100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Do you think that.... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Pan expressed: My intent has always been to prove that no matter what the opposition claims, morals come from an individual, not a book. creative: That subject matter(meaning the origin of morals) need not focus upon the arguments for or against gay or incestual marriage. Immediately it occurs to me that it does not follow from the fact that morals are necessarily expressed through a person that all morals come from an individual. The origin of personal morals has a completely different scope than ethics. Marriage is and always has been a social construct(an applied ethical concern) - by definition alone. Pan: So, is it safe for me to assume my point has been realised and you won't be offering suffient reason to deny incestuous marriage? That would be far from a "safe" assumption. You've yet to concisely make a point. It would literally be error prone at best to base my next move upon that which has yet to have happened. I'm certainly not going to assume that I know what point it is that you're trying to make. I mean, I've asked on more than one occasion for you to post your position and argue for it. I'm still waiting. You hit the nail on the head with your description of marriage. Was it ever in question? creative: I completely agree that morals do not "come from a book". However, that is not to deny the fact that morals can be learned and/or greatly influenced from a book. Pan: I can deny that my morals came from a book, that's for sure. What I can't do, is claim that yours do, and that's the only reason that you're opposed to incestuous marriage... Well, you could if you knew that that were true. I mean, if I told you that my morals strictly adhere to Biblical notions such as the Ten Commandments then you would be justified in such claim. Still, I'm failing to see where you're attempting to go with this. We have been discussing the ethical concerns of gay marriage, not the origins of personal moral belief/conviction. One involves public justification and the other private. Those are two completely different animals. ethics is more about personal character, moral is about relationships (the Greek Ethos, character: the Latin Moralis, customs) but its no biggy,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Wed 01/12/11 01:36 PM
|
|
That would be far from a "safe" assumption. You've yet to concisely make a point. It would literally be error prone at best to base my next move upon that which has yet to have happened. I'm certainly not going to assume that I know what point it is that you're trying to make. I mean, I've asked on more than one occasion for you to post your position and argue for it. I'm still waiting. I've already posted my "position". You have yet to give a valid argument in opposition. I believe that equal rights/priveleges should be afforded to all people that society deems acceptable unless sufficient reason is given to justify not granting such priveleges, and that when any attempt to deny is unjustified, that those rights/priveleges be granted. As in incestuous marriage. As long as a man and woman are of age and sound mind, they should be allowed to marry. What two people choose to do sexually should be of no consequence in determining one's rights/priveleges. Calling incestuous relationships "sick" or "unhealthy" does not satisfy being justification for discrimination. Just one argument that holds water... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your contradicting yourself here Pan. Your earlier position mimicked my own, except for you qualified yours with what society deems acceptable, or some such. If that is the case then you must also uphold society's decision on denying incestuous marriage.
You see, it is things like this that leave me wondering where it is that you're really coming from. That is why I asked you waht your intent was. The answer to that question has nothing at all to do with applied ethical concerns. IOW your answer does not apply to marriage. I'm just trying to get on the same page here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I kind of think this sums it up
' If that is the case then you must also uphold society's decision on denying incestuous marriage' its about SOCEITYS decision and little to nothing else different societies set different standards and determinations, little to do with validity or substance, just agreed upon by the majority,,,plain and simple |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Wed 01/12/11 02:10 PM
|
|
Your contradicting yourself here Pan. Your earlier position mimicked my own, except for you qualified yours with what society deems acceptable, or some such. If that is the case then you must also uphold society's decision on denying incestuous marriage. Of course, I didn't want to make a hypocritical statement, so I modified it to reflect my true position. I'm more than happy to allow society to decide, I've even stated that fact. You and dragoness however, are not willing to let society have any say in the matter. Can you say dictatorship? However, if you're going to fight against the rules of society, then so am I. I'll even adhere to your limitations and bias, unless you somehow feel those don't apply to you, then I'll take the same stance that they don't apply to me. You see, it is things like this that leave me wondering where it is that you're really coming from. That is why I asked you waht your intent was. The answer to that question has nothing at all to do with applied ethical concerns. IOW your answer does not apply to marriage. I'm just trying to get on the same page here. The only way you're going to get "on the same page" is to make public your reasoning behind denying incestuous marriage. Untill then, it's simply avoidance of the issue at hand. (So you know, the issue is personal bias and descrimintation) Just admit it, the only reason you object to incestuous marriage is because you think it's "sick"... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I get it now.
Is this a covert attempt to get me to defend the "sufficient reason/justification" qualifiers inherent within my earlier position; the one which you've since mimicked and further qualified as "deemed socially accepted"? Please tell me that this is not the case. I mean, in order for one to intentionally put such a tactic to work, s/he would first have to assume that I cannot justify why it is that I hold my own position. In addition to that is the whole aforementioned "hell-bent" upon focusing directly on another's person rather than the position being argued for. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I get it now. Is this a covert attempt to get me to defend the "sufficient reason/justification" qualifiers inherent within my earlier position; the one which you've since mimicked and further qualified as "deemed socially accepted"? There is nothing covert at all. I've stated from the beginning that you and others cannot make claims about my personal morals not being founded on sound judgement. You cannot claim "equal rights for all" and not mean "all". What you really mean is "all except whom society deems not qualified, unless society doesn't agree with me". Please tell me that this is not the case. I mean, in order for one to intentionally put such a tactic to work, s/he would first have to assume that I cannot justify why it is that I hold my own position. I'm still waiting to see that "justification"... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pan: I'm more than happy to allow society to decide, I've even stated that fact. You and dragoness however, are not willing to let society have any say in the matter. Can you say dictatorship? Left to your own devices, all you can come up with is this? How exactly is it that you have arrived at the notion that standing up and voicing a well-reasoned opinion equates to not willing to let society have a say in the matter? There are people in this society who use their rights in order to stand up against social injustice. That, my friend, is anything but a dictatorship. However, if you're going to fight against the rules of society, then so am I. A proper exposition of "fighting against the rules of society" first requires knowing what those rules are. The above clearly suggests that that is not the case at hand. The only way you're going to get "on the same page" is to make public your reasoning behind denying incestuous marriage. Untill then, it's simply avoidance of the issue at hand. (So you know, the issue is personal bias and descrimintation) Just admit it, the only reason you object to incestuous marriage is because you think it's "sick"... Again, you imagine that you are somehow privy to my own mental activities. Hell-bent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pan: I'm more than happy to allow society to decide, I've even stated that fact. You and dragoness however, are not willing to let society have any say in the matter. Can you say dictatorship? Left to your own devices, all you can come up with is this? How exactly is it that you have arrived at the notion that standing up and voicing a well-reasoned opinion equates to not willing to let society have a say in the matter? There are people in this society who use their rights in order to stand up against social injustice. That, my friend, is anything but a dictatorship. However, if you're going to fight against the rules of society, then so am I. A proper exposition of "fighting against the rules of society" first requires knowing what those rules are. The above clearly suggests that that is not the case at hand. The only way you're going to get "on the same page" is to make public your reasoning behind denying incestuous marriage. Untill then, it's simply avoidance of the issue at hand. (So you know, the issue is personal bias and descrimintation) Just admit it, the only reason you object to incestuous marriage is because you think it's "sick"... Again, you imagine that you are somehow privy to my own mental activities. Hell-bent. Actually I am "privy" to your mental activities. That how I know that you will continue to avoid making public your reasoning for opposing incestuous marriage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're arguing in bad faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're arguing in bad faith. Justify that claim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Msharmony: I kind of think this sums it up ' If that is the case then you must also uphold society's decision on denying incestuous marriage' its about SOCEITYS decision and little to nothing else different societies set different standards and determinations, little to do with validity or substance, just agreed upon by the majority,,,plain and simple Actually I agree with the sentiment here, but it does not quite sum it up. It does however direct the focus upon how these things get done in a society. In our society, it has everything to do with justification. That is what has changed every civil rights law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative: You're arguing in bad faith. Pan: Justify that claim. Why? Judging by the ways things have gone thus far, it would be contested by an argument about what constitutes justification of the claim itself, or met with self-defeating extreme radical skepticism, or perhaps even end up arguing about what bad faith means. There is no such a thing as a private language. The term bad faith is not my own, and your arguments fit the socially deemed description of bad faith. It's nothing personal about you, it is a description of the relations between your responses and what they are supposed to be addressing - which is not your imagination. It surprises me when someone openly claims to be privy to anothers unrevealed mental activity and then expects anyone to seriously consider anything else that they have to say.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your contradicting yourself here Pan. Your earlier position mimicked my own, except for you qualified yours with what society deems acceptable, or some such. If that is the case then you must also uphold society's decision on denying incestuous marriage. Of course, I didn't want to make a hypocritical statement, so I modified it to reflect my true position. I'm more than happy to allow society to decide, I've even stated that fact. You and dragoness however, are not willing to let society have any say in the matter. Can you say dictatorship? However, if you're going to fight against the rules of society, then so am I. I'll even adhere to your limitations and bias, unless you somehow feel those don't apply to you, then I'll take the same stance that they don't apply to me. You see, it is things like this that leave me wondering where it is that you're really coming from. That is why I asked you waht your intent was. The answer to that question has nothing at all to do with applied ethical concerns. IOW your answer does not apply to marriage. I'm just trying to get on the same page here. The only way you're going to get "on the same page" is to make public your reasoning behind denying incestuous marriage. Untill then, it's simply avoidance of the issue at hand. (So you know, the issue is personal bias and descrimintation) Just admit it, the only reason you object to incestuous marriage is because you think it's "sick"... How funny coming from the religious defender  In actuality, I am part of society, there are lots who believe the way I do on this stance so society is being heard here. Second when society can't get their ducks in a row, the law intercepts and makes the decision for them. IE Interracial marriage, racial equality, women's rights, etc... The law will eventually come around to the fair and just. In this case the law should be seeing the unfairness of societies stance so far in the case of gay marriage. There is no valid reason not to allow them to marry. Again I don't object to of age incestuous marriage. It is none of my business. Of age and mentally challenged is another matter. I have to protect those who cannot protect themselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haughty
Adj. 1. haughty - having or showing arrogant superiority to and disdain of those one views as unworthy . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You've got to be kidding me.
Tue 01/11/11 01:34 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your excused for being haughty then no problem.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pan: I've stated from the beginning that you and others cannot make claims about my personal morals not being founded on sound judgement. Yes, we can. You're quite wrong on this matter. You cannot claim "equal rights for all" and not mean "all". This has already been answered without attention to the answer. That is arguing in bad faith. The above is also prima facie evidence of poor judgment capability. No one in their right mind would argue that people have absolute unnegotiable irrevocable freedom regardless of any and all considerations. What you really mean is "all except whom society deems not qualified, unless society doesn't agree with me". No, what I really mean is what I really said. Yet another example of poor judgment and bad faith. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Wed 01/12/11 03:49 PM
|
|
Let's look at what this means...
I believe that equal rights/priveleges should be afforded to all people that society deems acceptable unless sufficient reason is given to justify not granting such priveleges, and that when any attempt to deny is unjustified, that those rights/priveleges be granted. The red entails both, the purple and the blue, unless society is mistaken in the application of the available evidence and/or relevent facts. Such a mistake does not satisfy the purple portion(sufficient reason), the assessment of which requires the identification and demonstration of the mistake in order to show why/how such a denial is/has been unjustified. Now, in order for one to even be able to pursue such a thing as above, they must first possess and employ critical reasoning skills. Are we on the same page yet? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's look at what this means... I believe that equal rights/priveleges should be afforded to all people that society deems acceptable unless sufficient reason is given to justify not granting such priveleges, and that when any attempt to deny is unjustified, that those rights/priveleges be granted. The red entails both, the purple and the blue, unless society is mistaken in the application of the available evidence and/or relevent facts. Such a mistake does not satisfy the purple portion(sufficient reason), the assessment of which requires the identification and demonstration of the mistake in order to show why/how such a denial is/has been unjustified. Now, in order for one to even be able to pursue such a thing as above, they must first possess and employ critical reasoning skills. Are we on the same page yet? IOW "What you really mean is "all except whom society deems not qualified, unless society doesn't agree with me". " |
|
|
|
|
