loves some South Park. I bet he thought Team America was funny as fuck.
At 1/14/06 02:14 PM, mofomojo wrote: As soon as the guy said "White people acting like Black people", that sorta summed up illwill's entire opinion, right?
"I heard him say the phrase 'whites acting like blacks', and I immediately summed up his entire opinion.''
Definitely the way to go.
At 1/14/06 12:14 PM, Dranigus wrote: It's completely natural, well for women that is.
I already think you're an idiot.
I'm sure, however, that you will dissuade these assumptuous notions with your wit, whim, and logic.
We know there shouldn't be gender equality, and though I don't fear or hate gay people, I must respectfully say that it isn't a truely natural aspect, regardless of what someone has told you.
No homosexuality is, by definition, 'natural'. It is not something that benefits biology.
In nature, homosexuality is inefficient. It serves no purpose. Animals are not 'gay', because animals are not sentient. They have 'gay animal sex' out of confusion, or instinct. Hormones. Animals in the wild will not seek out the same sex, because their instincts gear them towards reproduction.
Humans are not geared towards reproduction. Actually, it'd be more correct to say 'the matter of sex, in modern culture, is not geared towards reproduction'. Sex, for a large majority of the time, is used for pleasure. This is proved by the large-scale, wide-spread sale of a variaty of birth control measures. The fact that sex, in our culture, is not geared towards reproduction is, by defintion, unnatural as fuck.
And there's the point. Having sex, for pleasure (while preventing pregnancy) is unnatural. It is, by comparison to every other species of animal on this planet, abnormal. So you calling an aspect of a cultural insitituion (like sex) 'unnatural' is redundant, and unneccesary..
Of course it's fucking unnatural. So what?
It comes about due to things that occur in society and personal experiences of some kind that torment a young boy into being what he is as an adult.
I faced no such torment. I, quite literally, decided to try out bisexuality one day, and see how I liked it.
Bisexuality is a bit different with women, they are suppose to be bisexual. Denying their bisexual nature is more of a sin than probably killing in a potential self defence case.
''Gay men are unnatural and nasty, but LESBIANS ROCK.''
It's good to know what kind of mindset I'm up against.
Just understand that men and women are very different, our natural sexuality is opposite of one another. And the female body is the most attractive figure of sexuality for both men and women on a natural case.
HAHAHA.
Twice, with the 'LESBIANS ROCK'?
