Page 145 of 159 FirstFirst ... 4595135143144145146147155 ... LastLast
Results 1,441 to 1,450 of 1582

Thread: So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

  1. #1441
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,074
    Amen (Given)
    1761
    Amen (Received)
    1504
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    And Nazi Germany thought that exterminating the Jews and other genetically "undesirable" people was in the best interests of the community, and in a Godless universe, they were perfectly right to do so within their own moral framework, don't you agree?
    Yes, the bigotted, racist, Hitler did, and he was wrong. He may have had the right to do so, the power to do so, but having the right and the power to do so, isn't what determines if it was in the best interests of the community.

  2. #1442
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,550
    Amen (Given)
    2512
    Amen (Received)
    1829
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    The concept of there being a "best" indicates an objective goal that everyone agrees on.
    Not necessarily. “Best” indicates there is a goal that some may agree on but that the rest will need persuading…sometimes successfully, sometimes not. E.g. killing witches or enslaving blacks.

    The Nazi's thought that what was "best" for their society was to kill all of the Jews. Does that mean that genocide is moral?
    Well, the colonial powers in the US thought that depriving Native Americans of their land and virtually destroying their culture was “best” for their society. Does that mean that such behavior was moral? Of course not. Social values change over time, they’re not “objective in any absolute sense. What is considered morally acceptable in one era is not considered morally acceptable in another.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  3. #1443
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,945
    Amen (Given)
    4999
    Amen (Received)
    22192
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    So, you at least admit then that moral rules of behavior would exist, that they would, by man, be codified into law, even if they did not come from an objectively existing source? Correct?
    Uh no. Your reading comprehension is as bad as your debating skill. Nonexistent.

  4. #1444
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,945
    Amen (Given)
    4999
    Amen (Received)
    22192
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    Yes, the bigotted, racist, Hitler did, and he was wrong. He may have had the right to do so, the power to do so, but having the right and the power to do so, isn't what determines if it was in the best interests of the community.
    If it was just him, it wouldn't have happened. The entire government was with him and the people voted him into power. The German society believed Jews were the problem and needed to be eliminated. And you calling him bigoted and racist is just nonsense if morals are set by each society. You have no right to judge another society by your standards since there is no actual right or wrong.

  5. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  6. #1445
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,945
    Amen (Given)
    4999
    Amen (Received)
    22192
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Not necessarily. “Best” indicates there is a goal that some may agree on but that the rest will need persuading…sometimes successfully, sometimes not. E.g. killing witches or enslaving blacks.
    Then JimL's constant appeal to "what is best for society" is just meaningless nonsense. He can't have it both ways.


    Well, the colonial powers in the US thought that depriving Native Americans of their land and virtually destroying their culture was “best” for their society. Does that mean that such behavior was moral? Of course not. Social values change over time, they’re not “objective in any absolute sense. What is considered morally acceptable in one era is not considered morally acceptable in another.

    Why wasn't it moral Tassman? Because your modern personal moral view says it isn't? They would see you as immoral for supporting homosexuality. Which of you is actually right? If there is no objective morality then neither of you is correct. You keep claiming morals are not objective, then turning around and arguing as if they were. Make up your mind and be consistent.

  7. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  8. #1446
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,550
    Amen (Given)
    2512
    Amen (Received)
    1829
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Then JimL's constant appeal to "what is best for society" is just meaningless nonsense.
    Not at all. He means (as do I) “what is best for society” at a given point of time in history.

    Why wasn't it moral Tassman? Because your modern personal moral view says it isn't?
    No, because my “modern personal moral view” reflects the current values of the society to which I belong.

    They would see you as immoral for supporting homosexuality.
    Indeed, they would, but social values have changed since then to the extent that equal rights for homosexuals are now accepted by the majority in the West. Just as equal rights for blacks were accepted a generation ago.

    Which of you is actually right?
    Neither is “actually right” in an ‘objective’ sense, because there is no absolute objective morality. There is only morality relative to the values of a given society. As can be seen throughout human history.

    If there is no objective morality then neither of you is correct. You keep claiming morals are not objective, then turning around and arguing as if they were. Make up your mind and be consistent.
    The reverse is true. It is you that argue for the objective morality of the bible and yet feel obliged to rationalize certain “absolute” injunctions, when they no longer conform to current moral values, e.g. killing witches or homosexuals or disobedient children. “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... all the men of the city shall stone him with stones, that he die ....(Dt. 21:18, 21)
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  9. Amen JimL amen'd this post.
  10. #1447
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,945
    Amen (Given)
    4999
    Amen (Received)
    22192
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Not at all. He means (as do I) “what is best for society” at a given point of time in history.
    No what you mean is what a society PREFERS at any point in time. If there is no objective good or bad, then there can be no "best" - just preferences.



    No, because my “modern personal moral view” reflects the current values of the society to which I belong.
    Except you already have shown that your personal view can easily differ from your society's view.

  11. Amen Chrawnus amen'd this post.
  12. #1448
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,550
    Amen (Given)
    2512
    Amen (Received)
    1829
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    No what you mean is what a society PREFERS at any point in time. If there is no objective good or bad, then there can be no "best" - just preferences.
    Yes. There is no reason to think there is an absolute “objective good or bad”.

    Except you already have shown that your personal view can easily differ from your society's view.
    It can, just as your personal view of morality can differ from society’s view. E.g. I presume you no longer hold to the bible-based view that demanded the killing of witches or homosexuals or disobedient children.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  13. #1449
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,945
    Amen (Given)
    4999
    Amen (Received)
    22192
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Yes. There is no reason to think there is an absolute “objective good or bad”.
    Then you have no leg to stand on to complain about any other culture's morality.


    It can, just as your personal view of morality can differ from society’s view. E.g. I presume you no longer hold to the bible-based view that demanded the killing of witches or homosexuals or disobedient children.
    Well, I can because I believe morality is objective and I align myself with God, the source of that morality, and he as Jesus said to forgive. And because you have no clue about what the OT Law was even about or what it says, or who it was given to. Or even what the difference is between something being immoral and the punishment for it. Homosexuality is still immoral, we just don't stone them any more. Same moral.

  14. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  15. #1450
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,458
    Amen (Given)
    1076
    Amen (Received)
    1627
    Quote Originally Posted by sparko View Post
    then you have no leg to stand on to complain about any other culture's morality.




    Well, i can because i believe morality is objective and i align myself with god, the source of that morality, and he as jesus said to forgive. And because you have no clue about what the ot law was even about or what it says, or who it was given to. Or even what the difference is between something being immoral and the punishment for it. Homosexuality is still immoral, we just don't stone them any more. Same moral.
    fify
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  16. Amen Bill the Cat, Sparko, Cow Poke, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

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