Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 59
  1. #1
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Should it be the case...

    Since relative moralists get confused between normative ethics and metaethics, I thought I'd make it easier for them and do away with the term morality that they object to so much.

    Should it be the case that an adult should have sex with and film a 5th grader to be viewed later for entertainment purposes?

    Should it be the case that genocide should be practiced?

    Should it be the case that people should be forced to be converted to a specific belief system?

    Should it be the case that people beat others and steal from them?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should it be the case...

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    Should it be the case that an adult should have sex with and film a 5th grader to be viewed later for entertainment purposes?
    In the United States, that should not be the case.

    Should it be the case that genocide should be practiced?
    No. It is not the case that genocide should be practiced.

    Should it be the case that people should be forced to be converted to a specific belief system?
    No, people should not be converted to a specific belief system UNLESS they are specifically being converted away from a belief system that forces such conversion. i.e. It's acceptable to force a nazi to stop killing Jews, acceptable to force Rawandans to stop killing one another, etc.

    Should it be the case that people beat others and steal from them?
    No. It should not be the case.

    Now that I have answered your question, please answer mine. I only have one:

    How are morals common to two or more groups evidence of absolute morals?

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Here and Now
    Posts
    3,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should it be the case...

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric
    In the United States, that should not be the case.
    *blink* *blink*. Did I read that right? Are you saying it should be the case in other countries that adults have sex with fifth graders and tape it for entertainment purposes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric
    How are morals common to two or more groups evidence of absolute morals?
    I don't think that is the evidence Apok provided. You answered a unanimous "no" to all of the questions, except that sex one (yikes). What about if ALL groups have the same common moral?
    Souls of the animal kingdom: eagle, fox, bottle-nose dolphin, octopus, house cat. Okay, let's jump this jump. -- Rod Kimble

  4. #4
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should it be the case...

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric
    In the United States, that should not be the case.
    Either something should, or it should not "be". And if it is the case that it can only be qualified as a "should not" in the US, it follows that it SHOULD be the case in other countries.

    Therefore, the following IS a true statement according to relative morality: "It SHOULD be the case that adults have sex with and film 5t graders for entertainment value".

    Doesn't matter that in some places it should be, and some places it should not be. It is the case that the statement is both truth AND false according to relativism, merely dependent upon geography.

    Got it.

    No. It is not the case that genocide should be practiced.
    An absolute moral.

    No, people should not be converted to a specific belief system UNLESS they are specifically being converted away from a belief system that forces such conversion. i.e. It's acceptable to force a nazi to stop killing Jews, acceptable to force Rawandans to stop killing one another, etc.
    Your qualifing statement does not address the scenerios you have given. Jews cannot convert to non-Jewish Germans, and Rawandans cannot convert to non-Rawandans.

    You are talking about preventing attrocities. I'm speaking of forcing others against their will to take on a belief SYSTEM. A belief system defined as world view/theological position.

    No. It should not be the case.
    An absolute moral.

    Now that I have answered your question, please answer mine. I only have one:

    How are morals common to two or more groups evidence of absolute morals?
    Absolute morals ONLY imply that the moral should be the standard for ALL people universally. That is, all parents should protect their children, no one should commit genocide, no one should beat and steal from another, etc... Absolute in this sense = universally applied.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  5. #5
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should it be the case...

    Quote Originally Posted by HappyLady
    *blink* *blink*. Did I read that right? Are you saying it should be the case in other countries that adults have sex with fifth graders and tape it for entertainment purposes?
    Yes, Zhav and many other relative moralists believe that 5th graders having sex and it being filmed for entertainment value is moral (which means "good"). It is both legal and culturally acceptable in Chile, so it "must be right". Who are they (relativists) to say otherwise? If it exists, it MUST be evidence that it is good (they fail to recognize the acknowledged is-ought fallacy which was first termed by anti-theist David Hume, which is considered true by every sophisticated philosopher). Somehow, relativists have it "right", but all leading philosophers have it wrong. While it is POSSIBLE that this is the case, thus far, their arguments attempting to support this...have failed miserably.

    See this thread: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...ead.php?t=2616
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should it be the case...

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    Should it be the case that an adult should have sex with and film a 5th grader to be viewed later for entertainment purposes?
    If that fifth grader is eighteen, sure.
    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    Should it be the case that genocide should be practiced?
    No. And yes, I realise my answers are all gonna be absolutes here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    Should it be the case that people should be forced to be converted to a specific belief system?
    No, unless it's a violent belief that encourages killing or harming other people.
    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    Should it be the case that people beat others and steal from them?
    No, unless the persons beaten and robbed are criminal types like Cheney or the ENron people.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  7. #7
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should it be the case...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde
    If that fifth grader is eighteen, sure.
    Nope. The 5th grader is 12.

    No. And yes, I realise my answers are all gonna be absolutes here.

    No, unless it's a violent belief that encourages killing or harming other people.

    No, unless the persons beaten and robbed are criminal types like Cheney or the ENron people.
    Good. Then you are an absolute moralist.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should it be the case...

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    Nope. The 5th grader is 12.
    Well then, in the words of a twelve year old, "EWWW GROSSE!!"
    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    Good. Then you are an absolute moralist.
    No I'm not. I believe in a combination of absolute and relative principles.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    1,326
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should it be the case...

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    Since relative moralists get confused between normative ethics and metaethics, I thought I'd make it easier for them and do away with the term morality that they object to so much.

    Should it be the case that an adult should have sex with and film a 5th grader to be viewed later for entertainment purposes?
    The answer is no, anywhere and everyhere



    Should it be the case that genocide should be practiced?
    No



    Should it be the case that people should be forced to be converted to a specific belief system?
    No


    Should it be the case that people beat others and steal from them?
    No

    Something is either right OR wrong, it's that simple. You cannot have a double standard of saying that something is right in certain places and not in others. Morals are not relative to certain locations.... such a thought is folly and quite stupid. It's either RIGHT to murder, or it's WRONG. Same thing with child porn, the same thing applys. There are reasons why MURDER is wrong, just like there is SIGNIFICANTLY good reason why child porn is wrong....
    "With His dying breath... He saved me, with His wounds... He healed me, with His life... He died for me, although I never met Him, He remembered... me."

    +++=][ShadowKnight][=+++

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    1,326
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should it be the case...

    No I'm not. I believe in a combination of absolute and relative principles.
    Contradiction. You cannot be both at the same time, you either believe something is right, or it's wrong. It's that simple, it's either universally right, or it's universally wrong. Do you think that it's perfectly moral to murder people in certain areas and not in others? If so, why?
    "With His dying breath... He saved me, with His wounds... He healed me, with His life... He died for me, although I never met Him, He remembered... me."

    +++=][ShadowKnight][=+++

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Here and Now
    Posts
    3,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should it be the case...

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    oic. I checked it out.

    I think in order to apply the moral universally, it needs to be more refined. It isn't that it is necessarily ALWAYS immoral for a 12 year old or 5th grader to be having sex (though nature would tell me that it shouldn't be done until they are menstruating) since a 12 year old is often a menstruating female and can be technically considered a "woman." And in certain cultures a 12 year old is viewed as a woman. The distinction should be, "Is it ethical to have sex with a child?" A "child" may fall into a different age bracket in different cultures, but having sex with children (I would define child as a girl or boy who have not reached puberty...menstruation, ejaculatory erections) is always wrong. That would be universal. (I think watching it for entertainment value is always wrong, too.)

    I wonder what the average age of menstruation is among Chilean girls? Anyway, I think the line around the age of puberty would be tough to make a universally unethical or ethical call, because some cultures might view a girl who is developing breasts as a woman even though she hasn't menstruated yet, etc...

    However, I'm sure there is universal moral agreement at some point, probably around 8 years old or younger when a child is biologically still just...well...a child. I'm certain no culture would agree it is moral to have sex with a 2 year old. We need more qualifiers as to what it is that makes it universally immoral to have sex with a young person. I'm inclined to lean with biological qualifiers of a child who has not begun the pubescent process.

    The ultimate point is that there IS an absolute point along the timeline where no culture would agree that it is ethical to have sex with a young person.
    Souls of the animal kingdom: eagle, fox, bottle-nose dolphin, octopus, house cat. Okay, let's jump this jump. -- Rod Kimble

  12. #12
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should it be the case...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde
    Well then, in the words of a twelve year old, "EWWW GROSSE!!"

    No I'm not. I believe in a combination of absolute and relative principles.
    While it is off-topic, I'll still ask: What is an example of a relative moral?

    We are discussing morals btw, not truths.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  13. #13
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should it be the case...

    Quote Originally Posted by HappyLady
    oic. I checked it out.

    I think in order to apply the moral universally, it needs to be more refined. It isn't that it is necessarily ALWAYS immoral for a 12 year old or 5th grader to be having sex (though nature would tell me that it shouldn't be done until they are menstruating) since a 12 year old is often a menstruating female and can be technically considered a "woman." And in certain cultures a 12 year old is viewed as a woman. The distinction should be, "Is it ethical to have sex with a child?"
    The specific example given in that thread was that of a 45 year old male having sex with a 12 yr old girl, filming/producing it, selling it, then allowing the viewing of it.

    It was NOT "Should a 12 yr old have sex?"

    The ultimate point is that there IS an absolute point along the timeline where no culture would agree that it is ethical to have sex with a young person.
    AGREED ABSOLUTELY! But the point of that particular thread, was to show the FAILURE of relative morality. Thus far, not a SINGLE relativist has been capable of answering the key question of the "harm factor" (which is the true absolute moral of that scenerio).
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should it be the case...

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowKnight
    Contradiction. You cannot be both at the same time, you either believe something is right, or it's wrong. It's that simple, it's either universally right, or it's universally wrong. Do you think that it's perfectly moral to murder people in certain areas and not in others? If so, why?
    No, I think it's wrong to murder people, and I'm opposed to the death penalty as well. The point of relativity is, AGAIN, not that murder is okay here, and not here, but rather, "Murder is wrong, but we define murder differently."

    To give an example from my ethics book, an anthropologist once said boldy that murder is wrong. He spent some time with a tribe in ALaska that had a practice that went like this: If you were too old to help the tribe, you were given a few tools, some food, and left behind to die. The anthropologist was apauled by it and claimed it was murder, the alaskans that practiced it didn't consider it murder and had a rational explanation FOR the practice. They explained that since everyone needed food, shelter, and clothing, that if you were too old and weak to help make a shelter or clothing, or hunt for food, then you were doing nothing but wasting food, clothing and shelter. Hence, it wasn't murder to leave them behind, it was helping the tribe overall since the food wouldn't be wasted.

    For what I hope will be the last time, relativity recognises that certain things are universally wrong, but asks that they be more defined. Murder is wrong. true. Define Murder. It's that simple.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  15. #15
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should it be the case...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde
    No, I think it's wrong to murder people, and I'm opposed to the death penalty as well. The point of relativity is, AGAIN, not that murder is okay here, and not here, but rather, "Murder is wrong, but we define murder differently."

    To give an example from my ethics book, an anthropologist once said boldy that murder is wrong. He spent some time with a tribe in ALaska that had a practice that went like this: If you were too old to help the tribe, you were given a few tools, some food, and left behind to die. The anthropologist was apauled by it and claimed it was murder, the alaskans that practiced it didn't consider it murder and had a rational explanation FOR the practice. They explained that since everyone needed food, shelter, and clothing, that if you were too old and weak to help make a shelter or clothing, or hunt for food, then you were doing nothing but wasting food, clothing and shelter. Hence, it wasn't murder to leave them behind, it was helping the tribe overall since the food wouldn't be wasted.

    For what I hope will be the last time, relativity recognises that certain things are universally wrong, but asks that they be more defined. Murder is wrong. true. Define Murder. It's that simple.
    This is NOT what philosophical moral relativity is by ANY means. And perhaps this is the crux of the issue (not enough people here understanding what absolute and relative morality is).

    It is an absolute moral that is is wrong to murder another being. It should not be done. MURDER, is merely the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being.

    In the example above, the anthropologist misunderstood the nature of murder. It was LAWFUL within that tribe to send those who could not help it, packin'. It was not murder.

    Now you can get into a semantics debate about the word "murder" all you like, but it is ultimately the CONCEPT that is being argued, NOT the word. And THAT, is not what relative morality is all about.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  16. #16
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should it be the case...

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    This is NOT what philosophical moral relativity is by ANY means. And perhaps this is the crux of the issue (not enough people here understanding what absolute and relative morality is).

    It is an absolute moral that is is wrong to murder another being. It should not be done. MURDER, is merely the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being.

    In the example above, the anthropologist misunderstood the nature of murder. It was LAWFUL within that tribe to send those who could not help it, packin'. It was not murder.

    Now you can get into a semantics debate about the word "murder" all you like, but it is ultimately the CONCEPT that is being argued, NOT the word. And THAT, is not what relative morality is all about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Some stuff I read
    How to Refute Moral Relativism:
    1. Establish one universal objective moral principle:

    a. Suppose (X) is a universal objective moral principle that says ‘it is wrong to torture innocent people.’
    b. Suppose (X) is applicable to all rational beings (humans).
    c. Suppose subject (S) rejects (X).
    d. Rationally speaking, we should not reject (X) but try to explain why (S) does not have the moral sense to accept (X). It does not follow from noncompliance with (X) that (X) is not true.
    e. (X) is true.
    Well done, Apok. Ya got me thinkin', you ******. /\

    But it doesn't mean I'm convinced, so don't let your head swell up too much.

  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas.
    Posts
    3,681
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should it be the case...

    I still don't believe in universal morals, and that's that. Morals are relative to the culture. Who are you (or anyone for that matter) to tell the Chileans, the Inuits, or whoever that their belief system is wrong? What makes anyone so sure that murder is always wrong? Is it wrong to take the life of someone who is going to die a long painful death?

    I don't think it is. I think if that person wants to go, they should be allowed to die with dignity and the help of their loved ones. Not to linger and be miserable.

    Sorry Apok, I ain't buying it...
    But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

  18. #18
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should it be the case...

    Slip: True or False?

    Apok should come to Slip's house, rape and/or brutalize Slip's famliy, murder Slip, then burn the house.

    -------------------------------------

    Is this particular action a moral thing to do or immoral?

    Is it the case that NO ONE should do this? Or is it the case that it is possible that at least SOMONE should do this to you? If it is the case that someone SHOULD do this to you, your family, and your property...what qualifications does this individual have that others do not have, that allows them to morally rape and brutalize your family, murder you, then burn your property to the ground? What makes this individual so special to you that you would allow this or believe that it is a good thing to do?

    Now, remove both you and I from the scenerio, put in Person A and Person B. Does this change anything at all?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should it be the case...

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    It is an absolute moral that is is wrong to murder another being. It should not be done. MURDER, is merely the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being.
    When is premeditated killing lawful Apok?
    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    In the example above, the anthropologist misunderstood the nature of murder. It was LAWFUL within that tribe to send those who could not help it, packin'. It was not murder.
    No, the anthropologist saw that they viewed murder differently. It goes with ALL things in life. Different people view things differently. To use the death penalty to help explain. A man is put on trial for literally ripping a three year old apart. He is convicted and sentenced to death. Is killing him moral? If so, Why?
    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    Now you can get into a semantics debate about the word "murder" all you like, but it is ultimately the CONCEPT that is being argued, NOT the word. And THAT, is not what relative morality is all about.
    Then, again, let's define murder. You say it's the unlawful premeditated killing of another. Explain to me what a lawful killing is, and what makes it moral. In the death penalty example, that's premeditated killing the state is inacting. What makes it moral?
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  20. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    2,974
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should it be the case...

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    It is both legal and culturally acceptable in Chile, so it "must be right". Who are they (relativists) to say otherwise? If it exists, it MUST be evidence that it is good (they fail to recognize the acknowledged is-ought fallacy which was first termed by anti-theist David Hume, which is considered true by every sophisticated philosopher).
    You take our arguments and stretch them to fit your craving to use is-ought. Here's the deal:

    IF a culture condones sexual activity with an age of consent at 12, then it is not necessarily right or wrong.

    In comparison to the established moral sense that you, as an American, have, this is incompatible, and thus PERCIEVED to be immoral.

    However, in an objective sense, nobody can make such a claim, unless one has a monopoly on morality. Do you?

    Now, as a moral agnostic (to start) we have to take into consideration the factors involved in the act to fully understand it, lest we make "that's gross, let's ban it" neo-con-esque claims. We note that the Chilean society accepts this. It would be fallacious FROM HERE to say that it is then "moral," and I agree. This corresponds to is-ought. HOWEVER, we are not making such a claim.

    To further investigate, we must qualify the exterior percieved moral complaint. In this case, Apok presents the valid objection that the 12-year old may be hurt by the sexual act at such an age.

    To proceed from here, it is necessary to look at the law, which states that the age of consent is 12. This does, by no means, force 12-year-olds to pursue sexual encounters. This does not allow statutory rape (except by external legal definitions, which are invalid in remote governments and societies). As such, the 12-year-old now has a responsibility to pursue sexual encounters at her own discretion, and in her own way.

    So we've established that there is nothing being forced on the 12-year olds that they do not have the ability to responsibly react to. I'll give an example.

    At the age of twelve, Chilean Jane Doe exercises her new right to consent to sex. She agrees to have sex with a 45-year old man and film it. After the event, she decides that it hurt and she did not like the experience. So she doesn't do it again. Problem solved.

    So Apok's concern of "it hurts the child" can be refuted with the child's legal right to choose not to pursue sex at 12.

    Another possible concern is the mentality of the child. Think, "is this child old enough to responsibly take such a risk?"

    Stepping into this area is a legal issue, and not a moral issue. Furthermore, it's more of a personal issue than a legal issue, but in the interest of a governed society, laws must control a general state to maintain order (for example, I could drive at 13, but I had to wait till 16). It is also necessary to note that American morals and culture condone the right to take risks, as we are allowed to drink, smoke, and so on.

    So I now stand at a position I have regarded to mean that a Chilean 12-year old has been given the right to take a risk, but does not have to pursue it.

    I can't see anything wrong with this. All I had to do was think outside my own moral box.
    Fortunately, the darkest of darkness is not as terrible as we fear.
    Unfortunately, the lightest of light, all things good, are not so wonderful as we hope for them to be.
    What, then, is left, but various shades of grey neutrality? Where are the heroes and villains? All I see are people.

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Uniqueness of the Bible
    By Apokalupsis in forum Religion
    Replies: 461
    Last Post: July 16th, 2015, 12:08 PM
  2. Stances on the Problem of Evil
    By Fyshhed in forum Religion
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: January 25th, 2005, 03:06 PM
  3. Why the Republicans are horrible
    By Zhavric in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: January 19th, 2005, 06:09 PM
  4. Christian influence continues
    By Montalban in forum Religion
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2004, 11:45 PM
  5. Barbed-Hook/Harpoon Theory
    By Fyshhed in forum Religion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: October 18th, 2004, 04:20 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •