VA senate pushes through ultrasound/personhood bill (abortion related, slightly rapey)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

Seekster:

Google is your friend. You arent my professor and I don't come on here to be quizzed by you. If you are going to persist in challenging my knowledge of a subject I may decide to challenge your knowledge of the subject.

Our entire debate is based around those two subjects. By answering the questions we could clarify our disagreements.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:

Google is your friend. You arent my professor and I don't come on here to be quizzed by you. If you are going to persist in challenging my knowledge of a subject I may decide to challenge your knowledge of the subject.

Our entire debate is based around those two subjects. By answering the questions we could clarify our disagreements.

Our debate ended a few pages back (I assume you mean our debate on abortion). We are too far apart to even understand our disagreements much less clarify them. I will be happy to debate the subject with you again someday but unless you want to restart the debate we are done here.

In any case I will be out of town Friday and Saturday and will be unable to respond. The 24th is my Birthday and I aim to enjoy it.

Seekster:

Our debate ended a few pages back (I assume you mean our debate on abortion). We are too far apart to even understand our disagreements much less clarify them. I will be happy to debate the subject with you again someday but unless you want to restart the debate we are done here.

In any case I will be out of town Friday and Saturday and will be unable to respond. The 24th is my Birthday and I aim to enjoy it.

To me at least, it seems like you have a distorted view of both moral absolutism and secular ethics. Seeing what you define both of those concepts as could help me understand why you believe what you believe.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:

Our debate ended a few pages back (I assume you mean our debate on abortion). We are too far apart to even understand our disagreements much less clarify them. I will be happy to debate the subject with you again someday but unless you want to restart the debate we are done here.

In any case I will be out of town Friday and Saturday and will be unable to respond. The 24th is my Birthday and I aim to enjoy it.

To me at least, it seems like you have a distorted view of both moral absolutism and secular ethics. Seeing what you define both of those concepts as could help me understand why you believe what you believe.

I believe you have a distorted view of morality and ethics but I prefer to attack arguments not people so I kept that to myself until just now.

As for the two terms I assume you want my views on them since simply defining them isnt going to give you much insight into why I believe the way I do.

Moral Absolutism is the view that something that is right is always right and something that is wrong is always wrong. Its a black and white view of things and works great in a perfect world. Trouble is we don't live in a perfect world so Moral Absolutism doesnt really work well in our world though its a great ideal to aim for. I understand Shinto religion holds this view on matters of life (as in ALL life) at least to some degree.

Secular Ethics or Secular Morality or Secular Humanism is an attempt to create an overtly man-made moral code that in some ways is similar to most religious or purportedly divine moral codes (thou shalt not steal, kill, lie, etc) but differs greatly in many regards. One of the greatest differences and indeed one of the greatest problems with secular morality is that its malleable and changeable at the whim of society. It is as the Biblical story says "a house built on sand" it has no strong foundation and its survival depends on its adaptability (which is poetic in a way given that the same is true of our species) but its legitimacy is damaged by its adaptability as well. In short secular morality or secular ethics is inconsistent over time and makes no apologies for this. So ingrained in society is this idea of adaptability that it leads us to the idea that if something can be justified than it is not immoral which is a backwards way of forming a system of morality. Nevertheless I exist as part of society so I share the same tainted viewpoint brought about by secular morality (as does the Church, particularly the Catholic Church for that matter).

Seekster:
I believe you have a distorted view of morality and ethics but I prefer to attack arguments not people so I kept that to myself until just now.

It could be much easier for me to understand your point of view if I actually knew what you defined those two ethical principles as.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
I believe you have a distorted view of morality and ethics but I prefer to attack arguments not people so I kept that to myself until just now.

It could be much easier for me to understand your point of view if I actually knew what you defined those two ethical principles as.

Yes I thought of that and decided you had a point, I edited my last post.

Seekster:
Moral Absolutism is the view that something that is right is always right and something that is wrong is always wrong.

Correct.

Seekster:
Secular Ethics or Secular Morality or Secular Humanism is an attempt to create an overtly man-made moral code that in some ways is similar to most religious or purportedly divine moral codes (thou shalt not steal, kill, lie, etc) but differs greatly in many regards

The most basic definition is that it's a code of ethics not derived from supernatural guidance. It's essentially a response to theistic morality.

Seekster:
One of the greatest differences and indeed one of the greatest problems with secular morality is that its malleable and changeable at the whim of society.

Our morality is always changing. We have never had a consistent set of moral guidelines throughout history.

Seekster:
It is as the Biblical story says "a house built on sand" it has no strong foundation

What do you define as being a "strong foundation"?

Seekster:
In short secular morality or secular ethics is inconsistent over time and makes no apologies for this.

Why do you consider that a bad thing?

Seekster:
So ingrained in society is this idea of adaptability that it leads us to the idea that if something can be justified than it is not immoral

I've already pointed out the logical contradictions with saying that something can remain immoral even if it can be justified.

Seekster:
which is a backwards way of forming a system of morality.

Why?

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Moral Absolutism is the view that something that is right is always right and something that is wrong is always wrong.

Correct.

Seekster:
Secular Ethics or Secular Morality or Secular Humanism is an attempt to create an overtly man-made moral code that in some ways is similar to most religious or purportedly divine moral codes (thou shalt not steal, kill, lie, etc) but differs greatly in many regards

The most basic definition is that it's a code of ethics not derived from supernatural guidance. It's essentially a response to theistic morality.

Seekster:
One of the greatest differences and indeed one of the greatest problems with secular morality is that its malleable and changeable at the whim of society.

Our morality is always changing. We have never had a consistent set of moral guidelines throughout history.

Seekster:
It is as the Biblical story says "a house built on sand" it has no strong foundation

What do you define as being a "strong foundation"?

Seekster:
In short secular morality or secular ethics is inconsistent over time and makes no apologies for this.

Why do you consider that a bad thing?

Seekster:
So ingrained in society is this idea of adaptability that it leads us to the idea that if something can be justified than it is not immoral

I've already pointed out the logical contradictions with saying that something can remain immoral even if it can be justified.

Seekster:
which is a backwards way of forming a system of morality.

Why?

I would argue that a good system of morality should be universal and should not need to change to fit the times but should fit the times no matter what changes. I believe that while most things in life can be seen in a gray area I believe that right and wrong do exist.

"What do you define as being a "strong foundation"?"

You point to a consistent belief or set of beliefs (dogma for lack of a better word) and base all subsequent beliefs around those central consistent beliefs. Christian dogma has remain largely unchanged for over a thousand years (for a summary of what is Christian dogma, the Nicene Creed nails down most of it).

My main criticism of Secular Humanism is that it has no consistent agreed upon foundation for its system of ethics or morality.

"Why do you consider that a bad thing?"

Because inconsistency leads to unreliability and unreliability leads to instability and something that is unstable can easily collapse.

"I've already pointed out the logical contradictions with saying that something can remain immoral even if it can be justified."

Yes I know which is essentially my point. A sound system of morality asks what is immoral and says that cannot be justified. Secular Humanist Morality asks what can be justified and says that what can be justified is not immoral. Since Secular Humanism is inconsistent then what can be justified by Secular Humanism changes over time. Since its basically unheard of for Secular Humanism to find something justifiable and later be unable to justify it then logically you eventually arrive at a point when anything can be justified by Secular Humanism and then then morality itself starts to lose its reason for existing. This is if things are allowed to happen in a vacuum over time you understand, Secular Humanism will collapse due to its shaky foundation long before that happens.

Seekster:
I would argue that a good system of morality should be universal and should not need to change to fit the times but should fit the times no matter what changes. I believe that while most things in life can be seen in a gray area I believe that right and wrong do exist.

That's moral absolutism and there are glaring flaws with it. Besides, such a system would only work if ordained by the supernatural and I'm assuming you're not here to make the claim that we cannot have morality without God.

Seekster:
Because inconsistency leads to unreliability and unreliability leads to instability and something that is unstable can easily collapse.

What inconsistencies?

Seekster:
Secular Humanist Morality asks what can be justified and says that what can be justified is not immoral.

Wrong. Secular humanism asserts that certain actions can be both moral and immoral depending on the context in which they happen.

Seekster:
Since its basically unheard of for Secular Humanism to find something justifiable and later be unable to justify it then logically you eventually arrive at a point when anything can be justified by Secular Humanism and then then morality itself starts to lose its reason for existing.

How would you logically arrive at a point where morality stops existing under secular humanism? Please clarify.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
I would argue that a good system of morality should be universal and should not need to change to fit the times but should fit the times no matter what changes. I believe that while most things in life can be seen in a gray area I believe that right and wrong do exist.

That's moral absolutism and there are glaring flaws with it. Besides, such a system would only work if ordained by the supernatural and I'm assuming you're not here to make the claim that we cannot have morality without God.

Seekster:
Because inconsistency leads to unreliability and unreliability leads to instability and something that is unstable can easily collapse.

What inconsistencies?

Seekster:
Secular Humanist Morality asks what can be justified and says that what can be justified is not immoral.

Wrong. Secular humanism asserts that certain actions can be both moral and immoral depending on the context in which they happen.

Seekster:
Since its basically unheard of for Secular Humanism to find something justifiable and later be unable to justify it then logically you eventually arrive at a point when anything can be justified by Secular Humanism and then then morality itself starts to lose its reason for existing.

How would you logically arrive at a point where morality stops existing under secular humanism? Please clarify.

We can have morality without God but an imperfect race cannot devise a perfect system of morality and would not do so because it would be incapable of living up to that system. That is why we have secular Humanism which is essentially lowering the bar to meet an imperfect system of morality.

In short, humanity is incapable of perfection (nor do we fully comprehend what perfection means, to us perfection seems like a contradiction...ie make a rock you cannot lift etc.)

"What inconsistencies?"

Under secular Humanism what is immoral today may be moral tomorrow (strangely the reverse is rarely true).

"Wrong. Secular humanism asserts that certain actions can be both moral and immoral depending on the context in which they happen."

Then you contradicted yourself because you have repeatedly said that if something can be justified it isnt immoral.

"How would you logically arrive at a point where morality stops existing under secular humanism? Please clarify."

This is all hypothetical first of all since I believe secular Humanism would collapse long before it reaches this point but I will lay it out anyway.

Secular Humanism is adaptable and malleable and what is moral or immoral depends largely on the way society views things. Although there are a few aberrations the general trend of society is to become more and more permissive over time. Since Secular Humanism depends largely on societal views it stands to reason that Secular Humanism will likewise see things that were once considered immoral as moral. At the same time it is rare for something that is moral to later be considered immoral, particularly in modern society.

Now then with all this in mind and if we assume that society as a whole subscribes to Secular Humanism to the exclusion of all other systems of morality then overtime we can reasonably assume that fewer and fewer things will be seen as immoral if society continues on its trend of seeing everything as relative and favors permissiveness and so-called "progressive" ideology (like I said this is all hypothetical). It then becomes only a matter of time until you arrive at a point where almost nothing is seen as immoral. If nothing is seen as immoral then what purpose does morality serve? If morality serves no purpose then over time it will lose its meaning and become an outdated concept.

Seekster:
[I would argue that a good system of morality should be universal and should not need to change to fit the times but should fit the times no matter what changes. I believe that while most things in life can be seen in a gray area I believe that right and wrong do exist.

The problem with creating a strong, unchangable system of morality, without first knowing everything there is to know in the universe, is that one day, When we've learned more about the world, we aren't able to say "oh holy shit, it turns out that this action, prescribed by our rigid moral code, is actually hideously immoral, in context with what we know now!" The moral code trumps whatever we might learn about how the world works.

This is exactly the problem we see with religious moral systems. Our knowledge of the way the world operates has advanced to the point that many of the things that say, the bible, dictates as moral imperatives are now clearly immoral or amoral actions, and many things that the bible condemns as immoral are actually not justifiably condemned.

Knowing what we now know, (about 2000 years worth of knowledge than we had at the time of writing) we have two options, we can alter our system of morality to better fit with our reasoned understanding of the nature of the world, or we can continue to adhere to an obviously out of date system of morality that may require us to do things that contradict our contextual understanding of right and wrong for no reason other than "this is what the bible says".

You say that you think a good system of morality should be universal and should not need to change to fit the times but should fit the times no matter what changes. And you're right. Secular morality is building that universal system right now. But until we know everything there is to know, we're not going to be able to complete the picture. So the best we can do is continue to develop our moral understanding, and adapt the system by which we judge morality to conform to our understanding of the nature of existence as best we can. Yes, that means we'll make mistakes, and yes that means that something we regard as (im)moral today may be revealed to be the opposite in future. But adhering to an authoritarian bronze-age moral code that we can clearly show the moral failure of in several ways just keep dragging us further and further away from a unified theory of ethics.

Seekster:
We can have morality without God but an imperfect race cannot devise a perfect system of morality and would not do so because it would be incapable of living up to that system. That is why we have secular Humanism which is essentially lowering the bar to meet an imperfect system of morality.

If an imperfect race cannot devise a perfect system of morality then your sistem of morals is also tantamous to lowering the bar.

Seekster:
Under secular Humanism what is immoral today may be moral tomorrow (strangely the reverse is rarely true.

Wrong. Secular humanism is about context. What actions under secular humanism were previously immoral but are currently moral?

Seekster:
Then you contradicted yourself because you have repeatedly said that if something can be justified it isnt immoral.

My argument was always based on context and dealt specifically with absolutes.

Seekster:
Secular Humanism is adaptable and malleable and what is moral or immoral depends largely on the way society views things

Wrong again. Secular humanism is about context.

Seekster:
Although there are a few aberrations the general trend of society is to become more and more permissive over time.

Prove it.

Seekster:
Since Secular Humanism depends largely on societal views it stands to reason that Secular Humanism will likewise see things that were once considered immoral as moral. At the same time it is rare for something that is moral to later be considered immoral, particularly in modern society.

Prove it.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
[I would argue that a good system of morality should be universal and should not need to change to fit the times but should fit the times no matter what changes. I believe that while most things in life can be seen in a gray area I believe that right and wrong do exist.

The problem with creating a strong, unchangable system of morality, without first knowing everything there is to know in the universe, is that one day, When we've learned more about the world, we aren't able to say "oh holy shit, it turns out that this action, prescribed by our rigid moral code, is actually hideously immoral, in context with what we know now!" The moral code trumps whatever we might learn about how the world works.

This is exactly the problem we see with religious moral systems. Our knowledge of the way the world operates has advanced to the point that many of the things that say, the bible, dictates as moral imperatives are now clearly immoral or amoral actions, and many things that the bible condemns as immoral are actually not justifiably condemned.

Knowing what we now know, (about 2000 years worth of knowledge than we had at the time of writing) we have two options, we can alter our system of morality to better fit with our reasoned understanding of the nature of the world, or we can continue to adhere to an obviously out of date system of morality that may require us to do things that contradict our contextual understanding of right and wrong for no reason other than "this is what the bible says".

You say that you think a good system of morality should be universal and should not need to change to fit the times but should fit the times no matter what changes. And you're right. Secular morality is building that universal system right now. But until we know everything there is to know, we're not going to be able to complete the picture. So the best we can do is continue to develop our moral understanding, and adapt the system by which we judge morality to conform to our understanding of the nature of existence as best we can. Yes, that means we'll make mistakes, and yes that means that something we regard as (im)moral today may be revealed to be the opposite in future. But adhering to an authoritarian bronze-age moral code that we can clearly show the moral failure of in several ways just keep dragging us further and further away from a unified theory of ethics.

That is why you only have a few select principles as dogma, principles that could not conceivably be changed no matter what changes in society. Even that isnt a perfect system but it works far better and is far more consistent than Secular Humanism can be.

With respect Spot, I want to try having a one on one discussion with Percy this time. This is a matter that requires my full attention and I'd rather not try and hold multiple debates on the same topic with multiple people in this case. Usually I can manage that and do so out of necessity but in this case I want to make this a largely one on one discussion between Percy and myself.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
We can have morality without God but an imperfect race cannot devise a perfect system of morality and would not do so because it would be incapable of living up to that system. That is why we have secular Humanism which is essentially lowering the bar to meet an imperfect system of morality.

If an imperfect race cannot devise a perfect system of morality then your sistem of morals is also tantamous to lowering the bar.

Seekster:
Under secular Humanism what is immoral today may be moral tomorrow (strangely the reverse is rarely true.

Wrong. Secular humanism is about context. What actions under secular humanism were previously immoral but are currently moral?

Seekster:
Then you contradicted yourself because you have repeatedly said that if something can be justified it isnt immoral.

My argument was always based on context and dealt specifically with absolutes.

Seekster:
Secular Humanism is adaptable and malleable and what is moral or immoral depends largely on the way society views things

Wrong again. Secular humanism is about context.

Seekster:
Although there are a few aberrations the general trend of society is to become more and more permissive over time.

Prove it.

Seekster:
Since Secular Humanism depends largely on societal views it stands to reason that Secular Humanism will likewise see things that were once considered immoral as moral. At the same time it is rare for something that is moral to later be considered immoral, particularly in modern society.

Prove it.

God invented man and man invented religion so yes logically religion and by extension religious morality must also be imperfect. As I told Spot though religious morality tends to be more consistent because its founded on principles. Then there is divine morality which is perfect but even if we could say for sure which religion if any follows the One True God then how could we say for sure that the originally perfect system of morality that God gave us has not since been corrupted by us?

"Wrong. Secular humanism is about context. What actions under secular humanism were previously immoral but are currently moral?"

Secular humanism is about moral relativity, context is of little relevance in the long-run.

Drug use, divorce, casual sex, infidelity is also becoming more and more socially acceptable. Can you think of anything that was once considered moral but it now considered immoral under secular Humanism? I can but only a handful.

"My argument was always based on context and dealt specifically with absolutes."

Then you misunderstood my argument but lets not get back into that again, it didnt take us anywhere last time and it would be insane to think it would do any different again.

"Prove it."

I'm sorry you dispute that society is becoming more permissive? If you don't then I shouldnt need to prove it if we are both in agreement.

Seekster:
That is why you only have a few select principles as dogma, principles that could not conceivably be changed no matter what changes in society. Even that isnt a perfect system but it works far better and is far more consistent than Secular Humanism can be.

With respect Spot, I want to try having a one on one discussion with Percy this time. This is a matter that requires my full attention and I'd rather not try and hold multiple debates on the same topic with multiple people in this case. Usually I can manage that and do so out of necessity but in this case I want to make this a largely one on one discussion between Percy and myself.

I think your response is problematic at best.

That siad, I will step back and let you continue with percy.

just wanted to make it explicit that you are rejecting, based on a flawed understanding of how secular moral reasoning works, the system that is most likely to one day produce something resembling the universal theory of mrality you profess to desire.

Seekster:
God invented man and man invented religion so yes logically religion and by extension religious morality must also be imperfect. As I told Spot though religious morality tends to be more consistent because its founded on principles.

You treat consistency as if its some sort of end all be all to morality when in fact this is simply not the case. Objective moral standards simply do not work. You need only look at homosexuality to see why. When objective morality fails to adapt it only serves to hurt society as a whole. The thing is, objective morality isn't objective at all. It adapts, albeit more slowly, which is why it ends up causing more harm than good.

Seekster:
Secular humanism is about moral relativity, context is of little relevance in the long-run.

Context is the basis of secular ethics. There are moral relativists who also believe in secular ethics but that's not universal.

Seekster:
Drug use, divorce, casual sex, infidelity is also becoming more and more socially acceptable. Can you think of anything that was once considered moral but it now considered immoral under secular Humanism? I can but only a handful.

Right, I'll address each point separately.

1. Drug use is actually less socially acceptable now than it was in the past. Look at cigarettes for example.

2. Infidelity is much more socially unacceptable now than it was in the past. As a historian you should know this. Married men frequently took mistresses and marriage was essentially a means to an end wheras now it's treated more like the final step in a loving relationship.

3. I refuse to believe that you, as a rational human being, can consider divorce immoral. I'm not even going to bother addressing this one.

4. Casual sex has more or less always been socially acceptable. See number 2.

Things that were previously acceptable but aren't now? Infidelity, drug use, murder, promiscuity, child abuse and pedophilia.

If you have any other examples I'll address them as well by the way.

Seekster:
I'm sorry you dispute that society is becoming more permissive? If you don't then I shouldnt need to prove it if we are both in agreement.

Yes, I am. I'd like you to provide me with examples of society becoming more permissive.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
God invented man and man invented religion so yes logically religion and by extension religious morality must also be imperfect. As I told Spot though religious morality tends to be more consistent because its founded on principles.

You treat consistency as if its some sort of end all be all to morality when in fact this is simply not the case. Objective moral standards simply do not work. You need only look at homosexuality to see why. When objective morality fails to adapt it only serves to hurt society as a whole. The thing is, objective morality isn't objective at all. It adapts, albeit more slowly, which is why it ends up causing more harm than good.

Seekster:
Secular humanism is about moral relativity, context is of little relevance in the long-run.

Context is the basis of secular ethics. There are moral relativists who also believe in secular ethics but that's not universal.

Seekster:
Drug use, divorce, casual sex, infidelity is also becoming more and more socially acceptable. Can you think of anything that was once considered moral but it now considered immoral under secular Humanism? I can but only a handful.

Right, I'll address each point separately.

1. Drug use is actually less socially acceptable now than it was in the past. Look at cigarettes for example.

2. Infidelity is much more socially unacceptable now than it was in the past. As a historian you should know this. Married men frequently took mistresses and marriage was essentially a means to an end wheras now it's treated more like the final step in a loving relationship.

3. I refuse to believe that you, as a rational human being, can consider divorce immoral. I'm not even going to bother addressing this one.

4. Casual sex has more or less always been socially acceptable. See number 2.

Things that were previously acceptable but aren't now? Infidelity, drug use, murder, promiscuity, child abuse and pedophilia.

If you have any other examples I'll address them as well by the way.

Seekster:
I'm sorry you dispute that society is becoming more permissive? If you don't then I shouldnt need to prove it if we are both in agreement.

Yes, I am. I'd like you to provide me with examples of society becoming more permissive.

What on Earth is wrong with consistency? Its a sign of how far gone our society is that you would even see consistency as a negative quality here. Do not mistake this for me proposing inflexibility though. I believe that a good system of morality (even if it is still imperfect) should be built around a few core consistent principles and then use this as a foundation for answering moral questions.

What is the foundation for Secular Humanist Morality?

"Context is the basis of secular ethics. There are moral relativists who also believe in secular ethics but that's not universal."

We may come back to that later.

"1. Drug use is actually less socially acceptable now than it was in the past. Look at cigarettes for example."

Yes Cigarettes are an interesting case and one of the few exceptions to the general rule that few things go from being moral to immoral under Secular morality. However as for drug use in general...pot.

"2. Infidelity is much more socially unacceptable now than it was in the past. As a historian you should know this. Married men frequently took mistresses and marriage was essentially a means to an end wheras now it's treated more like the final step in a loving relationship."

In the past it was looked down upon even to intimately associate with a single member of the opposite sex when you were married. Today the feeling among secular humanists is more "meh as long as they are both ok with it". One example that comes to mind of how much things have changed, the wife of Andrew Jackson was attacked, even viciously (all verbal attacks mind you) because she started courting Jackson while still in a marriage. In fact it used to be that fidelity was taken so seriously that when someone's spouse died they refused to remarry (their spouse being their only true love).

"3. I refuse to believe that you, as a rational human being, can consider divorce immoral. I'm not even going to bother addressing this one."

Well to clarify divorce would not be really necessary if people took marriage seriously and understood that its not the "happily ever after" ending that movies and books make it out to be. Marriage keeps going after the wedding, its almost like society fails to understand this. Divorce in the case of abuse or exploitation is another matter but getting married, having kids, and then deciding you dont want to play house anymore is immoral yes. Its immoral because it doesnt just effect you but your spouse and your kids if you have any. One reason I am a supporter of giving civil unions equal legal rights to marriage is to encourage heterosexual couples to enter into a civil union first and as a sort of trial before marriage if they decide to go into a marriage later on. I understand this practice with heterosexuals is already popular to some degree in France.

"4. Casual sex has more or less always been socially acceptable. See number 2."

And like number 2 you seem to be confusing "it happened" with "it was socially acceptable". A sexual engagement with someone you were not married with used to be a hush hush thing you did in secret and even today there is still a degree of social awkwardness in talking openly about sexual encounters as a stigma still exists (especially in the case of women) for those who engage sexually with multiple partners in a relatively short span of time).

In short I reject your rebuttal on all four counts for reasons explained for each above.

"Infidelity, drug use, murder, promiscuity, child abuse and pedophilia."

For infidelity see my response to #2 (it sounds dirty when I say that).

For drug use, yes in some cases like with smoking but in other cases I point to the "legalize it" argument.

Murder has never been socially acceptable or considered moral. At best murder cries out for a consistent definition.

Sexual Promiscuity to me means essentially the same thing as casual sex which I responded to with #4 (that one doesnt sound as dirty).

Aye Child Abuse and I would add spousal abuse to that. Both exceptions to the general rule I laid out earlier about it being rare for secular morality to consider something immoral which used to be moral...actually not so much moral as overlooked or tolerated in most cultures.

As for pedophilia, the jury is still out. Yes now its seen as immoral and I am fairly certain it always has been seen as immoral but already you see some groups forming to argue that a true pedophile would never hurt a child. Maybe I am just being cynical but give it about a hundred years at most and pedophiles may be considered an oppressed group.

"Yes, I am. I'd like you to provide me with examples of society becoming more permissive."

...not sure if your serious but very well:

When Gone With the Wind came out it was a huge deal when the character of Rhett Butler said the word "damn" near the end of the movie. Now nobody hardly bats an eye.

No I'm not some puritan thinking all women need to be in long skirts but seriously have you seen some of the things girls as young as 10 are wearing now?

Not everything about being more permissive is bad you understand, its good that now things like interracial marriage are not seen as immoral but still that is evidence even you can accept of society becoming more permissive.

Seekster:
What on Earth is wrong with consistency? Its a sign of how far gone our society is that you would even see consistency as a negative quality here. Do not mistake this for me proposing inflexibility though. I believe that a good system of morality (even if it is still imperfect) should be built around a few core consistent principles and then use this as a foundation for answering moral questions.

Is it just me or are conservatives outright terrified of change?

Seekster:
What is the foundation for Secular Humanist Morality?

Context.

Seekster:
Yes Cigarettes are an interesting case and one of the few exceptions to the general rule that few things go from being moral to immoral under Secular morality. However as for drug use in general...pot.

Alcohol is actually suffering the same effects, albeit they're less noticeable because no one is trying to ban alcohol. Also, who said it's immoral to smoke? It's all about context. Is it wrong to smoke near a pregnant woman? Yes, it is. Is it wrong to smoke in your own home? No, it's not.

Seekster:
In the past it was looked down upon even to intimately associate with a single member of the opposite sex when you were married. Today the feeling among secular humanists is more "meh as long as they are both ok with it".

Actually, that was only in Victorian England. Victorians also believed any unattended woman was a prostitute so take that as you will.

Also, where do you get these outright deluded ideas? That's no what secular humanists say at all. Please refrain from stereotyping an entire group of people.

Seekster:
One example that comes to mind of how much things have changed, the wife of Andrew Jackson was attacked, even viciously (all verbal attacks mind you) because she started courting Jackson while still in a marriage. In fact it used to be that fidelity was taken so seriously that when someone's spouse died they refused to remarry (their spouse being their only true love).

Infidelity is still looked down upon today and the whole romantic idea that people refused to remarry after the death of their spouse is just that, a romantic idealisation. Do some people do that? Yes, of course. There's seven billion people on this planet, someone is bound to be heartbroken for years on end if their spouse dies. Is taking up another wife or girlfriend after your spouse dies immoral? Of course not. Human beings have needs. Intimacy, personal and romantic relationships are part of our very being.

Seekster:
Well to clarify divorce would not be really necessary if people took marriage seriously and understood that its not the "happily ever after" ending that movies and books make it out to be.

Who says people don't take marriage seriously? We take marriage now more seriously than we ever have. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that sometimes, fifty percent of the times to be more precise, relationships simply don't work. It's not like people outright divorce as soon as they get into a fight but considering how long and costly divorces can be they're certainly not done on a whim.

Seekster:
Marriage keeps going after the wedding, its almost like society fails to understand this. Divorce in the case of abuse or exploitation is another matter but getting married, having kids, and then deciding you dont want to play house anymore is immoral yes.

You first need to asses the situation before you can declare an action immoral. You don't know why people get divorced so long into marriage so don't make presumptious assumptions about a situation you know nothing about.

Seekster:
Its immoral because it doesnt just effect you but your spouse and your kids if you have any.

Actually, there were studies done on this and it's generally accepted that divorce is the best course of action in regards to the well being of the children if the relationship simply doesn't work. Still, it's all about the situation. You first need to know why the marriage ended in the first place before you can reach the conclusion that what those two people did was immoral.

Seekster:
And like number 2 you seem to be confusing "it happened" with "it was socially acceptable". A sexual engagement with someone you were not married with used to be a hush hush thing you did in secret and even today there is still a degree of social awkwardness in talking openly about sexual encounters as a stigma still exists (especially in the case of women) for those who engage sexually with multiple partners in a relatively short span of time).

It was socially acceptable. Everyone did it from the lowly peasants to the mightiest of lords. It was extremely common to have a mistress.

Seekster:
In short I reject your rebuttal on all four counts for reasons explained for each above.

And I reject yours.

Seekster:
For drug use, yes in some cases like with smoking but in other cases I point to the "legalize it" argument.

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, why would it work for other drugs? Besides, after fifty years it should be quite obvious that the only way to combat drugs is to legalize them.

Seekster:
Murder has never been socially acceptable or considered moral. At best murder cries out for a consistent definition.

It was treated much more lightly a thousand years ago than it is now.

Seekster:
Aye Child Abuse and I would add spousal abuse to that. Both exceptions to the general rule I laid out earlier about it being rare for secular morality to consider something immoral which used to be moral...actually not so much moral as overlooked or tolerated in most cultures.

It wasn't just tolerated, it was encouraged.

Seekster:
As for pedophilia, the jury is still out. Yes now its seen as immoral and I am fairly certain it always has been seen as immoral but already you see some groups forming to argue that a true pedophile would never hurt a child. Maybe I am just being cynical but give it about a hundred years at most and pedophiles may be considered an oppressed group.

You mean NAMBLA? You do realize they don't exist anymore do you? Also, pedophilia was not always considered immoral. Ancient Greece says hello.

Seekster:
When Gone With the Wind came out it was a huge deal when the character of Rhett Butler said the word "damn" near the end of the movie. Now nobody hardly bats an eye.

The only thing that changed was the words we now consider offensive. Instead of damn we have fuck. Instead of poppycock we have dick. Nothing has changed.

Seekster:
No I'm not some puritan thinking all women need to be in long skirts but seriously have you seen some of the things girls as young as 10 are wearing now?

image

Seekster:
Not everything about being more permissive is bad you understand, its good that now things like interracial marriage are not seen as immoral but still that is evidence even you can accept of society becoming more permissive.

We're not becoming more permissive. We're trading one thing for another, just like we've done for ages. That's not to say we aren't becoming more progressive but that's different.

Well, it's obvious that SOME sorts of morality have been shot to hell. War profiteers, scabs, and crooked bankers can walk the streets with impunity.

This seems amusing, and relevant to the original topic:

Bymidew:

F4LL3N:

Of course pregnancy and childbirth has it's complications, I stated that in my last post... I have no problem with government interference in somebody's private medical decisions when an unborn baby is involved.

So you, OF COURSE, support welfare, subsidized day care, free healthcare for mother and child, and other things that will insure that the child will HAVE a life above and beyond being a PUNISHMENT for that filthy slut mother that's hauling it around as penitence for her sins?

OF COURSE NOT. That would be Socialism. Which, unlike wasting money on guilt-tripping pregnant women, is Bad and Tyranny.

People like you make me much gladder than I should need to be that I'm male.

It's not wise to make assumptions. It shows me that you have no real counter argument against what I am saying, so you put words into my mouth to make yourself think you've actually won this debate. You haven't.

I do believe in Socialism. I support welfare, subsidized day care, and free healthcare for both the mother and the child (and EVERYONE else, quite frankly.)

I already live in a country that at the very least has welfare and free healthcare, perhaps even subsidized day care. You're going on the assumption that I'm some Texas religious conservative hill billy, when in fact I'm the exact opposite. I even said in this very thread I am liberal.

Besides, you can look at me like I'm some big bad monster all you want. If believing unborn babies deserve not to be slaughtered makes me a monster, then societies moral values really have gone down the shitter.

Blablahb:

F4LL3N:
I agree. However, I believe women should be educated on the matter. This includes seeing ultrasound images, hearing the baby if possible, and information on development.

Well, since nobody ever has an abortion without knowing about it, it's settled then, and you can agree with the rest of the world that de facto rape with an ultrasound or other concious efforts to traumatise and guilt-trip people who need an abortion into not having one, are unethical and even illegal.

I wasn't aware there were sides in a discussion about abortion though. So far I've only seen the consensus that exists in pretty much all of the world challenged by people who want to force their religion onto others and strip them of any freedom. That they want to change their country to a totalitarian theocracy is a different issue, not related to abortion.

I would stop doing that if I were you. It tells me that I've already won the debate... I've made it extremely clear my belief has nothing to do with religion. I've also made it quite clear my belief is not in place to strip anyone of their freedoms.

My belief isn't totalitarian. I believe everyone has 100% rights to total freedom; so long as what they are doing doesn't effect an innocent person. Abortion effects an innocent person. (Well, I'm also against hardcore drugs as they mess with the mind and their effects eventually become the publics problem.)

Back to the topic at hand. Why don't you want women educated in order to make a valid choice?

F4LL3N:

I do believe in Socialism. I support welfare, subsidized day care, and free healthcare for both the mother and the child (and EVERYONE else, quite frankly.)

I already live in a country that at the very least has welfare and free healthcare, perhaps even subsidized day care. You're going on the assumption that I'm some Texas religious conservative hill billy, when in fact I'm the exact opposite. I even said in this very thread I am liberal.

I stand corrected, and thank you. You officially have a saner position that any American pro-life spokescritter.

You're still wrong if you think this bill is anything other than an attempt by misgynistic Christocrats to bust womens' chops, though.

F4LL3N:
I would stop doing that if I were you. It tells me that I've already won the debate... I've made it extremely clear my belief has nothing to do with religion. I've also made it quite clear my belief is not in place to strip anyone of their freedoms.

Well, tought luck for you then, because your point of view strips people of their freedom, whether or not you like that label. Either change the point of view (a wise choice) or accept you are opposed to people's freedom.

F4LL3N:
My belief isn't totalitarian.

No, you only think half the population should exist as mere slaves that don't even have sovereignty over their own bodies, let alone any other type of freedom.... I'd need to be a spider to roll enough eyes to do justice to how ridiculous it is that you say you want freedom, but deny everybody else their freedom.

So what's it going to be? Do other people outside yourself also have rights, or does nobody have them? You can't go cherrypicking depending on whether or not it benefits you personally.

Bymidew:

F4LL3N:

I do believe in Socialism. I support welfare, subsidized day care, and free healthcare for both the mother and the child (and EVERYONE else, quite frankly.)

I already live in a country that at the very least has welfare and free healthcare, perhaps even subsidized day care. You're going on the assumption that I'm some Texas religious conservative hill billy, when in fact I'm the exact opposite. I even said in this very thread I am liberal.

I stand corrected, and thank you. You officially have a saner position that any American pro-life spokescritter.

You're still wrong if you think this bill is anything other than an attempt by misgynistic Christocrats to bust womens' chops, though.

Actually, I'm not wrong. In fact, I've found evidence that suggests tranvaginal ultrasounds are normally always performed before (and again after) early stage abortions.

In fact, "Vaginal ultrasound was very common before the medical abortion, with 37 (92%) sites reporting that they always performed it. However, an additional 2 (5%) sites did vaginal ultrasound before the procedure only under certain conditions and 1 (3%) site never did. Vaginal ultrasound was always performed after early medical abortion in 35 (87%) sites, performed under certain conditions in 4 (10%) sites, and never performed in 1 (3%) site."

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-rape-myth-debunked-99-do-ultrasounds/

The article is from a Pro-Life website; however, I received that information from one of the sources they provide, which seems reliable...

So truthfully; this bill seems in place to ensure that all abortion providers follow this. A vaginal ultrasound is standard practice to ensure the abortion is done correctly. Therefore, crying "rape" is unjustified as this occurs anyway nearly always. I believe women are actually refused abortion if they do not consent to this.

EDIT: This is obvious; however, those who don't do this aren't actually following standard medical practice. By all sense of logic, those whom aren't doing it are doing something that should be illegal. Hence, the bill.

Blablahb:

F4LL3N:
I would stop doing that if I were you. It tells me that I've already won the debate... I've made it extremely clear my belief has nothing to do with religion. I've also made it quite clear my belief is not in place to strip anyone of their freedoms.

Well, tought luck for you then, because your point of view strips people of their freedom, whether or not you like that label. Either change the point of view (a wise choice) or accept you are opposed to people's freedom.

F4LL3N:
My belief isn't totalitarian.

No, you only think half the population should exist as mere slaves that don't even have sovereignty over their own bodies, let alone any other type of freedom.... I'd need to be a spider to roll enough eyes to do justice to how ridiculous it is that you say you want freedom, but deny everybody else their freedom.

So what's it going to be? Do other people outside yourself also have rights, or does nobody have them? You can't go cherrypicking depending on whether or not it benefits you personally.

No body deserves rights, okay? Women are mere sex objects to me. They are to make sandwiches and produce babies. It is my belief that if a women is not on her back with her legs spread, she is to be on her feet making sandwiches and doing the dishes. The dishes need to be done so there's a place to put the sandwiches.

Rape is okay, because it is the women's fault - she deserves it. The evil rape baby is not to be aborted; it is to be given birth, as it is my belief that women deserved to be punished for cheating on their partners. Correct; rape victims ask for it, therefore they are to be convicted of adultery.

You caught onto me, you truly wise human being.

F4LL3N:

Blablahb:

F4LL3N:
I would stop doing that if I were you. It tells me that I've already won the debate... I've made it extremely clear my belief has nothing to do with religion. I've also made it quite clear my belief is not in place to strip anyone of their freedoms.

Well, tought luck for you then, because your point of view strips people of their freedom, whether or not you like that label. Either change the point of view (a wise choice) or accept you are opposed to people's freedom.

F4LL3N:
My belief isn't totalitarian.

No, you only think half the population should exist as mere slaves that don't even have sovereignty over their own bodies, let alone any other type of freedom.... I'd need to be a spider to roll enough eyes to do justice to how ridiculous it is that you say you want freedom, but deny everybody else their freedom.

So what's it going to be? Do other people outside yourself also have rights, or does nobody have them? You can't go cherrypicking depending on whether or not it benefits you personally.

No body deserves rights, okay? Women are mere sex objects to me. They are to make sandwiches and produce babies. It is my belief that if a women is not on her back with her legs spread, she is to be on her feet making sandwiches and doing the dishes. The dishes need to be done so there's a place to put the sandwiches.

Rape is okay, because it is the women's fault - she deserves it. The evil rape baby is not to be aborted; it is to be given birth, as it is my belief that women deserved to be punished for cheating on their partners. Correct; rape victims ask for it, therefore they are to be convicted of adultery.

You caught onto me, you truly wise human being.

I'm not sure if you'll get banned for your joke, or if I'll get banned for laughing at your joke (it's happened), but I lost it at the section I bolded.

Zekksta:
I'm not sure if you'll get banned for your joke, or if I'll get banned for laughing at your joke (it's happened), but I fucking lost it at the section I bolded. I found that fairly hilarious.

I don't see why I would get banned, or even get a warning. I'm trying to tell the person I'm not religious and I'm not against equal rights. I'm simply against killing unborn babies.

I've said it more than enough times in this thread and my other thread. Yet he/she continues to carry on about it, ignoring what I have to say simply because he/she doesn't want to listen and can't possibly fathom somebody being against killing what they believe to be innocent babies.

Blablahb:
Well, tought luck for you then, because your point of view strips people of their freedom, whether or not you like that label. Either change the point of view (a wise choice) or accept you are opposed to people's freedom.

Just a quick question, my dear friend.

Can I remind you of this sentiment next time you propose banning all guns? Or equate lawful self defense with murder? Because it fits so nicely.

EDIT: In case it wasn't obvious, I'm trying to point out the irony in your statement, as I've made the same point towards you in the past.

Oh and in regards to this bill: I don't know if it can sustain constitutional muster. So this could be a problem. Not that I'm in favor of this law, mind you.

CM156:

Blablahb:
Well, tought luck for you then, because your point of view strips people of their freedom, whether or not you like that label. Either change the point of view (a wise choice) or accept you are opposed to people's freedom.

Just a quick question, my dear friend.

Can I remind you of this sentiment next time you propose banning all guns? Or equate lawful self defense with murder? Because it fits so nicely.

?

So...you're against aborting handguns with fetuses, or using fetuses for home defense, or....?

Bymidew:

CM156:

Blablahb:
Well, tought luck for you then, because your point of view strips people of their freedom, whether or not you like that label. Either change the point of view (a wise choice) or accept you are opposed to people's freedom.

Just a quick question, my dear friend.

Can I remind you of this sentiment next time you propose banning all guns? Or equate lawful self defense with murder? Because it fits so nicely.

?

So...you're against aborting handguns with fetuses, or using fetuses for home defense, or....?

I think fetuses should be given guns and a fighting chance

Actually, I charged him in a debate about gun rights with pretty much the same argument, and he brushed it off. I'm pointing out the irony in his statement. Nothing more, nothing less. Just a joke that only the two of us likely know the context to, and likely one only I find funny.

Bymidew:

CM156:

Blablahb:
Well, tought luck for you then, because your point of view strips people of their freedom, whether or not you like that label. Either change the point of view (a wise choice) or accept you are opposed to people's freedom.

Just a quick question, my dear friend.

Can I remind you of this sentiment next time you propose banning all guns? Or equate lawful self defense with murder? Because it fits so nicely.

?

So...you're against aborting handguns with fetuses, or using fetuses for home defense, or....?

Wait a minute. I just came home from the club; being still half drunk and just 30 minutes ago stopped boogying, I've got to wonder, why didn't you reply to me? You brought some rhetoric up with CM159, but you failed to bring up any argument towards me because everything I've said turns out to be true.

Fair enough. But if everything I've said in this thread has turned out to be true, why did you bother bringing rhetoric up with CM159? Not to be a smartass; but is their any point when I've already proven this bill isn't to legally rape women or oppress women in any way whatsoever.

What you said, no offense, doesn't even make sense. I'm not suggesting you should automatically be against abortion, that is, if you believe in women's rights. But don't bring up random rhetoric that doesn't even make sense. Aborting handguns with fetuses? Come on...

If you truly believe in your cause, do not make such comments. I still respect your opinion, why shouldn't I? You believe women should have a right to their own body. I 99% believe that too. I just believe, even more so, that an unborn baby deserves rights too.

I see you as a fairly sensible person, who just so happens to believe something that I do not think in the slightest makes sense... Sure, women deserve a right to their own body. But so does everybody. It's really a matter of how much you care about the unborn. And I'll tell you what! I care about the unborn just as much as I care about a 1 month old or an 8 year old. As much as I care about women, and every innocent person to be quite honest... I care about babies more so than any fucking thing. Millions are slaughtered without even having a voice to say, "stop, I want to live and experience life like you do!"

So while some people like to get on their high horse and call me a monster; from my perspective, I'm on a much higher horse than they'll ever be. Preventing life because someone thinks it's not that important, is fucking sickening.

Okay, well, I'm starting to get emotional. But seriously; fucksake. If they bothered to look at scientific evidence, morals, philosophy, or even simple logic, they would see they are no different from the clowns who followed Hilters words. Wanting to protect innocent unborn children is not unethical, and assuming I don't neck myself before hand, I will fight this shit right up to my dumb bitch of a prime minister Julia Gillard and beyond. I will also attempt to help all the children of the world who just so happen to be fucked by society. Do you understand how many innocent children have fucking died just in the last 10 minutes? We sit here on our soft compfy chairs talking about video games while millions starve. Truthfully, non of us can claim moral superiority when we're but the 20% who aren't under the world poverty line.

I'm getting emotional because at one stage I assumed abortion would be abolished; but now I'm starting to question how fucked society really is. Maybe I am wrong about the whole subject. After all, I would class most people here as fairly intelligent...

Should I submit myself to a phsyiatric ward?

F4LL3N:

Wait a minute. I just came home from the club; being still half drunk and just 30 minutes ago stopped boogying, I've got to wonder, why didn't you reply to me? You brought some rhetoric up with CM159, but you failed to bring up any argument towards me because everything I've said turns out to be true.

Because you've made it abundantly clear there's no point in trying to reason with you on this topic.

F4LL3N:

If you truly believe in your cause, do not make such comments. I still respect your opinion, why shouldn't I? You believe women should have a right to their own body. I 99% believe that too. I just believe, even more so, that an unborn baby deserves rights too.

So, you think fetus > woman. I think the opposite, so there's really NO ROOM FOR COMPROMISE HERE.

F4LL3N:
And I'll tell you what! I care about the unborn just as much as I care about a 1 month old or an 8 year old.

Well, in that case, get ready to curl up on the floor and weep in horror at the world. Because it is a simple fact of human reproductive biology that somewhere between 20 and 50 percent of the precious little fertilized eggs you so tenderly care about don't even get as far as implanting on Mommy's uterus wall, and DIE HORRIBLY when they're flushed out with the rest of the menstruation.

Holy shit, Discover Magazine says it might be Two-Thirds. By your criteria, that makes the Black Death look like hayfever by comparison.

Now, if you ACTUALLY believe what you SAY you believe, this would be as horrible as finding out that 30% of all mothers absentmindedly leave their 2-month-olds alone with a pack of flesh-eating dingoes for babysitters.

F4LL3N:

Should I submit myself to a phsyiatric ward?

Considering the SOUL-ABLATING HORROR of what I just told you, it might turn out to be a good idea. My apologies for inflicting such trauma on you.

CM156:
Just a quick question, my dear friend.
Can I remind you of this sentiment next time you propose banning all guns? Or equate lawful self defense with murder? Because it fits so nicely.

Being able to decide about your own body, and murdering people with deadly weapons, are two separate things.

Unless of course you meant to say you have a gun inside your body. In that case I, A don't want to know how it got there, B advise you to contact the nearest hospital.

F4LL3N:
No body deserves rights, okay? Women are mere sex objects to me. They are to make sandwiches and produce babies. It is my belief that if a women is not on her back with her legs spread, she is to be on her feet making sandwiches and doing the dishes. The dishes need to be done so there's a place to put the sandwiches.

Rape is okay, because it is the women's fault - she deserves it. The evil rape baby is not to be aborted; it is to be given birth, as it is my belief that women deserved to be punished for cheating on their partners. Correct; rape victims ask for it, therefore they are to be convicted of adultery.

You write that sarcastically, but those things are inherent consequences of wanting to strip everyone of the ability to have an abortion if they need it.

Trying to deny that is throwing a person off a high building, and then denying any involvement with their death.

Blablahb:
Being able to decide about your own body, and murdering people with deadly weapons, are two separate things.

And the fact that you continue to confuse all killing with murder baffles me to no end.

I could just as easily say "Being able to decide how to protect yourself, and murdering your unborn child, are two separate things" were I so inclined. You're really failing to grasp the irony, my dear friend.

Simply trying to explain what I find to be incongruous in your stance. Nothing more, nothing less.

Bymidew:
Because you've made it abundantly clear there's no point in trying to reason with you on this topic.

You say that like I am delusional, despite the fact I disproved any objection towards the bill currently up for discussion. My reasoning must not be as bad as you seem to think it is.

So, you think fetus > woman. I think the opposite...

Fair enough. But do you believe unborn babies are human? If so, are they also a person? Because this article brings up an interesting point.

Bymidew:
Because it is a simple fact of human reproductive biology that somewhere between 20 and 50 percent of the precious little fertilized eggs you so tenderly care about don't even get as far as implanting on Mommy's uterus wall, and DIE HORRIBLY when they're flushed out with the rest of the menstruation.

Holy shit, Discover Magazine says it might be Two-Thirds. By your criteria, that makes the Black Death look like hayfever by comparison.

Now, if you ACTUALLY believe what you SAY you believe, this would be as horrible as finding out that 30% of all mothers absentmindedly leave their 2-month-olds alone with a pack of flesh-eating dingoes for babysitters.

Irrelevant. What you're describing is natural death. My objection to abortion is that it is one person destroying another for reasons unjust (with the exception of the woman's physical health.)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked