|
Post by blondie on Apr 25, 2007 16:05:06 GMT -5
Our laws are just opinions. That's how the system works. We vote. Lawyers argue. Judges rule. Congress votes. POTUS vetoes. It's the opinion of most Americans that abortion should be legal. So, there was nothing innately wrong with the VA Tech killings? If it's just your opinion that it's wrong to murder then what right do you have to condemn someone for doing so? You're a Christian right? Is part of being a Christian to be totally oblivious to the long history of moral philosophy? If your questing is really "what gives me the right to condemn someone?" Am I not free to condemn?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 25, 2007 16:09:10 GMT -5
Where to begin.... blondie - "You're as dense as Phinehas. Sorry, that was uncalled for." You could have deleted it but you kept it in there. Your position is falling apart so now it's time to use..... www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.htmlas a form of evidence. Zoomixer - we are on the same page there. Moral relativity can not logically punish or condemn any actions. Fragerella - Replace the word abortion with murder or stealing. Because you have the free will to commit murder or steal does that mean it should be legal to do so? The other point you make through the quote is valid in helping mothers that do not do abortions but has no bearing whatsoever in whether an abortion is morally right or wrong. That stands on it's own, people not having charity for people that need assistance is a different moral question all together. You should read this. www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.htmlblondie again - LOL. You are the one that stated there is no starting point of life, not me. During a normal pregnancy, nobody knows the millisecond nor probably the day of conception, but that is a red herring. A woman only knows to get an abortion when she becomes pregnant and she doesn't know that until weeks after conception. For the rest of your comments, read this: www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 25, 2007 16:19:12 GMT -5
So, there was nothing innately wrong with the VA Tech killings? If it's just your opinion that it's wrong to murder then what right do you have to condemn someone for doing so? You're a Christian right? Is part of being a Christian to be totally oblivious to the long history of moral philosophy? If your questing is really "what gives me the right to condemn someone?" Am I not free to condemn? ANSWER his question first! Being a Relativist sucks. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 25, 2007 16:19:55 GMT -5
Is part of being a Christian to be totally oblivious to the long history of moral philosophy? Do you get off on trying to insult people? You tell me. How can someone who adheres to Moral relativity logically sit in judgement of someone else? Please fill in the gaps for my uneducated, oblivious, feeble Christian mind.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 25, 2007 16:38:19 GMT -5
"You're as dense as Phinehas. Sorry, that was uncalled for." You could have deleted it but you kept it in there. That's because it was funny. Your position is falling apart Yes, my position that people have different opinions about abortion and it's best to leave the choice up to the mother. Falling apart. Obviously the opposite is true. Everyone agrees about abortion and the choice should be left to the state. I'm glad you're studying logical fallacies. I've taught you well grasshopper. You are the one that stated there is no starting point of life, not me. I said it life hasn't even been defined. Just like wikipedia: "There is no universal definition of life; there are a variety of definitions proposed by different scientists.To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists" Besides I've said over and over again that I don't have a problem with calling abortion infanticide. You can call a fetus alive if you want but my OPINION is that to terminate it should be left to the mother.
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on Apr 25, 2007 16:51:01 GMT -5
Where to begin.... Fragerella - Replace the word abortion with murder or stealing. Because you have the free will to commit murder or steal does that mean it should be legal to do so? The other point you make through the quote is valid in helping mothers that do not do abortions but has no bearing whatsoever in whether an abortion is morally right or wrong. I'm not able to articulate my feelings on abortion in a way that will be effective for debate (hey, at least I'm honest about that), but it's not a question of being morally right or wrong to me. I feel that it is morally wrong, but that doesn't mean that I expect others to feel the way I do. I understand that for people who'd make all abortions illegal (unless the mother's life is in danger) because of their religious beliefs, it's a matter of being a Christian first and an American second. Maybe it's wrong of me to feel the way I do, but I'd be lying if I said that I'd advocate the banning of all abortions because of my own moral/religious beliefs. For the purpose of this thread, I'm siding with Blondie's view that as far as abortion laws in the country are considered, it's an ethical issue as opposed to a moral issue. **edited due to typo & misrepesentation of another's quote
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 25, 2007 16:52:27 GMT -5
blondie,
Let's just say that I am learning to spot all the varying fallacies by reading your posts. When are you going to stop using them?
So, you don't have a problem calling abortion infanticide. Why do you not think it is correct to prevent murder or punish murder via law?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 25, 2007 17:00:19 GMT -5
Is part of being a Christian to be totally oblivious to the long history of moral philosophy? Do you get off on trying to insult people? You tell me. How can someone who adheres to Moral relativity logically sit in judgement of someone else? Please fill in the gaps for my uneducated, oblivious, feeble Christian mind. I don't know what to tell you. Here's a quote; Moral relativism is the philosophical theory that morality is relative, that different moral truths hold for different people. It comes in two forms: ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism.
Ethical subjectivism holds that morality is relative to individuals; cultural relativism holds that it is relative to culture. Both deny the existence of moral absolutes, of objective moral truths that hold for all people in all places at all times.
According to moral relativism, it makes no sense to ask the abstract question whether a given act is good or bad. According to moral relativism, there is no goodness or badness in the abstract; there is only goodness or badness within a specified context. An act may thus be good for one person but bad for another, or good in one cultural setting but bad in another, but cannot be either good or bad full stop.
If moral relativism is true, therefore, then we should not ask whether an act is good or bad in the abstract, but only whether it is good or bad in a particular situation.
Some see moral relativism as an obvious truth, as undeniable; others see it as a threatening the moral foundation on which society is founded. This site explores the arguments for each perspective.
Arguments for Moral Relativism
Those who support moral relativism cite various proofs of its truth:
The argument from disagreement holds that moral relativism best accounts for the obvious fact that different individuals and cultures have different moral beliefs. Moral disagreement, on this view, demonstrates that morality is merely a product of personal opinion or culture, which is precisely the claim made by moral relativism.
The argument from flexibility holds that the alternative to moral relativism, moral absolutism, clearly breaks down in certain circumstances; there are exceptions to every moral rule, occasions on which, for example, lying, stealing, and even worse acts are morally justified. If there are no moral absolutes, though, it is argued, then moral relativism is true.
The argument from tolerance suggests that only moral relativism is consistent with the fact that we ought to be tolerant of those with whom we disagree, particularly those from different backgrounds to our own. Moral criticism, though is intolerant; we ought not to think that we or our culture is morally better than any other. We therefore ought to be moral relativists." What system do you use? I've often asked Christians what system they use to pick which version and pieces of traditional Christianity to believe. The answer is often, "I know what's in my heart." Capital punishment and abortion are good examples of things that Christians disagree about. Moral relativism exists within Christianity. At least we moral relativists have a system.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 25, 2007 17:08:52 GMT -5
blondie, Let's just say that I am learning to spot all the varying fallacies by reading your posts. When are you going to stop using them? So, you don't have a problem calling abortion infanticide. Why do you not think it is correct to prevent murder or punish murder via law? The same reason you think it's alright to force rape victims to carry their babies to term. It's an OPINION. Why we have these opinions, who knows. What do you base your opinions on besides a random, version of Christianity that just happens to coincide with the American norms from the 20th century that you were raised in? I obviously believe it's justifiable homicide. I believe capital punishment and war are examples of justifiable homo side too.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 25, 2007 17:32:31 GMT -5
blondie,
Nobody has denied that you have a system. Because Christians differ on capital punishemnt and abortion does not mean that there is no system of ethics that they use. All that means is there is disagreement in what the system states. I personally can not help the fact that there are people that follow the system I adhere to that don't know what the system states. That doesn't mean that I am wrong or the system is wrong.
If I find quotes from another moral relativist that contradict yours, does that then mean you don't have a system?
"What do you base your opinions on besides a random, version of Christianity that just happens to coincide with the American norms from the 20th century that you were raised in?"
I base it on the Bible. There are SPECIFIC instances where justifiable homicide is numerated. You named two of them. So, I don't see where you come off saying that my opinion is random, it's not. I can point to those specific inumerations. Can you do the same? If not, who is making up what here?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 25, 2007 17:47:00 GMT -5
"I feel that it is morally wrong, but that doesn't mean that I expect others to feel the way I do."
Fragerella,
I don't expect a drug dealer to think that selling crack to a kid is morally wrong either, it's moot. It's obvious that they don't or they ignore it out of self gratification. He doesn't have to sell crack in order to save his life. He may have to sell crack to have a "better" life or a life he desires, that doesn't give him the right to harm other people. When you can come up with a medical condition that would cause a person to die, if they didn't sell crack, then he would have a moral standing. What I said, applies to the woman in regards to abortion.
Explain the difference to me between morals and ethics because I don't see a difference.
"being a Christian first and an American second."
The 14th Amendment coincides with Christianity. I don't recall any trials taking place for the millions of aborted babies. My opinion is that there will be a trial for each one later on. "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Are you saying that you are an American first and a Christian second?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 25, 2007 17:51:06 GMT -5
blondie, Nobody has denied that you have a system. Because Christians differ on capital punishemnt and abortion does not mean that there is no system of ethics that they use. All that means is there is disagreement in what the system states. I personally can not help the fact that there are people that follow the system I adhere to that don't know what the system states. That doesn't mean that I am wrong or the system is wrong. If I find quotes from another moral relativist that contradict yours, does that then mean you don't have a system? "What do you base your opinions on besides a random, version of Christianity that just happens to coincide with the American norms from the 20th century that you were raised in?" I base it on the Bible. There are SPECIFIC instances where justifiable homicide is numerated. You named two of them. So, I don't see where you come off saying that my opinion is random, it's not. I can point to those specific inumerations. Can you do the same? If not, who is making up what here? People who don't believe in moral relativism always believe they subscribe to the one true moral system. Your understanding of Christianity is no more valid than the guy who disagrees with you. I can obviously point out all kind of crazy stuff in the Bible you don't believe. I don't believe you understand the Bible very well. Not as well as me. You just have your own little theory and rationalize it. I, on the other hand, am familiar with how a variety of Christians and non-Christians understand the Bible. And I use reason and evidence to distinguish between them. My objective reason for believing I'm right about this is that my understanding of the Bible is in line with what scholars with degrees teaching at accredited universities and researchers believe.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 25, 2007 18:15:20 GMT -5
LOL. More insults and the dependence of logical fallacies due to the lack of evidence to support your positions.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 25, 2007 19:20:28 GMT -5
Is part of being a Christian to be totally oblivious to the long history of moral philosophy? Do you get off on trying to insult people? You tell me. How can someone who adheres to Moral relativity logically sit in judgement of someone else? Please fill in the gaps for my uneducated, oblivious, feeble Christian mind.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 25, 2007 19:33:29 GMT -5
I've been so busy teaching philosophy 101 I forgot the most obvious and relevant example off Christian moral relativism. Read it and weep like Jesus losers: "There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called "individual conscience" argument amounts to "individual disobedience." Here's a nut with an interesting view on this issue: (Be warned this is pretty disturbing)www.armyofgod.com/Birthcontrol.html
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 25, 2007 19:50:52 GMT -5
I've been so busy teaching philosophy 101 I forgot the most obvious and relevant example off Christian moral relativism. Read it and weep like Jesus losers: Such arrogance and hatred. When I'm not irritated at how much of an instigator you are, I really feel a great amount of pity for you. Here you are dishing out your bitterness and hatred that you can't control claiming to have all the answers when you yourself have admitted that you are "Alone and naked in a world I don't understand." I don't know what it is in your life that has lead you to be like this but I sure do hope that you will at least see yourself for what you are. Patently false. You are only referring to the Catholic church which in no way, shape or form represent Christianity. The Catholic church really deserves it's own thread so I don't want us to get sidetracked. I agree with you to some degree. The bible does not address birth control.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Apr 25, 2007 23:11:39 GMT -5
I know several gay people..I also know some girls who used abortion as birth control when we were in high school. One girl (I guess you would call her a woman now, since we are in our 30's) can't have children now that she wants them because her uterus is so damaged from so many abortions. You probably also know women that had abortions and it turned out to be the best decision because billy-bob who knocked them up in high school is a drunk loser and the doctor she married is a saint. Also don't forget that safe, legal abortion cuts way down on the "welfare queens." And I never said I was totally against abortion. I said I would not make that personal chioce for myself, but I would not judge another who made it. I also said the MEN who will never be able to be pregnant, and are not the father of the child in question, should not have any say what so ever in any woman's choice. Until you "evolve" into an asexual being that can procreate without a woman, then you should keep your opinions out of anything that has to do with a woman's body.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 26, 2007 8:08:32 GMT -5
I don't know what it is in your life that has lead you to be like this. It's called education. Patently false. You are only referring to the Catholic church which in no way, shape or form represent Christianity. This might be hard for you to believe but American Evangelicals are only a small minority of Christians. The vast majority of Christians have believed that ANY form of birth control is a sin. Abortion is a relatively new issue. It's not addressed at all it the Bible. The bible does not address birth control. Sure the Bible hardly addresses any of the issues Evangelicals get their panties in a wad over. The Bible is filled with all kinds of rules and regulations that Christians just ignore. 1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head:
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 26, 2007 8:26:36 GMT -5
1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: I Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 26, 2007 8:57:52 GMT -5
<< 1 Corinthians 11 >> American Standard Version
6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.
|
|
|
Post by espy on Apr 26, 2007 9:09:24 GMT -5
The passage, no matter what translation, is referring to hair, not an actual veil. You wouldnt shave your veil would you blondie....lol... your making a strech with this arguement.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 26, 2007 9:13:51 GMT -5
blondie -
meh
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
and to really blow your mind:
1 Cor 11:10
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. KJV
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 26, 2007 9:33:16 GMT -5
I'm glad the Bible gives us a supernatural guide to life like bald women are evil. Cancer victims be damned. It's amazing no one figured this out until the 20th century. Also glad we can count on espy to give us the final, authoritative interpretation of scripture. We could use a new pope. I don't like the looks of this guy: meh 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 26, 2007 9:46:09 GMT -5
1 Corinthians 11
4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
So if we follow the logic of espy men must shave their heads.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 26, 2007 9:49:53 GMT -5
LOL! I love how you skipped over the rest of the items I wrote. Too personal, huh? So you're saying that you're education is to blame for your hatred? It's your education that has left you "Alone and naked in a world you don't understand"? Hmmm.....hope that works out for you. What's with you and consensus? Since when did numbers have anything to whether a position is right or wrong. As far as abortion being addressed in the Bible.....you might want to go back and check your Bible. Yes, I know you won't find the word "Abortion" in there but that doesn't mean the issue isn't addressed. Go ahead, give it a shot. You can do it!!! Nice. It's a shame that your such a hateful person. Almost sounds like you've got your panties in a wad.... If you want to change the subject because you're afraid to respond to the last item in my last post..... *CORRECTION* Respond to my last item in post #133
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 26, 2007 9:51:53 GMT -5
Hey! Look! It's the White Jesus! Everyone knows that exactly what he looked like!!! Isn't White Jesus awesome?!?!
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 26, 2007 9:55:56 GMT -5
Crap! I just saw post #127. Give me a moment, Blondie. Ignore the last sentence in POST # 144.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 26, 2007 10:04:48 GMT -5
When your premise can't hold up with actual evidence and a coherent argument...resort to using Star Wars photos.
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on Apr 26, 2007 10:29:11 GMT -5
Fragerella, Explain the difference to me between morals and ethics because I don't see a difference. Maybe a better way of phrasing it would be "applied ethics" as it relates to US law. For me, it's not relevant to the conversation. I think it is to other people, though. Meh...I can't/won't debate abortion online, so I'll bow out of this thread now.... I'm enjoying reading the comments and ideas the rest of you are presenting, though. **edited: closed quote tag
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 26, 2007 10:42:46 GMT -5
"Maybe a better way of phrasing it would be "applied ethics" as it relates to US law."
Kind of like saying "applied morals" as it relates to US law.
"For me, it's not relevant to the conversation. I think it is to other people, though."
Ok, thought you were making it relevant, since you brought it up. It is however interesting that you don't freely answer the question either way.
Meh, sorry that you are unable to debate the topic.
|
|