Locke Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I'm not saying justification can't be questioned. I am saying degree's of justifcation is a lot more essential to beleiving something than just saying this is how we live, why do we live like that is the question. That's subjective. If right and wrong is subjective, justification is pointless. No matter how you justify, you are assuming one thing is better, or more right than something else. That is a contradiction of your belief that right and wrong is subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Everything can be questioned by people, making everything subjective. Some things have more justification and relevance than others. 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...
Locke Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Everything can be questioned by people, making everything subjective. Some things have more justification and relevance than others. Questioning doesn't make it subjective. I'm drinking orange juice right now. Questioning that does not change the fact that I am indeed drinking orange juice. Let me explain this again: Justification only works if there is an absolute good, which you don't believe in. I can justify killing someone is "murder" is considered good. If murder is considered bad, I can't justify it. Justifying anything assume an absolute good, which you don't believe in. By asking for justification, you are contradicting your own beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 So one mans idea that racial minorities are not as superior as white people because he finds them ugly has the same amount of justification as me saying racial minorities are equal to us because we are all human beings and skin color is the only differance between us is as justified as the other mans idea on the reason that my justification can be questioned just as much as his? 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...
Locke Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 So one mans idea that racial minorities are not as superior as white people because he finds them ugly has the same amount of justification as me saying racial minorities are equal to us because we are all human beings and skin color is the only differance between us is as justified as the other mans idea on the reason that my justification can be questioned just as much as his? Of course it can, under your belief. You believe that right and wrong is subjective, therefore everyone's opinions on right and wrong are equally valid. Justification is entirely dependent on right and wrong and therefore it's entirely subjective. YOU are the one who doesn't believe in an absolute right, so YOU are the one giving validation to someone's belief that whites are supreme over minorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 You can't prove them wrong. I mean, obviously we do it over and over, but they never listen. They never say "Oh..I understand now..", they just keep on truckin' with their stupidity. They fear God and fear that if they don't do something for "the cause" that God will be pissed at them. It's just BS. They'll go as far as to deny people equal rights just for a ticket to Heaven, but they fail to see that condeming = ticket to Hell. Have fun there, homophobes. I'll chill with all those "weird gay guys" in Heaven. ...That is of course if I even believed that crap. You claim I am a religious zealot but yet I haven't made any connection with god or religion. Incest has negative effects on society: True. Homosexuality doesn't have negative effects on society: False. - "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, [obsessive-compulsive] cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices." - "Women who have intercourse with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women." My argument is that you can't condemn incests without condemning homosexuality. Almost everyone agrees incest is wrong, for genetic reasons, almost everyone also agrees its for moral reasons. If YOU believe incest is morally wrong come up with a moral argument against it (proving incest is immoral) without condemning rapists. Personally I think its impossible so prove me wrong by condemning incest but not homosexuality. You seem to not understand that Homosexuality and Incest have NO CONNECTION (Nothing at all!) to eachother, except via the Bible, who says they're both wrong. And please, as if it's any question you're a zealot or not. You've posted your hateful bigotry on the forums before in the name of the Christian faith, and you always get owned and run away to your Bible to thump it to secure yourself. I don't have to make an argument for Incest being wrong or right. It has nothing to do with homosexuality except via the Bible. Are you saying that because Incest is unnatural and homosexuality is unnatural, that they're both the same thing, or what? That seems to be the case. Well guess what? They're not. Incest has very valid reasons for being illegal. Mainly because most of it has to do with child molestation, rape, and abuse in general. You can't marry inside your family because you can't have kids inside your family. If you do, the child will be at risk for deformaties. Homosexuals having sex and being married has none of these risks. Homosexuals are at higher risk for disease for only one reason, which you failed to mention: A lot of them don't use protection. It isn't like these diseases randomly only occur in the back-door of gay men and hibernate there. YOU are just as much at risk as they are if you're foolish enough to not be careful. These are not just "gay diseases", they're human diseases. You really shouldn't be using Incest as an argument, by the way. Your sacred Bible says thats how we all got here. Furthermore, if you're going to talk about deformaties caused by it, you should again really not even address is, because how are you going to prove that we're all products of Adam and Eve, yet have no deformaties? Yea, thought so! The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Tigra, the only connection I'm making between incest and homosexuality is that they are both morally wrong. If only one of them were morally wrong you would be able to say its morally wrong while not contradicting yourself. The reason why you aren't capable of not contradicting yourself is because the atheistic worldview (there is no God) cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self contradictory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 That doesn't change the fact if you beleive what the bible says there had to be incest to get us to where we are now. So what is it? Drop what the bible says about Adam and Eve? Or drop your views that it is morally wrong because the Bible says so? 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...
Guest XplsvBam Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 That doesn't change the fact if you beleive what the bible says there had to be incest to get us to where we are now. So what is it? Drop what the bible says about Adam and Eve? Or drop your views that it is morally wrong because the Bible says so? The bible speaks of sexual immorality. It doesn't say don't have sex with your sibling it says don't be sexually immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 So it doesn;t actually say incest is wrong, and it has incest in the bible so we are created yet you're assuming that means it's saying it's sexually immoral? 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...
Fuzimatt Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 they need to chill out on some laws back when my dad was a kid if soemone picked on you you beat him up nowdays if you beat him up hes the victim this espcially happnes at schools which is why shootings happen if the local bullys got beat up no more problem but so over protective parents make the gov make these laws to "protect" there kids assult and all these other laws should apply if you attack for no reason or you seriiously injure them not like if u give them a bruise liek now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 So it doesn;t actually say incest is wrong, and it has incest in the bible so we are created yet you're assuming that means it's saying it's sexually immoral? I have very little respect for those who bounce away from tough debates and onto easier and brainless ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 So it doesn;t actually say incest is wrong, and it has incest in the bible so we are created yet you're assuming that means it's saying it's sexually immoral? Irrelevant. I'm not using the bible to prove incest is immoral, it was tigra who stated that. Incest is morally wrong because the majority of the people accept it as morally wrong. I agree Locke, brainless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 The majority of people thought black people where second class citizens, they where morally right? 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...
Guest XplsvBam Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 The majority of people thought black people where second class citizens, they where morally right? Prove my point with a side of fries. Thanks. Just because it is morally accepted doesn't mean it is right. Just because something is accepted to be immoral doesn't mean it is wrong. In the first case something that is morally accepted (homosexuality) can still be wrong. And in the second case something that is accepted as immoral (incest) doesn't mean it is can't be right. If you are going to argue against incest and say it is immoral it is impossible to say homosexuality is moral because the atheistic worldview (there is no God) cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self contradictory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Your justification as to why it was morally wrong is because most people beleive it is morally wrong. Most people beleived black people to be second class citizens, so by your justification they where morally right. 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...
Nadril Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 The majority of people thought black people where second class citizens, they where morally right? Prove my point with a side of fries. Thanks. Just because it is morally accepted doesn't mean it is right. Just because something is accepted to be immoral doesn't mean it is wrong. In the first case something that is morally accepted (homosexuality) can still be wrong. And in the second case something that is accepted as immoral (incest) doesn't mean it is can't be right. If you are going to argue against incest and say it is immoral it is impossible to say homosexuality is moral because the atheistic worldview (there is no God) cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self contradictory. So you are pretty much saying that you can just disreguard anything and babble on based off of what you think? You aren't going to get anywhere with that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 The majority of people thought black people where second class citizens, they where morally right? Prove my point with a side of fries. Thanks. Just because it is morally accepted doesn't mean it is right. Just because something is accepted to be immoral doesn't mean it is wrong. In the first case something that is morally accepted (homosexuality) can still be wrong. And in the second case something that is accepted as immoral (incest) doesn't mean it is can't be right. If you are going to argue against incest and say it is immoral it is impossible to say homosexuality is moral because the atheistic worldview (there is no God) cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self contradictory. So you are pretty much saying that you can just disreguard anything and babble on based off of what you think? You aren't going to get anywhere with that argument. Not really. If not everyone believed incest is wrong then I would be basing what I'm saying off of what I think. But since everyone thinks incest is wrong I'm basing it off of what everyone thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swordwindtrtrtrt Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I find incest to be morally wrong and disturbing, but as far as I'm concerned, even though I think it's wrong, people can do whatever they want. As long as it's not harming anyone (you know it being consensual and everything). And if they wanna do a family member, that's fine with me just as long as they don't try to get me involved. The only argument that I can really think of against incest is that it is dangerous in the fact that (and correct me if I'm wrong) babies born out of incest have an extremely high chance of fatal birth defects. And even if they aren't fatal, they are birth defects nonetheless. Here some may say that the child being born unhealthy is nature's punishment for incest. I like to think that, yes, it is natural, but the government is against it because of what can happen to conceived children because of it. Again, correct me if I'm wrong about the birth defects. Incest is wrong by nature, Darwin did alot of research on it. He found out all living things do the best they can to avoid inbreeding since it leads to defects, not passing on genes and infertility. So incest is both technically and morally wrong. Your right, but did you know that Darwin was married to his cousin? lol GF TIF. 9 November 2006 - 22 January 2008, when I could no longer stand the painted turd that is the Tip.It community. Only posting in rants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 So one person sets the standards for a moral issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 The majority of people thought black people where second class citizens, they where morally right? Prove my point with a side of fries. Thanks. Just because it is morally accepted doesn't mean it is right. Just because something is accepted to be immoral doesn't mean it is wrong. In the first case something that is morally accepted (homosexuality) can still be wrong. And in the second case something that is accepted as immoral (incest) doesn't mean it is can't be right. If you are going to argue against incest and say it is immoral it is impossible to say homosexuality is moral because the atheistic worldview (there is no God) cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self contradictory. Yes, we all suck and you and your beliefs rule. Congratulations. I don't need a religion to have a consistent moral system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralinre Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Santenza, you're forgetting that you don't believe in a moral right; only subjective opinion. So what is your logical basis for arguing here? "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 February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Because just because it's subjective doesn't mean i cant disagree with the fact people use religion to justify their ideas. Or in the case what the majority think which is again something i don't fully beleive gives enough justification. 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...
Guest XplsvBam Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Because just because it's subjective doesn't mean i cant disagree with the fact people use religion to justify their ideas. Or in the case what the majority think which is again something i don't fully beleive gives enough justification. Then what justifies morals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralinre Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Because just because it's subjective doesn't mean i cant disagree with the fact people use religion to justify their ideas. Or in the case what the majority think which is again something i don't fully beleive gives enough justification. If you believe morality is subjective, why does anyone need to justify their morals? "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...
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