Barihawk Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 I would imagine that if such a situation occured, they would already know about abortion. They would be talking to me as a friend or acquaintance, not in a professional capacity. Of course I would be frank with them. It doesn't really matter if the issue is abortion or not, any act which you deem to be immoral you have said you wouldn't force onto people. Why wouldn't you force it onto someone? Is it a requirement to be a Conservative Fundamentalist Christian who votes Republican to force their beliefs onto everyone? No, I'm asking why you won't force your beliefs onto everyone. Because not everyone is Barihawk. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 You believe the meaning of force is passing knowledge from conversations and any lack of knowledge is "forcing" someone to hear your belief. However, this is wrong definition of force and impossible because everyone believes something. Therefor, by your understanding, no one could ever talk due to "Forcing" someone's belief on the other. Real Force is having the hearer having no choice in the matter. However, they always have a choice. Information passing from 1 mouth to the other is not forcing. For example, if I was to tell someone about christianity, you may come up and say i'm forcing my belief on them, because what if they don't want to hear about christianity? Is this forcing? It is not. Because that person can just say "stop, I do not wish to hear" or do the most simplest thing "get up and walk away". I have no control or forcing them to listen. If they do not wish to listen, then it is up to them to bring it up in the conversation. Therefor, the only force in passing information is one to be stubborn to hear something they do not wish to hear and then claiming they was forced to hear it. Thats quite arrogant and foolish. ~Defender~ If you are talking to a person and hold back another option to them, and only present them with the option you beleive in knowing full well that there are others that is forcing that onto someone. Whether they accept that opinion or walk away is not the point. They are still influencing their decision and not giving them any other options than that. The example of abortion, if someone came to me and i told them the only option was to have an abortion I would be forcing that onto them. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender2516 Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 You believe the meaning of force is passing knowledge from conversations and any lack of knowledge is "forcing" someone to hear your belief. However, this is wrong definition of force and impossible because everyone believes something. Therefor, by your understanding, no one could ever talk due to "Forcing" someone's belief on the other. Real Force is having the hearer having no choice in the matter. However, they always have a choice. Information passing from 1 mouth to the other is not forcing. For example, if I was to tell someone about christianity, you may come up and say i'm forcing my belief on them, because what if they don't want to hear about christianity? Is this forcing? It is not. Because that person can just say "stop, I do not wish to hear" or do the most simplest thing "get up and walk away". I have no control or forcing them to listen. If they do not wish to listen, then it is up to them to bring it up in the conversation. Therefor, the only force in passing information is one to be stubborn to hear something they do not wish to hear and then claiming they was forced to hear it. Thats quite arrogant and foolish. ~Defender~ If you are talking to a person and hold back another option to them, and only present them with the option you beleive in knowing full well that there are others that is forcing that onto someone. Whether they accept that opinion or walk away is not the point. They are still influencing their decision and not giving them any other options than that. The example of abortion, if someone came to me and i told them the only option was to have an abortion I would be forcing that onto them. Incorrect, because they can say no to abortion. They do not have to accept it. When they have to accept it, without choice, that is forcing. When you do not give someone other information you have, its called holding back information, no one ever says he's forcing information. ~Defender~ If you love me, send me a PM. 8 - Love me2 - Hate me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Because not everyone is Barihawk. Damn right not eveyone is Barihawk because everyone is individual, and therefore you respect individual decisions be it against your opinion or not. You're not going to force anything onto anyone, and are allowing them to choose for themsleves. That is liberty. I don't like the idea of people engaging in bondage but who I am to tell them not to engage in that action? I'm only one person with one opinion, and i can respect theirs. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Incorrect, because they can say no to abortion. They do not have to accept it. When they have to accept it, without choice, that is forcing. When you do not give someone other information you have, its called holding back information, no one ever says he's forcing information. ~Defender~ What did we just define? Force: power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power: the force of circumstances; a force for law and order. Not power to absolutley make them do something. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender2516 Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Incorrect, because they can say no to abortion. They do not have to accept it. When they have to accept it, without choice, that is forcing. When you do not give someone other information you have, its called holding back information, no one ever says he's forcing information. ~Defender~ What did we just define? Force: power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power: the force of circumstances; a force for law and order. Not power to absolutley make them do something. There is no control, only communication. Now your probably looking at, "Power to influence". Therefor, inless Barihawk has a tounge to convince and constantly pressure one to take this action, he's not forcing anything on anyone, only passing knowledge. Passing and withholding knowledge has no definement of force in it. Only which is pressuring to control or being controlled in decisions. ~Defender~ If you love me, send me a PM. 8 - Love me2 - Hate me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 If someone came to Bari as a person they could trust then they would expect him to help them make a decision. A concious effort to hold back the idea of an abortion, and of infomation about abortion clinics is influencing that persons decision. Whether they reject that influence or not is beside the point, he is still attempting to influence them to his personal way of thinking. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman089 Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 I like when threads become a refererdum on the definition of a single word. for no reason =\ Gamertag: King Arizona Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 If someone came to Bari as a person they could trust then they would expect him to help them make a decision. A concious effort to hold back the idea of an abortion, and of infomation about abortion clinics is influencing that persons decision. Whether they reject that influence or not is beside the point, he is still attempting to influence them to his personal way of thinking. My opinions are well known, however. People who trust me know my stance, and therefore know that I am not going to offer something that offends me. And generally, the people I trust (and know to trust me) generally agree with me on things like abortion. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Thats beside the point on a hypothetical situation. However you have two confliction views. You have said that "Not everyone is Barihawk" implying that not evertone should follow your version of morality and that everyone is individual. However you also said that you wouldn't provide any infomation on abortion clinics outside of work because it contests with your own opinion. You said you disliked giving people abortion clinic infomation, but it was part of your job. Now you say that not everyone is the same, so if someone away from your job came to you asking advice you should give them all the options because you accept that your choice of whats moral and what is not, isn't the same for everyone because not everyone is you. So, which is it? Would you give them all the opinions and options because "Not everyone is Barihawk" OR Would you give them only your opinion and conciously hold back any abortion infomation because it goes against your personal beleifs, which is attempting to make them do what you want them to do? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender2516 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Thats beside the point on a hypothetical situation. However you have two confliction views. You have said that "Not everyone is Barihawk" implying that not evertone should follow your version of morality and that everyone is individual. However you also said that you wouldn't provide any infomation on abortion clinics outside of work because it contests with your own opinion. You said you disliked giving people abortion clinic infomation, but it was part of your job. Now you say that not everyone is the same, so if someone away from your job came to you asking advice you should give them all the options because you accept that your choice of whats moral and what is not, isn't the same for everyone because not everyone is you. So, which is it? Would you give them all the opinions and options because "Not everyone is Barihawk" OR Would you give them only your opinion and conciously hold back any abortion infomation because it goes against your personal beleifs, which is attempting to make them do what you want them to do? This is where you are wrong. When someone comes ask you for help, you can give them infinite of options. If you came and asked me for help, do you want me to say.. Well Satenza.. one of your options is jumping off a cliff and ending it. I personally wouldn't suggest it.. or go get hit by a car, that sounds like a nicer death for you. The reason why you are wrong, because obviously, reguardless what information of lies or truths is past to a individual, they make the ulimate decision in the matter. When people ask you for help, they are asking not for a list of options they have, but what direction you think they should live their lives. By giving them a list of options without a preference choice of your counselor, you still have not helped them, but left them in the dark on what direction to go. They are asking for the Right Directions of life, not the wrong directions. Killing your baby only leads to guilt and is murder no matter how you slice the orange. You believe everyone's personal opinion is a neutrel zone. There is no right or wrong because its just a belief of theirs. Which is incorrect, their IS a right way of living and there IS a wrong way of living. Maybe you would suggest people to go smoke and get drunk as a option for their future careers? Its definatly a option! Obviously your sitting here trying to decieve Barihawk by attempting to influence him to believe he is in the wrong for forcing his opinions on others, when clearly he is not, you are. Therefor you have a moral. Your moral is that everyone's opinions is neutruel, and should not be forced on others. Yet here you are, claiming all should have open options freely while forcing on us that this is the way life should be. You are as plain as clear glass in what your trying to do. Let me ask you a question, if a friend of mine came up to me and wanted to have a abortion, and I gave her 2 options. 1. Keep the baby. 2. It isn't worth it, kill yourself. And she did the second, who's fault is it? ~Defender~ If you love me, send me a PM. 8 - Love me2 - Hate me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warren211 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Umm... I'm rooting for Obama. Reasons: First African American candidate Democrat (ftw!) ILLINOIS SENATOR BABY!!!!!! Up here in Il, this is a big deal. I'm hopin to see Obama win it all. [hide=]tip it would pay me $500.00 to keep my clothes ON :( :lol:But then again, you fail to realize that 101% of the people in this universe hate you. Yes, humankind's hatred against you goes beyond mathematical possibilities.That tears it. I'm starting an animal rebellion using my mind powers. Those PETA bastards will never see it coming until the porcupines are half way up their asses.[/hide]Apparently a lot of people say it. I own. http://linkagg.com/ Not my site, but a simple, budding site that links often unheard-of websites that are amazing for usefulness and fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 This is where you are wrong. When someone comes ask you for help, you can give them infinite of options. If you came and asked me for help, do you want me to say.. Well Satenza.. one of your options is jumping off a cliff and ending it. I personally wouldn't suggest it.. or go get hit by a car, that sounds like a nicer death for you. Telling me to end my life is completley different because it's an illegal act, i'm not talking about illegal acts im talking about immoral acts. The reason why you are wrong, because obviously, reguardless what information of lies or truths is past to a individual, they make the ulimate decision in the matter. Of course they do, what does this have to do whith what I have said? When people ask you for help, they are asking not for a list of options they have, but what direction you think they should live their lives. By giving them a list of options without a preference choice of your counselor, you still have not helped them, but left them in the dark on what direction to go. If you read the example of liberty I gave you, you would clearly see that is not the case. If Barihawk had given the person coming to him all the options he knew of, he could still reason and advise him as to which is best. It's the concious holding back of infomation because he thinks that it is wrong which is wrong. They are asking for the Right Directions of life, not the wrong directions. Killing your baby only leads to guilt and is murder no matter how you slice the orange. Yes, they are. People come to people for advise and help, as I said above that doesn't mean they can't advise them it means they shouldn't hold back options because they want them to do one particular thing for the reason that you beleive it to be the moral decision. You believe everyone's personal opinion is a neutrel zone. There is no right or wrong because its just a belief of theirs. Which is incorrect, their IS a right way of living and there IS a wrong way of living. Thats opinion in itself, your "right way of living" would be doing what you conceive to be moral acts, and not doing what you conceive to be immoral acts. Maybe you would suggest people to go smoke and get drunk as a option for their future careers? Its definatly a option! Thats not a career, I fail to see your point. Obviously your sitting here trying to decieve Barihawk by attempting to influence him to believe he is in the wrong for forcing his opinions on others, when clearly he is not, you are. Bari has already said that he understands why he should not force his belief on others because "not everyone is Barihawk". Therefor you have a moral. Your moral is that everyone's opinions is neutruel, and should not be forced on others. Yet here you are, claiming all should have open options freely while forcing on us that this is the way life should be. Im not forcing anything onto you, you may live anyway you wish. If you think it's fine to force one personas idea of morality onto someone then you get people like Hitler, and Stalin. Let me ask you a question, if a friend of mine came up to me and wanted to have a abortion, and I gave her 2 options. 1. Keep the baby. 2. It isn't worth it, kill yourself. And she did the second, who's fault is it? It's partly your fault for conciously holding back the idea of her having an abortion because it went against your own personal morality. Plus you are encouraging an immoral act aswell. So i doubt you personally would say that. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parabola Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Which is incorrect, their IS a right way of living and there IS a wrong way of living. I'm sure those in Saudi Arabia who sentence rape victims to corporal punishment with a whip think theirs is the right way of living too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Which is incorrect, their IS a right way of living and there IS a wrong way of living. I'm sure those in Saudi Arabia who sentence rape victims to corporal punishment with a whip think theirs is the right way of living too. Exactly, holding the opinion that it's ok to force morality over everyone means that Hitler was alright to do what he did. I think what he really means is "Its ok to force my morality over everyone". With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4737_Carlin Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 err there is such a thing as absolute morality - its provided by god and written down in the bible so we can all easily follow it :roll: :roll: thats y were right and their wrong. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientific observations whose influence has been a detriment to society and true scientific advancement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 And like all his posts, Carlin makes complete and total sense for half a sentence, and then blows it. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitramosma Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Which is incorrect, their IS a right way of living and there IS a wrong way of living. I'm sure those in Saudi Arabia who sentence rape victims to corporal punishment with a whip think theirs is the right way of living too. If you look at the works of any philosopher worth half a [cabbage] you will see that almost all of them point to an objective good. Socrates and Plato even calls it "the good." If you look at is reasonable, almost all cultures over time have established very very similar morals and values, because there is an objective "good" or right as we would commonly refer to it today. If there is no objective moral standard, then there must either be a subjective moral standard or no moral standard at all. We can rule out no moral standard at all because humans have an inherent sense that some things are wrong(killing, rape, etc.). But a subjective moral standard implies that it can change and that which can change is not a standard at all. The only option left is that there is an objective "good" or right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1_man_army Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 err there is such a thing as absolute morality - its provided by god and written down in the bible so we can all easily follow it :roll: :roll: thats y were right and their wrong. Each person defines their own morality. While certain cultures & religions propose a certain morality everyone won't automatically go along with that morality (even members of that specific group. Thats why there is constant discussion & debate over what is legal, as what is immoral to one person isnt immoral to another person. Just look at the attrocities that are commited in the name of religion. He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubsa Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 And like all his posts, Carlin makes complete and total sense for half a sentence, and then blows it. Finally, something we can all agree on! :P This is how much you all raised for charity. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 err there is such a thing as absolute morality - its provided by god and written down in the bible so we can all easily follow it :roll: :roll: thats y were right and their wrong. Your Bible advocates slavery, rape, murder and genocide. You ignore all those "moral lessons" because they are quite obviously immoral. Even fundementalist christians take an interpretation of what is meant and what is not meant. It's ridiculous to assume even you have discovered the complete rules of absolute morality by your own standards. Also, the opinion of "we are right, you are wrong" is the problem with why people like myself oppose any absolute right and wrong defined from a religion because your attitude does more harm than good. Both to yourself, and to humanity as a whole. At least Barihawk can see why we should respect individuality, people like you however only recite what people have indoctrinated you to beleive, you have no methodology as to why you beleive in certain things. Maybe someday you will learn that your God may have created humanity and therefore everyone differently for a reason. Individuality leads to progress, discovering truth and hapiness. The only thing you are concerned with is getting the rest of the world to follow your life experiments of doing only what you beleive to be moral and not doing what you conceive to be immoral acts. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralinre Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 However you have two confliction views. You have said that "Not everyone is Barihawk" implying that not evertone should follow your version of morality and that everyone is individual. However you also said that you wouldn't provide any infomation on abortion clinics outside of work because it contests with your own opinion. You said you disliked giving people abortion clinic infomation, but it was part of your job. Now you say that not everyone is the same, so if someone away from your job came to you asking advice you should give them all the options because you accept that your choice of whats moral and what is not, isn't the same for everyone because not everyone is you. So, which is it? Would you give them all the opinions and options because "Not everyone is Barihawk" OR Would you give them only your opinion and conciously hold back any abortion infomation because it goes against your personal beleifs, which is attempting to make them do what you want them to do? Satenza, allow me for a moment to assume your absolute moral belief, the Mills Harm Principle. An action is only bad if it harms another person, correct? Now, if a friend comes to me pregnant and asking for advice, am I forcing my opinion on her by not telling her about abortion because of my religious objections to it? Is it wrong that I am "taking away her liberty" like that? (Nevermind that she can just as easily find out about abortion from any other source, so I'm not really forcing anything on her, merely stating my opinion.) I believe that abortion is harmful. It is obviously harmful to the foetus, which it kills, and I believe it has harmful psychological effects on the mother. Wouldn't it be wrong for me to knowingly give a person information that would lead to her harm? According to your Mills Harm Principle, the right thing for me to do is to avoid harm to the woman and the foetus by not talking about abortion. As an aside, it seems that you want to take away Barihawk's liberty. Why should he not have the right to express only the views with which he agrees? Why should he have to offer options with which he disagrees and believes are harmful? Let him have the liberty to say what he wants to say. "In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures. In so far as I am a man I am the chief of sinners." - G.K. Chesterton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 However you have two confliction views. You have said that "Not everyone is Barihawk" implying that not evertone should follow your version of morality and that everyone is individual. However you also said that you wouldn't provide any infomation on abortion clinics outside of work because it contests with your own opinion. You said you disliked giving people abortion clinic infomation, but it was part of your job. Now you say that not everyone is the same, so if someone away from your job came to you asking advice you should give them all the options because you accept that your choice of whats moral and what is not, isn't the same for everyone because not everyone is you. So, which is it? Would you give them all the opinions and options because "Not everyone is Barihawk" OR Would you give them only your opinion and conciously hold back any abortion infomation because it goes against your personal beleifs, which is attempting to make them do what you want them to do? Satenza, allow me for a moment to assume your absolute moral belief, the Mills Harm Principle. An action is only bad if it harms another person, correct? Now, if a friend comes to me pregnant and asking for advice, am I forcing my opinion on her by not telling her about abortion because of my religious objections to it? Is it wrong that I am "taking away her liberty" like that? (Nevermind that she can just as easily find out about abortion from any other source, so I'm not really forcing anything on her, merely stating my opinion.) I believe that abortion is harmful. It is obviously harmful to the foetus, which it kills, and I believe it has harmful psychological effects on the mother. Wouldn't it be wrong for me to knowingly give a person information that would lead to her harm? According to your Mills Harm Principle, the right thing for me to do is to avoid harm to the woman and the foetus by not talking about abortion. Abortion is a tricky one, and when i refer to it, i mean in principle of it being regarded by some as an immoral act and not illegal. I don't know too much about it being harmful to the baby, because i don't know exactly what it can feel and other factors which make it wrong in the view of some people. As an aside, it seems that you want to take away Barihawk's liberty. Why should he not have the right to express only the views with which he agrees? Why should he have to offer options with which he disagrees and believes are harmful? Let him have the liberty to say what he wants to say. He can say what he wan't to say, i would also expect him though to say that there are other ways of dealing with situations. Expressing only one side of the case, is not helpful for the sole reason that he beleives it to be right. Conciously holding back another side of the argument because he does not beleive it to be true, even if that side could be helpful to them is effectlvley saying "Do it my way" instead of giving pro's and con's from each side of the case. Even the church advocates this form of questioning to find the right answer. Mills harm principle is not an absolute moral belief, it has nothing to do with morality only with protecting citizens from harm. It also doesn't mean that an action is only bad if it harms, because bad is subjective. It just means that because i don't like what that persons doing i don't have a right to impose on their lifestyle and stop that action. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4737_Carlin Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 lets face it theres only one way to find out whats right and whats wrong and thats to get the answers from god. thats why we have the bible and the commandments. u can make up whatever morals u like, but in the end they are just the ones that suit you and they dont say anything about what actually is wrong and right. they are just made up and mean nothing. we need god to tell us whats right and wrong its as simple as that. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientific observations whose influence has been a detriment to society and true scientific advancement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 lets face it theres only one way to find out whats right and whats wrong and thats to get the answers from god. thats why we have the bible and the commandments. u can make up whatever morals u like, but in the end they are just the ones that suit you and they dont say anything about what actually is wrong and right. they are just made up and mean nothing. we need god to tell us whats right and wrong its as simple as that. For people who don't beleive in your God those commandments and the Bible are "just made up and mean nothing". Again, even if the Bible was true, it advocates r@pe, sacrifice, murder, genocide and many other acts you deem to be immoral. You don't follow the Bible's meanings word for word. You interpret the Bible to suit yourself, and your own way of life. How can an falliable being interpret a divine, infalliable being's words 100% correctly. You can't, so don't even pretend that by your standards you are completley correct. Do I need God to tell me murder is wrong? No. Does God muder people? Yes. Do i need God to tell me R@pe is wrong? No Does God advocate r@pe? Yes. Do I need God to tell me sacrificing people is wrong? No. Does God sacrifice people? Yes. Do I need God to tell me genocide is wrong? No. Does God commit genocide? Yes. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now