Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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.

    Comment


    • 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.

      Comment


      • 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.

        Comment


        • 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.

          Comment


          • 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.

            Comment


            • 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.

              Comment


              • 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.

                Comment


                • 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.

                  Comment


                  • 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.

                    Comment


                    • 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 <<<...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        Then you have no leg to stand on to complain about any other culture's morality.
                        We can if their "objective morality" impinges on our culture as per say, 9/11.

                        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.
                        Your “objective morality” is merely a personal, unsubstantiated subjective belief in the existence of “objective morality based upon religion. That you choose to believe in it doesn’t make it real, any more than the “objective morality” of Islam makes it real.

                        Homosexuality is still immoral, we just don't stone them any more. Same moral.
                        Of course, you don’t “stone them anymore”, despite God’s clear injunction. Many Muslims still abide by God’s Law in this regard. You don’t because such behavior is no longer acceptable in our culture, our social values have changed. This has been my point all along.
                        “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.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          We can if their "objective morality" impinges on our culture as per say, 9/11.
                          A strong argument for closed borders - do you really want to be affirming this?

                          Of course, you don’t “stone them anymore”, despite God’s clear injunction. Many Muslims still abide by God’s Law in this regard. You don’t because such behavior is no longer acceptable in our culture, our social values have changed. This has been my point all along.
                          The OT society saw the penalties established by the law as maxima. In the ordinary course, then as now, maximum penalty was reserved for worst cases.
                          God's current "clear injunction" as you put it has nothing to do with OT law. Under the NT law, the maximum penalty for any offence is excommunication, or in secular terms, exile - no warrant for the death penalty, however enacted, is granted by the New Testament. War is arguably a different matter, but I'm not satisfied that a conclusive finding, whether pro or con, can be derived.
                          The Muslim's god, as declared by their own sacred texts, has very little in common with the Christian and Jewish god. There are many who see a close correlation between the Muslim god and Suen/Nanna.
                          Such penalties as stoning becoming unacceptable in our societies arises from Christian precepts, atheist claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Christians still argue against enacting the death penalty.
                          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                          Scripture before Tradition:
                          but that won't prevent others from
                          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                          of the right to call yourself Christian.

                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            We can if their "objective morality" impinges on our culture as per say, 9/11.



                            Your “objective morality” is merely a personal, unsubstantiated subjective belief in the existence of “objective morality based upon religion. That you choose to believe in it doesn’t make it real, any more than the “objective morality” of Islam makes it real.
                            Then I don't want to hear you complain about slavery in the bible or any other actions taken by other societies that you don't like.


                            Of course, you don’t “stone them anymore”, despite God’s clear injunction. Many Muslims still abide by God’s Law in this regard. You don’t because such behavior is no longer acceptable in our culture, our social values have changed. This has been my point all along.
                            God didn't tell us to stone anyone. In fact, Jesus said not to (re: woman who was going to be stoned) - that was a punishment given in the OT to a specific group at a specific time. It was just a civil law under the old covenant. Jesus gave us a new covenant. The moral law that homosexual behavior is a sin, still stands. Also I have no control over how my government punishes or doesn't punish homosexuals and as a citizen I have no right to impose any punishment myself, regardless of what I think it should or should not be.

                            Comment


                            • It can't have been a civil law - there was no such thing in Israel before the second temple period ... if it existed even then.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                It can't have been a civil law - there was no such thing in Israel before the second temple period ... if it existed even then.
                                well I meant a law used to govern the people. That's what civil law is. Violations were heard by the leaders and adjudicated, and if someone was found guilty, the punishment was meted out. Pretty much the way any justice system works today.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                130 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                331 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                361 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X