Planned Parenthood Perverting Our Kids!

[Sparko]

Because morality isn't about you, it's about human society. If you existed on this earth all by your lonesome, then to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," wouldn't make any sense.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

JimL, your brilliance amazes me

[seer]

Okay, now thats what I thought, it's not really about god for you, it's about your personal belief that homosexuality is just wrong. God merely turns that subjective belief of yours into an objective truth for you. I can't help but notice though that it is only male homosexuality that seems to bother you. I find that to be the case with most anti-homosexual males. Funny that. Anyway's, still your only reason is that-"it is just not what a man does, taking on the role of a woman." But that's not true, so once again all you are saying is that you think it's wrong. I get it, you think its wrong, but you're still not giving me the reason upon which you've personally come to that conclusion.

Yes I think it is wrong, and I gave you my reasons. Do you think human to animal sex is wrong for instance? Why?

[JimL]

JimL, your brilliance amazes me

Why thank you, Sparko. It's about time you realized that.

[JimL]

Yes I think it is wrong, and I gave you my reasons.

No, you didn't seer. You said you think it's wrong even if there were no god, but you didn't say why other than that you find it ichy.

Do you think human to animal sex is wrong for instance? Why?

I don't think that any non consensual sex is right.

[seer]

No, you didn't seer. You said you think it's wrong even if there were no god, but you didn't say why other than that you find it ichy.

Yes, I see as icky, like I do with human to animal sex.

I don't think that any non consensual sex is right.

That makes no sense, we don't ask for consent when we kill and eat the sheep!

[carpedm9587]

First, there is still no conclusive evidence of what causes people to be gay, straight, or bi.

Conclusive? Pixie - science is almost never "conclusive." It operates in degrees of certitude. But there is a reasonable amount of evidence that homosexuality has both a nature (genetic) and nurture component. You need only look it up. I have worked with the community long enough to know both are true.

You are younger than I. Lynchings were still occuring into the late 1960s, so within my lifetime. Cross burnings still happen. Earlier posts showed how people of color are still statistically screened out of interviews at a higher rate than white people. We are not beating "past demons," we are remembering that the price of freedom is constant vigilance.

Actually, I said nothing about "your life." I pointed out the callousness of your comments, and specifically noted it was assuming you are not black or a member of the LGBTQ community. That was the topic we were discussing. I have no doubt, as a woman, you may have encountered the kind of misogyny many women experience. If you have, then I have to wonder how you can so blithely dismiss the experience of people who encounter similar things due to their skin color or their sexual orientation.

Actually, my comment was about your blanket dismissal. I said nothing about what you did or did not experience. And, I will point out, you really know nothing about me, nor do you know anything about my experiences with discrimination.

I think your position is naive - and dangerous.

Yes because we all know that calling someone out on a web forum is such a heroic act.

I don't recall saying anything about "heroism."

Sometimes, your conclusions leave me somewhat speechless. I have no idea how you got here from anything I've said, or how this even relates to the part of my post you were responding to.

[carpedm9587]

I don't really get this. If morality is subjective/relative what does it mean for moral values held by society to change?

I don't even know how to start answering this. The concept of "change" seems pretty straightforward to me. The values held by a society change when the values of its constituent members change. What we value doesn't tend to change a great deal - but the moral codes we build on the basis of what we value do. So, for example, it was not too long ago that most people in the U.S. saw homosexuality as "immoral" and "evil." But we all tend to value life, liberty, happiness, etc. Over time, more and more people realized that denigrating an entire part of the population because they happened to love someone whose sexual equipment matched their own, instead of being the "opposite," was simply not supportable. Today, most of the U.S. (still by a somewhat slim majority) believe that same-sex love is not better/worse than opposite-sex love. So the moral code of the community is shifting because the code of its membership is shifting.

Doesn't it just mean that they are different (no better, no worse)? Do you think that an improvement in morality means something like 'morality that more closely approaches my moral values'?

Each of us will measure "better/worse" against our own moral code. So when society, in general, moves towards our moral code, we see it as "better." When it moves away, we see it as worse. So today, people like me see the social change to accept the LGBTQ community as "better." Evangelicals evaluate it as "getting worse."

Since I want to, as far as I can, have true beliefs why should I care about conforming my moral values to those of a moral relativist?

You won't. But you SHOULD be interested in examining the views of the people who moralize differently from you, determine if they are valuing something you do not value, and understand why and if it would make sense for you to value it. Or, if you value the same things, ask yourself why they arrive at a different moral code from yours. Maybe your moral reasoning has an error in it? However, there is no guarantee in any of this that you will align on a common moral code.

[carpedm9587]

that is just you redefining words again. Universally when discussing morals doesn't mean "in all circumstances to ME" it means "to all people in all circumstances" - Why can't you just discuss things using the commonly defined terms instead of constantly trying to wiggle out of positions by redefining terms?

You basically want your cake and eat it too.

Whenever someone accuses me of this, I run to the dictionary to see if I am off base. Merriam Webster defines "universal" as "including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception." So when I say that I assess all activity by sentient beings everywhere by the same moral code, I am applying my moral code universally. In other words, all people, everywhere, should be assessing things as I assess them. If they do not, they are acting immorally. Seer is claiming that all people everywhere should adhere to his moral framework (his interpretation of the Christian framework that he has adopted).

Michel is saying "all people everywhere should be acting according to moral framework X.
Seer is saying "all people everywhere should be acting according to moral framework Y.

Michel's moral framework is derived from what he believes humans everywhere should value
Seer's moral framework is derived from his interpretation of a moral framework written into a collection of book (the bible).

The difference is...?

It seems to me that you use relative morality as a hidey hole to run to whenever you need to avoid confronting a claim about morality and the rest of the time you argue as if objective morality is the truth.

What exact claim about morality do you think I'm trying to avoid...?
And where have I ever suggested "objective morality is the truth," (other than to note that your moral code is objective to me).

But then that is probably just me attempting to "mind read" you again.

Possible. Don't know yet...

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense Charles, you are just trying to clean it up now. You were using the majority to define what was trivial or not. That the majority would not generally see food choices as important as moral choices. And that appeal to the majority is a fallacy. Period.

Charles? Since you ended this with "period," I guess that settles it.

Except I didn't. I merely noted that the majority would recognize your ploy. It doesn't "define" it.

You know no such thing Carp, you have no idea how a widespread acceptance of moral relativism would affect the moral atmosphere.

Actually - two separate things. I DO know what impact widespread use of moral relativism would be. I know this because widespread moral relativism already exists. YOU are a moral relativist, for the reasons I have already cited (which you keep cutting out). What I don't know is the impact if everyone finally acknowledged they were actual moral relativists. THAT has not happened. Most of humanity operates under the illusion that they are moral absolutists.

And again Carp, moral disagreement no more disproves objective more truths than moral agreement would prove them.

I have made no claim to "disproving" them. I HAVE made a claim to showing how YOU (and everyone else) are a moral relativist. I have also shown how even if there WERE a god, moral relativism would still hold. We simply would have a more powerful player in the mix.

Legal systems do and can can contradict each other. And? But you made a universal claim. That wife rape is universally immoral, that is a direct contradiction to the man who says that wife is universally moral.

And that would be a problem if morality were absolute/universal. Since it is not, no violation of the Law of Non-contradiction has occurred. The Law of Non-contradiction says that a claim cannot be simultaneously true and untrue at the same time and in the same way. So this is another appeal to Technique #1.

Then you are making my point, you have reduced all MORAL STATEMENTS to absurdity! Bigotry against gays is both moral and immoral. It is meaningless

Not in the least. It is moral to one person - immoral to another. It is not meaningless. It is meaningful to each. You seem to claim that only absolute and universal things are "meaningful." But I am willing to bet that your love for your spouse is meaningful to you - yet it is entirely subjective. Subjective things have meaning, despite your continued assertions that they do not. So you are back to Technique #1 - which says nothing.

Well if moral disagreement does not disprove universal moral truths, what would? And why do you keep bring up moral disagreement in your argument if it has no bearing?

It is close to impossible to prove an existential negative, so I don't even try. I cannot prove to you that god does not exist. I cannot prove to you that unicorns do not exist. I cannot prove to you that the FSM does not exist. I cannot prove to you that "moral absolutes" do not exist. I can show you how morality functions, and quite well, relatively - how all of us are functioning as relative/subjective moral agents, and how even a god (if it existed) would also be functioning that way. I cannot prove to you that "moral absolutes" do not exist.

I can tell you no one has ever been able to show that they do.

[lilpixieofterror]

Conclusive? Pixie - science is almost never "conclusive." It operates in degrees of certitude. But there is a reasonable amount of evidence that homosexuality has both a nature (genetic) and nurture component. You need only look it up. I have worked with the community long enough to know both are true.

You are younger than I. Lynchings were still occuring into the late 1960s, so within my lifetime. Cross burnings still happen. Earlier posts showed how people of color are still statistically screened out of interviews at a higher rate than white people. We are not beating "past demons," we are remembering that the price of freedom is constant vigilance.

Actually, I said nothing about "your life." I pointed out the callousness of your comments, and specifically noted it was assuming you are not black or a member of the LGBTQ community. That was the topic we were discussing. I have no doubt, as a woman, you may have encountered the kind of misogyny many women experience. If you have, then I have to wonder how you can so blithely dismiss the experience of people who encounter similar things due to their skin color or their sexual orientation.

Actually, my comment was about your blanket dismissal. I said nothing about what you did or did not experience. And, I will point out, you really know nothing about me, nor do you know anything about my experiences with discrimination.

I think your position is naive - and dangerous.

Yes because we all know the flood gates will open and racist will flood the streets.

I don't recall saying anything about "heroism."



Sometimes, your conclusions leave me somewhat speechless. I have no idea how you got here from anything I've said, or how this even relates to the part of my post you were responding to.

And I have no idea how you can stand being on the internet.

[Psychic Missile]

Except you want my kids subjected to your tenets! And as far as public schools go, they get my tax dollars too, and like all citizens I get a say, a vote.

I want people subjected to best practices based on what the evidence shows. If that's supposed to be a tenet of mine, then it looks you're on the wrong team.

If you are arguing that policy should be based on your preferences because you're correct, then why do you care about democratic ideals? People getting a voice because they pay taxes shouldn't matter if you know what's best for everyone unless you only want to use it as a means to an end, in which case your argument isn't in favor of democratic representation but rather tyranny of the majority. Is that indeed what you want? Also, what theological goal are you seeking by the implementation of an anti-homosexuality education policy? Hearts and minds wouldn't be changed since you are advocating a mere withholding of information. The people you would be affecting are either the "wrong" kind of Christian or not Christian at all, so there are no souls at stake. I don't get it.

[Tassman]

Except you want my kids subjected to your tenets! And as far as public schools go, they get my tax dollars too, and like all citizens I get a say, a vote.

And you want my kids subjected to your tenets. The problems with your tenets, as opposed to mine, is that they deny a relatively large segment of the population their equal civil rights. Worse, this discrimination is based upon personal religious beliefs. Why should one's tax dollars support the religions beliefs of some?

[seer]

I want people subjected to best practices based on what the evidence shows. If that's supposed to be a tenet of mine, then it looks you're on the wrong team.

What evidence are you speaking of? You can teach how to be protected from STD's without getting into every possible sexual deviation. Remember, this thread was about PP using 50 Shades of Gray as a course lesson for kids. Do you agree with that?

If you are arguing that policy should be based on your preferences because you're correct, then why do you care about democratic ideals? People getting a voice because they pay taxes shouldn't matter if you know what's best for everyone unless you only want to use it as a means to an end, in which case your argument isn't in favor of democratic representation but rather tyranny of the majority. Is that indeed what you want? Also, what theological goal are you seeking by the implementation of an anti-homosexuality education policy? Hearts and minds wouldn't be changed since you are advocating a mere withholding of information. The people you would be affecting are either the "wrong" kind of Christian or not Christian at all, so there are no souls at stake. I don't get it.

In a poll I linked 72% of parents believe that parents should be able to opt out their kids from sex ed. Do you agree with that? Because when my son was going to High School he could not opt out without losing credit for the whole social science course, and would have been held back. Do you see that as right?

[seer]

And you want my kids subjected to your tenets. The problems with your tenets, as opposed to mine, is that they deny a relatively large segment of the population their equal civil rights. Worse, this discrimination is based upon personal religious beliefs. Why should one's tax dollars support the religions beliefs of some?

Nonsense, if schools did not teach sex ed, then no one's tenets would dominate.

[seer]

Charles? Since you ended this with "period," I guess that settles it.

Sorry Carp, really I didn't mean to insult you! ; )

Except I didn't. I merely noted that the majority would recognize your ploy. It doesn't "define" it.

Please Carp, your whole argument boiled down to defining what was trivial or not by what the majority thought. All through this debate you were saying things like: But your consistent use of things widely held as "trivial preferences" to compare to things widely held as "core values," is somewhat revealing of your agenda.

Actually - two separate things. I DO know what impact widespread use of moral relativism would be. I know this because widespread moral relativism already exists. YOU are a moral relativist, for the reasons I have already cited (which you keep cutting out). What I don't know is the impact if everyone finally acknowledged they were actual moral relativists. THAT has not happened. Most of humanity operates under the illusion that they are moral absolutists.

No Carp, people generally are not moral relativists, and whether that belief is tied to a truism or not, it is how people think. And you really are using a double standard - what if belief in universal moral truths is one of those "core" values that you speak of? You are trying to trivialise what others see as paramount. Doing the same thing you accused me of.

I have made no claim to "disproving" them. I HAVE made a claim to showing how YOU (and everyone else) are a moral relativist. I have also shown how even if there WERE a god, moral relativism would still hold. We simply would have a more powerful player in the mix.

You have shown no such thing. Here is a God given universal truth - adultery is morally wrong. It is never right to bed another man's wife. How is that relative?

And that would be a problem if morality were absolute/universal. Since it is not, no violation of the Law of Non-contradiction has occurred. The Law of Non-contradiction says that a claim cannot be simultaneously true and untrue at the same time and in the same way. So this is another appeal to Technique #1.

But that is false, both men made universal claims: wife rape is universally immoral, wife rape is universally mortal. Since you made the universal claim it is contradicted by another universal claim.

Not in the least. It is moral to one person - immoral to another. It is not meaningless. It is meaningful to each. You seem to claim that only absolute and universal things are "meaningful." But I am willing to bet that your love for your spouse is meaningful to you - yet it is entirely subjective. Subjective things have meaning, despite your continued assertions that they do not. So you are back to Technique #1 - which says nothing.

Not the point. I'm speaking of moral statements. Again, for instance, you can not claim that bigotry against gays is wrong, since statement is both true and false depending on opinion. You have successfully reduced all moral statements to absurdity.