Okay here is the deal. I want to know if anybody else thinks that freedom of sexuality should be added to the first amendment.
-
Ha! Here we go again30% Voted for by TeChNoWC, Weydon, Kazrith, The warrior poet.
Weydon and Kazrith can probably guess as to what I am about to say before I even say it. But, if ever, my argument most certainly applies here. Is this pertaining to all forms of sexuality?
-
Absolutely not,23% Voted for by Dwn, likewhatitis100, Energizer Bunny.
This is just another attempt for gays to try to justify themselves ,gain acceptance and tollerance, and increase thier numbers,Nothing from any angle or scheame should be legislated to cause that effect.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
I'm against the bill as there are no propositions to legally discriminate those who choose (if it is a choice) to be gay, aside from marriage. Discrimination in companies is possible, but that is just as regulated as race and religious discrimination. The amendment wouldn't really serve a point, and actually has some inherent dangers unless rephrased and scrictly defined as "freedom of sexuality between consenting adults". That said, this is a bigotted reason to be against the bill. *This is just another attempt for gays to try to justify themselves ,gain acceptance and tollerance, and increase thier numbers* What do you think freedom of religion was for? It wasn't a scheme, it was an outright declaration for acceptence and equality. I swear, I am in physical pain from the ideas that come from the right sometimes.
-
justify this
just a small reminder it was not us gays that proposed an admendment! btw i have yet to encounter even one gay recruiter however you only have to walk down the street to find some vacant eyed christian handing out tracks. -
bob
I must admit that is a good point bob. -
why is it that on this subject no one can find common ground? i mean i can see the passion with abortion thats life or death no matter what side your on. is it the word "marriage" could we agree on some form civil unions? i assume that most of us will agree that gay people souldn't be denied houseing, visitation rites and inheritence rites? why is it that one word can make otherwise good people act like dopes. ps i'm talking both sides!
-
So far as I know
No one has proposed that amendment at all -
"Should Freedom of Sexuality be added to the First Amendment?"
-
I dont know who posted that, however ,Im almost certain he wasnt a congressman,or senator, and this certainly isn't the proper place to submit constitutional proposals even if he is
-
increase in numbers?! are you fucking serious! all human life is sacred and to be cherished, not discriminated against. i think adding an amendment to the constitution would be furthering you fucking bigots' belief that the GLBT community isn't human at all, when in all actuality it is the biased and cold at heart that take the form of the icy, inhuman.
-
increase in numbers?! are you fucking serious! all human life is sacred and to be cherished, not discriminated against. i think adding an amendment to the constitution would be furthering you fucking bigots' belief that the GLBT community isn't human at all, when in all actuality it is the biased and cold at heart that take the form of the icy, inhuman.
-
Alas, my friend...
Jude lest ye be judged. :) I don't understand why it isn't just okay with everyone. It's just love and/or pleasure.
-
-
Yes15% Voted for by wandering poetess, BloodRedTears66613.
It should be added. The first amendment states that we have freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. So why shouldn't we also have the freedom to choose our sexuality without fear of being surpressed by the government.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
FREEDOM OF SEXUALITY?
Were there any instances where the government tried to supress freedom of sexuality?I thought freedom of sexuality already exist. -
NO NEVER
we should be treated no different than anyone else if thet wish to call us faggots they should be able to. other minorities have been called names. if they choose not to hire us that ok we will start or own business. if they try to use the bible to justify their hate we will be the new sons of ham and we will wish them well and forgive them because they have done that to others before us. if thay try to exclude us from their churches we will start our own. and if thay kill us for who we are then we will die knowing that others have gone before us. basic human rites should not have to be added to the constitution. no matter what they do to us the only one who can make me a victim is me. -
IT SHOULD NOT INTERFER WITH FREEDOM OF OTHERS
Their freedom should not interfer or violate the values or beliefs of others.Should a law be enacted it should take into consideration that.However,if a law is enacted there is chance that the current sexuality freedom being enjoyed by the monority might even be taken away. Because inorder for a law to be passed it should have majority support and currently the majority favors the sexuality freedom that is consistent with the current ethics.So a law might even do more harm than good to the minority who seems to think that law will give protection over their wild sexual desires that are beyond ethical standards. -
Somebody's freedom should not interfere with someone elses beliefs? Using that Logic I could say according to my religion you must not defectate on a sunday. Why should you apply by the rules of my religion?
-
Two consenting adults don't need any ethical approval to partake in sexual activities. Eventually your electorate will change its mind over such issues but it will take longer than most...
-
THEY SHOULD HAVE THEIR FREEDOM ALONE
"Why should you apply by the rules of my religion?" Why should i be forced to see naked people or see people having sex when its against my beliefs and values? This is what i'm saying they should not interfer with someone else's beliefs and values. They should have their sexual freedom alone.We dont want to be part of their sexual freedom. -
"Two consenting adults don’t need any ethical approval to partake in sexual activities." ethics represents popular views on social behavior and one does not need to get approval, but of course everybody knows acceptable social behavior and unacceptable social behavior ---which is ethical standard.
-
It was socially unacceptable for people of different races to be a couple. The was nothing wrong with it, ethically.
-
*"It was socially unacceptable for people of different races to be a couple. The was nothing wrong with it, ethically."* Weydon, could you please give your percieved definition of ethics? Do you regard unethical as anything that infringes on other's well-being etc what exactly is ethics to you? You present a seemingly metaphysical notion, so it must have parameters.
-
Ethics are discernign the difference between right and wrong. Things are wrong do harm (in various possible ways) to other people, including infringing on their rights and well-being. Things are right when they don't do this, especially when they promote the opposite. *You present a seemingly metaphysical notion, so it must have parameters.* Not really. I think there are things that are set right and wrong. Not neccesarily by some supernatural force, but just by simple reasoning. There is no reason to not allow people of a different race to become a couple, therefore it is wrong to stop them. It's not a metaphysical understanding, it's just a fact.
-
point: likewhatitis100-
when was the last time you saw homosexual sex? last time i remember i have seen it is in one movie for, oh, i donno, 20 seconds? that is if you have ever seen brokeback mountain. now when was the last time you saw heterosexual sex? i donno, like in almost every adult movie! i can barely walk down the street without some sorta heterosexual sex advertisement popping out at me. hey, this kind of sex is sure as heck against my "values." personally i dont even like to think about it. but what am i to do huh? stay bolted up in my house and avoid everything associeated with society? -
Let me just mention that this country was created as an escape from opression. It was created to give freedom of choice, any choice. We've been given the freedom to choose what we say, print, worship, believe. Now that this particular aspect of life has become an issue in the United States, it should be looked at. It is just another choice. As the first amendment is there to give us the freedom to choose, it should be added as well to clear the fog away from the issue. If someone does not like the idea of homosexuals having the freedom to be what they are, that person can simply not be gay. If the sight of it bothers them, they have the freedom to turn away. This country is created to give us the freedom to be who we are. Also, reasoning against homosexuality is because of religion (and people being uncomfortable, but I already spoke on that). In such, this country believes strongly on separation of church and state. This is passing the church and becoming a matter of state; it should be looked at without the bias of religion. Thus, it should be seen as simply another choice, which goes back to my previous statements.
-
-
No15% Voted for by Spade-Dragon, Augusta Agrippina.
First off, as a gay person I really don't think we need this. We do need to be protected from discrimination, but that's different than a law allowing our sexuality. Most, if not all, states cannot punish someone for a homosexual consentual act, so what's the point in the first place? Besides, if this law was passed then ALL forms of sexuality would be made legal, including beastality...which would present some problems...so I dont' really think such a law is needed in this day and age. Also, what would the general public think if we needed a law to feel accepted? We don't need one, and such a law would just look...well, bad. Unnecessary.
-
MINORITY RISK LOSING THEIR CURRENT SEXUALITY FREEDOM IF LAW IS ENACTEDVoted for by likewhatitis100.
If the sexuality freedom law were enacted there is chance that the current sexuality freedom being enjoyed by the minority might even be taken away. Because in order for a law to be passed it should have majority support and currently the majority favors the sexuality freedom that is consistent with the current ethics. So a law might even do more harm than good to the minority who seems to think that law will give protection over their wild sexual desires that are against ethics.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
They are not against ETHICS. People who do them are arguing, within good reason, that there is nothing ethically wrong about it. Additionally, you seem to be under the impression the only enjoyable thing about "wild sexuality" is that "the majority" doesn't like it. That people are breaking the rules and that's AWESOME or something. Stop being juvenile.
-
UNPOPULAR SOCIAL BEHAVIOR HAS WIDER REJECTION.
Ethics represent views on social behavior that is acceptable to the society. What is acceptable to the society is popular. A popular view enjoys wider acceptance and therefore constitute a standard of conduct. On the other hand an unpopular view which has a wider rejection can not constitute a standard of conduct. Surely, one doesn’t need a rocket scientist to tell them that this social behavior is unpopular with people. Anyone can see that. Since an unpopular social behavior can not be a standard of conduct or part of it, it stands to reason that it can not constitute ethics. And it can not be ethical. -
Laws and manners represent social opinion. Ethics do not. It was legal to have a slave. It was against the law to allow women and minorities to vote. It was socially unacceptable for a woman to wear a skirt that barely exposed her knees--or even to wear pants. These things are not ethically wrong and never were. They were just socially unacceptable.
-
ETHICS REPRESENT SOCIAL OPINION
Ethics are standard of conduct formed by manners and Laws are enforcement of rules that are ethical. Ethics can change with time. See detailed defination below: Ethics: Normative ethics seeks to establish norms or standards of conduct. Manners:The prevailing customs, social conduct, and norms of a specific society, period, or group, especially as the subject of a literary work. Laws:The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law. So, since manners represent social opinion and Ethics are standards of conduct made up of manners therefore ethics also represent social opinion. -
-
If ethics are so easily malleable, then they mean nothing.
-
-
Not necessarily. An evolutionist might say, that the malleability of ethics is beneficial to society and therefore to the continuation of species. Ethics, not being a universal code, is still available for the enhancement of humanity. But yeah, It does kinda demean itself. Once again, Neitsczhe inquiry, that the abolishment of christian belief in society would lead to a collapse of mainstream foundational ethics and then would produce nihilism. I guess 'mean nothing' is valid as ethics (law) could still possibly work, but morality (one's desire to be ethical) is 'demeaned'.
-
-
No. Ethics are a constant. We strive to understand it in order to be ethical. Sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong. Which is why we should constantly strive to understand them better rather than adhere to set rules and nothing else.
-
-
You just said you don't believe in a universal code of ethics! If ethics are constant, this is by definition a metaphysical property, because it is, something observed of and created by the physical world and physical laws, yet is not physical in its own manifesto. It is a product of what is observed, eg time.
-
-
I don't believe in a universal code that could be handed to us. I think most ethical problems are either inherently right or inherently wrong. Sometimes they are inherently nothing really, and therefore persecuting people for it is inherently wrong. We can't read a list that describes what these things actually are. We can only constantly try to better understand them. This understanding should be documented, but not set in stone. At any point in time someone can question them again, and if their logic can alter it, then it is altered.
-
-
-
-
-
-
*"These things are not ethically wrong and never were."* Who decides that? They may invoke an ethical feeling nowadays (may, I think short skirts are unethical) but it doesn't mean they always did. I think likewhatitis100 has hit the nail on the head. Where is this axiomatical, metaphysical system of ethics that is constant throughout all time and how can one obtain it? Just because you feel something is ethical, does not mean the rest of society does. If one desires a foundational (therefore constant) system of ethics, one needs to create it, or refer to a pre-existing one. That is why the Bible has been able to create an ethical society as it has, because it was, up until recently, the basis for social ethics (and inner morality).
-
The point of ethical philosophy is to figure that out. If at one point short skirts is unethical (HOW are they unethical? are bathing suits unethical?) and the next they are, at one point you're a bad person and in another you're not--for the same exact thing. *Where is this axiomatical, metaphysical system of ethics that is constant throughout all time and how can one obtain it?* That doesn't exist. *Just because you feel something is ethical, does not mean the rest of society does.* That's your problem. You think it's based soley on how you feel. You were raised conservatively and short skirts make you uncomfortable--so it's ethically wrong! Rationalism decides ethics. *If one desires a foundational (therefore constant) system of ethics, one needs to create it, or refer to a pre-existing one.* So just like that, I can become an ethical person by eating people alive and robbing them because it was an ethical system I created? I can refer to pre-existing ethical standards of mutilating girls' clitoris just because another culture has done so? This is the worst philosophical notion ever suggested--even worse than the idea that we're not actually thinking about what we're thinking about. At least that one doesn't cause harm. Once again, this will likely be one of my final comments in a debate with you. You are easily one of the most intelligent suckers I've ever encountered. Use your mind instead of shutting it up out of fear.
-
IT’S NOT ETHICALIZING FROM RATIONALISM POINT OF VIEW THAT WILL HELP IT SELL.
IT’S NOT ETHICALIZING FROM RATIONALISM POINT OF VIEW THAT WILL HELP IT SELL. *"Rationalism decides ethics"* What is at issue, is not making the behavior ethical, but to make it acceptable to the people. So, you can call it ethical or whatever in the name of rationalism that will not change the fact that the majority doesn’t like it. -
-
*So, you can call it ethical or whatever in the name of rationalism that will not change the fact that the majority doesn’t like it.* You're talking about laws again. The majority of the people once wanted slavery. It was wrong anyway. The minority that fought against it were right.
-
-
*"The point of ethical philosophy is to figure that out. If at one point short skirts is unethical (HOW are they unethical? are bathing suits unethical?) and the next they are, at one point you’re a bad person and in another you’re not—for the same exact thing."* That's life. if you want to avoid such transitions, ensure that they don't occur. *"That doesn’t exist."* So then it is subjective (decided by man and man alone (society)). Ok, so you present the problem that the same act can be bad at different times. But you percieve the act as always bad or always good, regardless of what other people thought. What makes it the way you percieve it? What makes you right and them wrong? Weydon, this sounds so flawed its not funny. You are talking about anarchism. *"That’s your problem. You think it’s based soley on how you feel. You were raised conservatively and short skirts make you uncomfortable—so it’s ethically wrong!"* I wasn't raised conservatively. I was raised to think 'short skirts man I want to screw her' so don't give me your crap. I learned later to reconsider such notions. *"So just like that, I can become an ethical person by eating people alive and robbing them because it was an ethical system I created? I can refer to pre-existing ethical standards of mutilating girls’ clitoris just because another culture has done so? This is the worst philosophical notion ever suggested—even worse than the idea that we’re not actually thinking about what we’re thinking about. At least that one doesn’t cause harm. Once again, this will likely be one of my final comments in a debate with you. You are easily one of the most intelligent suckers I’ve ever encountered. Use your mind instead of shutting it up out of fear."* Oh dear. You threaten to shut up. Wow I should be so scared. Hitler used his mind and look what system of ethics he came up with. It is subjective, unless one wishes to make an ethical system, or access one that transcends reality.
-
*That’s life. if you want to avoid such transitions, ensure that they don’t occur.* Avoid transitions like allowing women to wear pants and ending slavery? Transitions aren't bad. Bad things are bad. Adhering to REASON behind actions will ensure good things will occur. Adhering to "Well, let's pick a jumble of rules proposed and STICK TO IT!" will oppress. *So then it is subjective* Of course. Every time a moral crisis is encountered it should be approached as unique and worked out appropriately. *Ok, so you present the problem that the same act can be bad at different times. But you percieve the act as always bad or always good, regardless of what other people thought. What makes it the way you percieve it? What makes you right and them wrong?* Present me with a reason why something is right or wrong, and I will support it. None of us is perfect and must accept that certain notions we followed may have been wrong. This ensures the goal is always the ehtical outcome, and not the one we're just comfortable with. *You are talking about anarchism.* Anything less strict than "MY RULES OR ELSE!!!" is not anarchism. You are the one that claims we can merely make up an ethical sytem and just adhere to it, thus being ethical beings. THAT is anarchism. Of course, you'd rather we all choose YOUR ethical system. *I was raised to think ‘short skirts man I want to screw her’* You were RAISED to think THAT? *so don’t give me your crap. I learned later to reconsider such notions.* Obviously not. Perhaps you later became ashamed of yourself. That's up to you, I couldn't care less. But if it's hot out and a girl wants to wear a short skirt or shorts, I'm not going to stop her. I may even enjoy looking at it, but I'm not saying it's ok for only hot girls to wear shorter skirts. Even the ugly ones can. There's nothing unethical about it. *Oh dear. You threaten to shut up. Wow I should be so scared.* I didn't catch the part where I threatened you. *Hitler used his mind and look what system of ethics he came up with. It is subjective, unless one wishes to make an ethical system, or access one that transcends reality.* I will settle with focusing on contradicting nature of this: Look at the system of ethics Hitler came up with...we need to create ethical systems if we wish to have a foundation of one. Once more: Hitler created his own ethical system. In order to have stability, we need to create a strict ethical system. Right.
-
*"Avoid transitions like allowing women to wear pants and ending slavery? Transitions aren’t bad. Bad things are bad. Adhering to REASON behind actions will ensure good things will occur. Adhering to “Well, let’s pick a jumble of rules proposed and STICK TO IT!” will oppress."* Weydon, have you ever heard of the word 'specific'? Transitions such as 'killing is bad' to 'killing is good' would be regarded by many as a bad transition. Therefore, you can be specific in the transitions that do not need to be made, and make sure everyone adheres to it. *"I didn’t catch the part where I threatened you."* No, you didn't threaten me, you threatened (universal) to never debate with me again, simply because you find it discomforting. *"Of course. Every time a moral crisis is encountered it should be approached as unique and worked out appropriately."* Well hey, that's what I was saying. Although, this is just progressive foundationalism (evolutionary ontology) so what is your argument exactly? *"Anything less strict than “MY RULES OR ELSE!!!” is not anarchism. You are the one that claims we can merely make up an ethical sytem and just adhere to it, thus being ethical beings. THAT is anarchism. Of course, you’d rather we all choose YOUR ethical system."* No, you seemed to imply 'MY RULES OR ELSE'. It seems obvious to us that ripping a girls clit open is bad, but you are claiming extremeties, and therefore summising that, because you can be righteous in extreme cases, you can claim an absolute ethical system of your own ('of course short skirts aren't bad!') *"I will settle with focusing on contradicting nature of this: Look at the system of ethics Hitler came up with…we need to create ethical systems if we wish to have a foundation of one. Once more: Hitler created his own ethical system. In order to have stability, we need to create a strict ethical system. Right."* Wow. I think you agreed with me yet just wanted to argue the point. So, is 'tis obvious' debunked, or do you wish to still cling to your rationalisations? Not to say that they are wrong, but one must see that, in observing Hitler and his psycho antics of establishing absolute ethics in relation to his own mindset, if we are to do such, it is anarchism. I say something is bad, you say it's not, and I am forced to believe you because you are convinced of the fact. This is anarchism, by definition, and to claim not would be illogical (hence defying your own 'infallible' system). *"You were RAISED to think THAT?"* This isn't a time to be talking about life details. We shall stay clear of this, because I wish to. Out of sincerity, I would ask that you please respect my wishes. *"Present me with a reason why something is right or wrong, and I will support it. None of us is perfect and must accept that certain notions we followed may have been wrong. This ensures the goal is always the ehtical outcome, and not the one we’re just comfortable with."* Ok, I will agree with this, but it does suggest that ethics is not infallible. One cannot maintain strong assurance that they are right, but possibly (and justifiably merely probably) right.
-
*Weydon, have you ever heard of the word ‘specific’? Transitions such as ‘killing is bad’ to ‘killing is good’ would be regarded by many as a bad transition. Therefore, you can be specific in the transitions that do not need to be made, and make sure everyone adheres to it.* No. Every time a transition is suggested with new reasoning, it must be considered. Even if someone suggests that rape is, in fact, a good thing. You can't merely say "No, it bad because the rules say it's bad!". It will always be bad, sure. There's no possible way someone can come up with evidence of rape being a good thing. But this must be shown by disPROVING their reasoning--not by ignoring their arguments while pointing at the rulebook. This ensures the ability to question rules for the sake of progressive understanding of ethics. *No, you didn’t threaten me, you threatened (universal) to never debate with me again, simply because you find it discomforting.* I "threatened" (stated) that I would likely stop participating in THIS debate because it's pointless to debate ethics with someone who claims that as long as we make up an ethical code and never abandon it (even in the face of explanations that what we are doing is in fact wrong), we are being ethical. *Well hey, that’s what I was saying. Although, this is just progressive foundationalism (evolutionary ontology) so what is your argument exactly?* That's not what you were saying. You said we make our own ethical system or sign up to an existing one, and then always adhere to it. *No, you seemed to imply ‘MY RULES OR ELSE’.* When? *It seems obvious to us that ripping a girls clit open is bad, but you are claiming extremeties, and therefore summising that, because you can be righteous in extreme cases, you can claim an absolute ethical system of your own (‘of course short skirts aren’t bad!’)* Explain why they are bad. *Wow. I think you agreed with me yet just wanted to argue the point. So, is ‘tis obvious’ debunked, or do you wish to still cling to your rationalisations? Not to say that they are wrong, but one must see that, in observing Hitler and his psycho antics of establishing absolute ethics in relation to his own mindset, if we are to do such, it is anarchism.* I have no idea what you are talking about. Hitler was wrong. He had logic behind his beliefs, but they were flawed. He believed the so called Aryans to be superior and others like Jews to be evil and major contributors to the downfall of mankind. His logic was wrong. Therefore, true rationalization would disprove someone like him--but sticking to *"If one desires a foundational (therefore constant) system of ethics, one needs to create it, or refer to a pre-existing one."*, will simply lead to people following someone like Hitler without questioning it for themselves. *I say something is bad, you say it’s not, and I am forced to believe you because you are convinced of the fact.* When did I say that? You say "something" (short skirts) are bad. You have no reasoning behind this, you just say it. I say without a reason for it to be bad, it is not bad. Then you go off on wild tangents about how we need to create or follow firm ethical codes and never sway from it--but not if you're Hitler because if you're Hitler your ethical code is a product of not being flexible enough. I have no idea what you are even arguing. *Ok, I will agree with this, but it does suggest that ethics is not infallible.* Only our understanding of them. Slavery is a bad thing regardless of my perceptions on it. Prove to me that slavery is a good thing and I will realize I was wrong it turns out slavery IS a good thing. But you will not do this, because it is bad. The logic against it is infallible.
-
*"That’s not what you were saying. You said we make our own ethical system or sign up to an existing one, and then always adhere to it."* I quote, "if one desires a foundational (therefore constant) system of ethics" Not 'This is my stance!' Your system does the same thing. Although it always hinges on reason, it 'becomes' preset anyway. Although, I do understand that you believe that this foundation creates it's own consistency, and is the only formal foundation one ought to rest upon. So, what type of reasoning does one accept? 'I killed him because he was my black slave' that's a reason, even though you reason that being black or being a slave doesn't constitute an ethical reason for murder. So, what is the roots of your ethical system? What type of reasoning? Kantian? Utilitarian? Egoistic? Elaborate. *"When did I say that? You say “something” (short skirts) are bad. You have no reasoning behind this, you just say it. I say without a reason for it to be bad, it is not bad. Then you go off on wild tangents about how we need to create or follow firm ethical codes and never sway from it—but not if you’re Hitler because if you’re Hitler your ethical code is a product of not being flexible enough. I have no idea what you are even arguing."* I am only prompting you to assess your own beliefs, by posing problematics and contradictions. Hitler didn't immediately demand people follow his ethical code and then they did, he persuaded them with reason and emotion. His system was based upon this so called reason. It's just that one person's reason differs from another, and you will adhere to the reason that lines up with your own.
-
*"Explain why they are bad."* No, you made the claim (universal, not relative) so you convince me that it is ok. *"I have no idea what you are talking about. Hitler was wrong. He had logic behind his beliefs, but they were flawed. He believed the so called Aryans to be superior and others like Jews to be evil and major contributors to the downfall of mankind. His logic was wrong. Therefore, true rationalization would disprove someone like him"* You said logic is infallible! What!?!?! You are contradiciting yourself! You were the guy that reckons logic is just a way to explain truth and is always right! Oh, but there is 'true rationlisation'. Well then what makes yours truer than his? *"The logic against it is infallible."* Weydon, this is sad. One logical claim is infallible while another isn't, aside conviction and perception. Then it is unattainable, and if it is, it is via some form of transcendental revelation, that would axiomatise the claim as truth bearing. Yet you said yourself no such thing exists.
-
*I quote, “if one desires a foundational (therefore constant) system of ethics” Not ‘This is my stance!* Sorry, I guess I misudnerstood. What is your stance? *So, what type of reasoning does one accept? ‘I killed him because he was my black slave’ that’s a reason, even though you reason that being black or being a slave doesn’t constitute an ethical reason for murder. So, what is the roots of your ethical system? What type of reasoning? Kantian? Utilitarian? Egoistic? Elaborate.* A mix of utilitarianism, "common sense" morality to balance out some emotional absence in utiliarianism, and whatever else anyone wants to present to me is what I prescribe to. Labelling of styles matters not, only the argument itself. *I am only prompting you to assess your own beliefs, by posing problematics and contradictions. Hitler didn’t immediately demand people follow his ethical code and then they did, he persuaded them with reason and emotion.* As oppose to Salem witch trials, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, and Hitler's religious beliefs himself. Passionate and fearful connection with icons makes falling into believing false reason very easy, especially when under desperate conditions. *It’s just that one person’s reason differs from another, and you will adhere to the reason that lines up with your own.* No I don't. *No, you made the claim (universal, not relative) so you convince me that it is ok.* How could I possibly do that? Prove to me that wearing pants is ok. Prove to me that having a button on your shirt is ok. I never claimed wearing short skirts is inherently good, but that not allowing people to wear them is inherently BAD because there is no reason to stop them from doing it. *You said logic is infallible! What?! You are contradiciting yourself!* Logic under 2 different contexts. Logic itself is infallible, simply because it is the explanation of why and how things happened, even outside of our using it. Before we attempt to logically explain something, the logic abstactly exists as the sequence of events that lead to it. But then there's logic as the science of attempting to figure out what is. We use this logic to figure out everyday situations and worldly situations. Sometimes we are right and wrong. "My logic" (train of thought and explanation behind my actions and theories) that there is a force that pushes us to the Earth is in fact flawwed logic and when weight properly is a logical explanation as why I was wrong. "Isaac Newton's logic" of how there is a force that pulls us towards the Earth is abstractly logical. *You were the guy that reckons logic is just a way to explain truth and is always right! Oh, but there is ‘true rationlisation’. Well then what makes yours truer than his?* The fact that Jews and other minorites are not evil and major contributors to the downfall of mankind? *Weydon, this is sad. One logical claim is infallible while another isn’t, aside conviction and perception. Then it is unattainable, and if it is, it is via some form of transcendental revelation, that would axiomatise the claim as truth bearing. Yet you said yourself no such thing exists.* If our current logic against slavery is wrong, you are welcome to argue against it. If not, you must agree that it is true.
-
How could I possibly do that? Prove to me that *"wearing pants is ok. Prove to me that having a button on your shirt is ok. I never claimed wearing short skirts is inherently good, but that not allowing people to wear them is inherently BAD because there is no reason to stop them from doing it."* So if one cannot universally prove that murder and rape are bad, then, by your definition, we cannot stop people from committing these acts. So, prove to me that these things are bad, for sake of standing. *"Logic under 2 different contexts. Logic itself is infallible, simply because it is the explanation of why and how things happened, even outside of our using it. Before we attempt to logically explain something, the logic abstactly exists as the sequence of events that lead to it. But then there’s logic as the science of attempting to figure out what is. We use this logic to figure out everyday situations and worldly situations. Sometimes we are right and wrong. “My logic” (train of thought and explanation behind my actions and theories) that there is a force that pushes us to the Earth is in fact flawwed logic and when weight properly is a logical explanation as why I was wrong. “Isaac Newton’s logic” of how there is a force that pulls us towards the Earth is abstractly logical."* Oh, but I was never being specific when you adamantly hounded me for claiming that logic wasn't infallible. Maybe I was talking about Hitler's logic..... So, Weydon, how does one tell the difference between supposed infallible and fallible logic? *"If our current logic against slavery is wrong, you are welcome to argue against it. If not, you must agree that it is true."* Must I. *"A mix of utilitarianism, “common sense” morality to balance out some emotional absence in utiliarianism, and whatever else anyone wants to present to me is what I prescribe to. Labelling of styles matters not, only the argument itself."* The label's mere purpose is to reduce the argument from some one thousand words to just one. Don't be afraid to use them. *"As oppose to Salem witch trials, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, and Hitler’s religious beliefs himself. Passionate and fearful connection with icons makes falling into believing false reason very easy, especially when under desperate conditions."* Like, for instance, maybe even our current predicament.
-
*So if one cannot universally prove that murder and rape are bad, then, by your definition, we cannot stop people from committing these acts. So, prove to me that these things are bad, for sake of standing.* You obviously stumbled upon your error since you're desperately trying to compare rape, murder, buttons on shirts, pants, and short skirts. But I'll play along. Rape and murder are bad from various standpoints. For one, society would be in chaos and ruin if it was openly allowed. There would be no order and no one could be trusted. This would either lead to the extinction of the human race, or banding together of small communities that COULD trust each other not to rape and murder which in turn would reinstate local order through morality and gradually bring society back. Furthermore, they are completely against the value of human life and freedom. Their lives or ended or they are tortured and dominated. But you see no difference between one action and another aside from "Well, my church leaders said that one was bad, and this one was good so I guess I'll do that." I now perfectly understand how you were so easily duped into thinking we are merely flesh-robots. You have no concern for anything other than following what you were told was true by the thing that says it was true. *So, Weydon, how does one tell the difference between supposed infallible and fallible logic?* You can't. That's what I've been saying. "I don’t believe in a universal code that could be handed to us. I think most ethical problems are either inherently right or inherently wrong. Sometimes they are inherently nothing really, and therefore persecuting people for it is inherently wrong. We can’t read a list that describes what these things actually are. We can only constantly try to better understand them. This understanding should be documented, but not set in stone. At any point in time someone can question them again, and if their logic can alter it, then it is altered." *Must I.* Well, obviously not. You also don't have to admit we have gravity. But you'd wrong. Of course I doubt you believe there is no gravity and I doubt you believe slavery is good. You just realized I was right and thought that was the slickest way out. Cute. *The label’s mere purpose is to reduce the argument from some one thousand words to just one. Don’t be afraid to use them.* Hardly. I'm not about to scream "utilitarianism!" or "Immanue Kant!!!!" at someone anymore than I'm going to listen to someone who screams "Bible!". *Like, for instance, maybe even our current predicament.* Exactly. You understand logic well enough, but you're afraid to go against what you were told the "infallible Bible" means. Corageous of you...
-
*"Well, obviously not. You also don’t have to admit we have gravity. But you’d wrong. Of course I doubt you believe there is no gravity and I doubt you believe slavery is good. You just realized I was right and thought that was the slickest way out. Cute."* No, I realised that your rationalist views simply require me to accept, rather than to be convinced. That's what belief is for. *"Hardly. I’m not about to scream “utilitarianism!” or “Immanue Kant!!!!” at someone anymore than I’m going to listen to someone who screams “Bible!”."* The good thing about philosophy is, if you don't like any of the current theories, you just make another one up, and call it 'Weydonism'. *"Exactly. You understand logic well enough, but you’re afraid to go against what you were told the “infallible Bible” means. Corageous of you…"* To have courage when you are being ripped to shreds by wild dogs is something hard to come by, unless you are blind to the fact that there are in fact dogs there ripping you to peices. And as they say, 'You aren't brave if your not afraid'. So being unaware of the fact is not courageous, and neither is being scared shitless and begging for your mommy. True courage comes through the empowerment to be able to do so, and, as weakened, Earth bound individuals, well, for my self anyway, yeah I'm a coward without God. And I'm not 'afraid' to admit it. Yeah, I think I understand logic well enough. Well enough to see you go from seeing logic as infallible to realising by yourself that there is such thing as false logic. All logic seems to lead us to conclusions, but whether or not these conclusions are right we never 'know', we just assume so or seem convinced of the fact. *"You obviously stumbled upon your error since you’re desperately trying to compare rape, murder, buttons on shirts, pants, and short skirts. But I’ll play along. Rape and murder are bad from various standpoints. For one, society would be in chaos and ruin if it was openly allowed. There would be no order and no one could be trusted. This would either lead to the extinction of the human race, or banding together of small communities that COULD trust each other not to rape and murder which in turn would reinstate local order through morality and gradually bring society back. Furthermore, they are completely against the value of human life and freedom. Their lives or ended or they are tortured and dominated. But you see no difference between one action and another aside from “Well, my church leaders said that one was bad, and this one was good so I guess I’ll do that.” I now perfectly understand how you were so easily duped into thinking we are merely flesh-robots. You have no concern for anything other than following what you were told was true by the thing that says it was true."* All that rambling didn't prove anything. Ok, so all those things happen. What if one was not to care, as you so adamntly accuse me of? The fact that I care does not blind me from the fact that I realise ethics is not bounded to such feelings and rationale, as you seem to so narrow mindedly claim. However, I have come to respect your view more so than I did through your posts, so I do credit you. However, no I am not convinced. For one who wishes to live in society, sure, murder is not desired. But how does this lead it to be 'ethical'? This is only an argument for likewhatitis100's claim, in that ethics is decided by majority vote. So if we all didn't want to live in a society, and we wanted to be driven by fear and terror, then we would all vote for murder, hence making it ethical, and showing through likewhatis100's theory of ethics.
-
Aren't ethics bound by morals, which are the standard of right and wrong. Because cultures have different views on right and wrong their ethics will differ. Universally ethics are different, some situations are universally wrong ethically such as murder and rape since these involve harming another person. If homosexuallity harms anyone it can only harm the people directly involved so cannot be against universal ethics. Cultural ethics yes universal ethics no. Can a country who believes in freedom also believe that the law should be bound by cultural ethics that limit other peoples freedom?
-
*No, I realised that your rationalist views simply require me to accept, rather than to be convinced. That’s what belief is for.* Right... *The good thing about philosophy is, if you don’t like any of the current theories, you just make another one up, and call it ‘Weydonism’.* Ok... *o have courage when you are being ripped to shreds by wild dogs is something hard to come by, unless you are blind to the fact that there are in fact dogs there ripping you to peices. And as they say, ‘You aren’t brave if your not afraid’. So being unaware of the fact is not courageous, and neither is being scared shitless and begging for your mommy. True courage comes through the empowerment to be able to do so, and, as weakened, Earth bound individuals, well, for my self anyway, yeah I’m a coward without God. And I’m not ‘afraid’ to admit it.* Deep! Wait. Not at all. "I'm a coward without God! You hear that God? I LOVE YOU! I'M ON YOUR SIDE!". Get over yourself. I love God too. I'd be pretty bummed out without Him. I respect Him enough to "love" Him for reasons other than fear though. *Well enough to see you go from seeing logic as infallible to realising by yourself that there is such thing as false logic.* If you're not going to read my posts I'm not going to debate with you. *All that rambling didn’t prove anything. Ok, so all those things happen. What if one was not to care, as you so adamntly accuse me of? The fact that I care does not blind me from the fact that I realise ethics is not bounded to such feelings and rationale, as you seem to so narrow mindedly claim. However, I have come to respect your view more so than I did through your posts, so I do credit you. However, no I am not convinced. For one who wishes to live in society, sure, murder is not desired. But how does this lead it to be ‘ethical’? This is only an argument for likewhatitis100’s claim, in that ethics is decided by majority vote. So if we all didn’t want to live in a society, and we wanted to be driven by fear and terror, then we would all vote for murder, hence making it ethical, and showing through likewhatis100’s theory of ethics.* You just thoroughly explained that if you didn't want to live in an ethical world, you could do unethical things.
-
*"Deep! Wait. Not at all. “I’m a coward without God! You hear that God? I LOVE YOU! I’M ON YOUR SIDE!”. Get over yourself. I love God too. I’d be pretty bummed out without Him. I respect Him enough to “love” Him for reasons other than fear though."* Well, if you have the ability to do so (I can love God without the fear, but not the courage), then good for you, so you are either courageous, or simply in the category of 'blind', in that you do not experience the same level of fear as I do. Is this not a simple concept to grasp? *"You just thoroughly explained that if you didn’t want to live in an ethical world, you could do unethical things."* No, because reason dictates ethics, according to you. And if logic is somewhat fallible, or prone to the possibilty of fallibility, then I'm guessing reason would be too, and so any number of 'ethical' societies can be imagined of (as in, believed to be ethical, because the universal still exists, but has no bearing on us) and so therefore the reasoning that brought such societies to such conclusions (and ours being one of these 'possible' societies) would therefore be controlled by a consensus of reason, by social effort. Fallible reasoning that is selected over other fallible reasoning, by people (which is society) then becomes the status quo, and is accepted as 'ethics'. So therefore, your theory of ethics having a foundation in reason, and this reason being prone to fallibility, is formulated by society, and what is considered reasonable to society. *"If you’re not going to read my posts I’m not going to debate with you."* I read your posts, but you still seemed to contradict yourself since our first debate on logic.
-
Applehead
Universal ethics refers to a set notion of ethics that is true and right, regardless of people's thoughts on the matter. -
"regardless of people’s thoughts on the matter." I am unclear as to why you put this??
-
*"Can a country who believes in freedom also believe that the law should be bound by cultural ethics that limit other peoples freedom?"* Yes. Unless you want to ascribe to absolute freedom, in which case we issue lawlessness.
-
-
umVoted for by grant.
And how do gay people "increase their numbers" exactly?
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
Um ?..hmmmmm
They would hope to by convincing those who have that kind of leanings, but the strength of will to obstain from the practice, that since it is socialy acceptable (thank God it is not)to go ahead and indulge. I actualy would have thought someone of your overall intellectual capacity , would have been able to figure this one out without my help .
-
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Weydon
September 15, 2006
Edit | Reply
Kazrith
September 17, 2006
Edit | Reply
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free