you're kidding right? right? please say i'm right... what logical exist either way with regard to criticising another. criticize derives from the word cretique. from there you get critic. do all movie critics agree?????? do you not see logical grounds for someone to criticize another????



you have asked that question countless times in this thread and it has been answered as many times from as many different people here the exact same way. yes, she judged because of what her morals say so.



she has every right. just as you have the right to push your religion. the first amendment protects both of those rights for both of you with regards to law. she is sitting in her home in america in front of her computer and has every right to push anything she choses. do you not live in america? have you not read the first amendment lately? ever?



uh, just curious. can you identify anybody here who gets your point? anybody at all? are we all dense? could it be that you are not very effective at making your point because instead of writing sentences that contribute to the credibility of your point you instead begin many sentences with, "what you are saying is......" and then inventing words that i never said an do nothing to illustrate your point even if i had said them? and then terribly misdefine the practice as "rhetorical technique"? do you think that at least some of these very ineffective debate tactics help you make your point? hmmmm?

Exactly. This is truly amusing.

People come on the forums making assertions of 'absolutisms' and then acting like as if everyone who doesn't accept their assertions are somehow taking the position of "asserting" relativism.

But relativism doesn't need to be 'asserted'. It's the obvious default.

Even Spider himself confessed that if there is no God there can be no such thing as absolute morals. So he's trying to argue for absolute morals as 'proof' that God must exist.

Like I said many pages ago, if we were treating this logically we'd be done a long time ago. Plenty of counter-examples have already been shown.

It's impossible for humans to have an absolulte sense of right and wrong because we have examples of humans that disagree about what's right and wrong.

We can give many examples. Another one that just came to mind is that some humans feel that it's ok to kill animals whilst other humans don't feel that way. Clearly all humans don't have the same conscience when it comes to killing animals outside of our species. That's should settle it right there.

The Gay rights issues was another example where people disagree on what's right or wrong. Sky gave the example that all humans don't even agree on where life actually begins, and so the abortion issue is cloudy. If it can't even be determined when life 'absolutely' begins it most certainly can't be determined whether life has been absolutely 'terminated'.

It's impossible for moral values to be absolute among humans. Too many counter-examples can have been shown.

There's nothing left to argue about. It's already been shown by counter-examples to be a logically false hypothesis.

This is truly lame.

In the case of 'rape' it's the woman who's being raped who feels that it's wrong!

That's the very definition of rape. If the woman were consenting to the action then it wouldn't be 'rape'. So if a woman is being raped then it's clearly HER CHOICE to define that as 'rape'.

After all, the ONLY thing that makes it 'rape' by defininition is the fact that she's not giving her consent!

I personally feel the same thing should be true for murder!

I'm all for euthanasia. I believe that if a person is asking to be put to death, their wishes should be granted. That shouldn't be considered to be 'murder' as far as I'm concerned.

So there you have it. It always comes down to the person on whom the act is being committed.

In the case of 'rape' it's obviously the woman's choice.

In the case of murder it's often the Christians are the one's who mainly push for laws against things like abortions and euthanasia.

But all they are doing is attempting to push their relative beliefs onto others. And their believes are indeed relative! It's relative to the religious mythology that they have chosen to put their FAITH in. And even then it's highly questionable that their doctrine even actually supports a lot of the things that they try to push onto other people. There's nothing in their ancient out-dated doctrine about abortions or stem-cell research, etc. So not only do they try to push relative beliefs onto others, they even try to push relative interpertations on to others (even onto each other within their own fragmented groups)

The main point that I've been making all along with respect to religions is that they can't even agree among themsleves. So even their opinions amount to nothing more than subjective interpretations. And people are sick of having those relative subjective interpretations shoved down their throats as if they are some kind of absolute laws of a 'God' that no one has ever even seen or heard from.

hahaha. abracadabra i couldn't agree more that there is nothing left to argue about. but jeez man, it's a dating site. don't know about you but my time isn't taken up by dating day and night. not even close. so how else should we amuze ourselves if we don't spew our own version of idiocy here on the forums? which it itself is relative to each of us individually. all though i'm beginning to believe there just may be such an animal as absolute idiot. lol.

when you think about it, i find it intersting that you find forums on dating sites. could it be that the site owners realized some time ago that these sites do not succeed in providing dating oportunities and we need be distracted?

Sky said:

Spider replied:Patently false. There is no such confirmation there at all.

Sky said:

Spyder replied:

I gave a very clear example of one.

MassageTrade,

You really make me think. Your questions have frequently challenge my own beliefs and helped me to see the flaws in my own theories.

That aside, I can't answer your question. But you've given me a lot to think about.

In Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 5.6.0, Lugwig Wittgenstein stated "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." His point is that our understanding of the universe ends when our words to describe it end. Also, that the granularity with which we can describe our world is also limited by our language. I read about a tribe that had four numbers: 1, 2, 3 and more than 3. They couldn't discuss any topic that involved a number greater than 3 with any ability to offer truth.

So it's possible that moral absolutes cannot be expressed in language. Maybe it's simply a limitation of language or maybe our minds or both.

I have thought about the moral absolute in question, the root of "Thou shall not kill" and I wonder if it applies to all life. I cannot go on without entering into the topic of religion, so I will stop here.

Hope you are enjoying your weekend...if you are looking for a movie, Zombie Town is pretty darn good. Assuming you can deal with the gore and violence.

huh. quite the interesting question you pose. after considerable drinking, uh, thinking, i've concluded that it only applies to life that's living.

Err...Zombieland.

Wow! That was a stroke of sheer genius. I'm jealous. Wish I'd thought of it.

I'd love to buy you a drink for that one, but this is the best I can do -

Well, it's true. All these words that Spider is using are already defined semantically to be done 'without consent' of the person they are being done to.

Murder, rape, stealing, adultery.

If I give you something, have you stolen it from me? Of course not, because I gave my consent for you to take it. The only way you could steal something from me is to take it without my consent.

Same thing goes with adultery. The whole marriage thing is a vow of monogamy in the first place, so to violate that vow is truly what the crime is. Not the actual act of having sex with another person. The real crime of adultery was in violating the consent of the spouse.

People who argue that euthanasia should be legal are simply saying that if a person give their constent to be put to death then their consent should be honored. The real crime is forcing them to remain alive against their consent.

So if there is any 'absolute' moral value it seems to be grounded in the concept of consent. A person's consent determines whether an act is right or wrong.

And this is why moral relativists are being perfectly consistent when they demand 'equal human rights' for everyone. All they are basically demanding is that everyone's constent should be honored.

There's no need to drag in any third-party 'god' for this idea of honoring consent to be a viable concept.

I'd like to go back over Spider's very first post in this thread...

I think I see where my basic disagreement is.

“For something to be "right", it would have to always be right in every situation.”. First of all, that is not a practical definition. No one could ever know if something were right in every situation. So it’s not a practical definition that one can used in everyday life.

So even if it were a valid definition (which it’s not, as shown below) it’s not a practical definition.

Secondly, and more importantly, the definition of “right” is dependent upon the definition of “right” (“right=right in every situation”). This is using a term to define itself, which is never, ever considered a valid definition because the definition does not impart any meaning. It simply says “the meaning of the word is the meaning of the word”. Nothing more.

And if I may says so, this seems to me to be the very foundation of all of Spider’s argument. “It is because it is.”

There's even a saying to that effect:
LADIES, WHEN YOU'RE BEING RAPED, TRY TO EXTRACT FROM THE SITUATION THE MOST PLEASURE, lol

you posted in another thread your dislike for posts not relating to the topic.

Looks like we lost Spider. He was the only thing keeping this thread going.

Another thread fades into oblivion...

*** Actually, my post IS related to the topic:
THE ESSENCE OF GOOD & BAD IS A MATTER OF PERCEPTION -- there're No Absolutes (as Spider seems to imply), but only degrees of the matter:
Good - Better - Best, or Bad - Worst - Terrible.
The difference between these depends on one's perception:
* IF a woman is being violated against her consent, then -- as terrible as it might be -- she'd be better off overcomming the initial shock and, instead of making futile attempts of fighting the asailant off, she might as well let him (and herself) enjoy the act, rather than suffer some irrepairable damage...
In other words, she's making the Best of the Worst situation...
IS RELATIONSHIP TO THE TOPIC COMPEHENSIBLE NOW? ?

as the topic concerns right and wrong and not good, better, best bad, worst, terrible this post does not in the least relate. spyder is the most notorious offender at proceding off topic. he just led you along. don't get me wrong, unlike you i enjoy many off topic discussions. like this topic of your hypocracy for the off topic for instance.

nah, jane is entertaining. got a c note says it goes on awhile too. wanna piece of it?

Hmmmm....

Considering the current participants, I don't think I can safely bet against it.

Your right, Steve, without Spider there's no reason to continue entertaining that bus-driver (oh, I beg your pardon, a once upon a time pilot! )