morality and ethics

Incorrect. It cannot be shown to stem from any malfunctioning of the body. No respected medical authorities support your assertions. You must demonstrate that it is an illness that can strike, be prevented, and be cured. You must demonstrate what causes the illness and demonstrate how it can be seen and treated as such. Your mere assertions are meaningless without evidence and a demonstration of your reasoning. Until such time as you provide that, my refutation stands and you have yet to rebut.


Demonstrate how the HIV virus has any positive effect upon a population. It does not; rather, it can wipe out an entire population while offering no evolutionary advantage whatsoever. Once again, you put forth a foolish assertion with no demonstration. If you keep this up, I will have to conclude that reason escapes you and I am wasting my time acting as though you are capable of intelligent thought. It is beginning to appear that I have grossly overestimated your intelligence and reasoning ability.



I have provided examples of how they do; for instance, being more likely to be engaged in the care of the child in a manner more common among females, providing a protector for the offspring that that is generally stronger (physically) than females. I have also forwarded sexually antagonistic evolution as one potential source for cases of homosexuality. Once again, you fail to refute my points, offering only your foolish assertions and your own ignorance as a rebuttal.

Now you're just being dishonest, and your fallacies are getting more glaring.
Demonstrate. Now you're just forwarded the old fallacious bullshit about how they'll somehow 'turn others gay' and trigger a mass depopulation. Not only is this utterly ludicrous on the face of it, but you have failed to provide any supporting argument or evidence for these outlandish assertions.

Incorrect,. I have followed the evidence, you have not. I have presented my case, you have merely forwarded your own ignorance are preconcieved opinions. I expect an intelligent rebuttal to my refutation, or I will cease to waste my time with you.

you didn't understand meaning of this comment, wake up man, 'AIDS can also be a signal of 'positive' development of a population' you should read as 'AIDS can be a signal of negative development of a population'

so I am not dishonest, but you are - because you are defending some immoral standpoint and writing out some thoughtless slogans containing no sense

you are able to present only your ignorance on the field of Biology and mindlessness, so better start to think like serious man or I will have to end this discussion with you

I wrote explicitly:
finito

I suspect most people pick and choose morals v ethics according to which they think works best for them at the moment.

For example, christians are told it is moral to love their neighbor as themselves.

But ethical businessmen are told to charge whatever the market will bear.

Obviously one cannot both love thy neighbor as theyself while sticking it to thy neighbor in a business deal.

So can an honest christian choosing to follow the dicates of his religion also be a ethical businessman?

I think the answer is really no, he cannot.

Those two codes of conduct are really antithetical, aren't they?

So most christians will rationalize abandoning their moral code in favor of the business ethical code.

They will tell themselves something along the lines that they are rendering unto Ceasar what is Ceasars, or something like that.


Yes, most of us do that.

How do we do that?

Ex post facto, usually.

We typically react first and then find the moral or ethical code that we think justifies our actions


I think they should consult me, personally.

It might not be a better world for them, but I think I'd like it a lot more,

"[Ethics is] is the philosophical study of morality. The word is also commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' to mean the subject matter of this study; and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual. Christian ethics and Albert Schweitzer's ethics are examples."

-- John Deigh in Robert Audi (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995

What is 'moral' has a matter-of-fact sound to it and what is 'ethical' has a 'I read it somewhere' or 'someone else said' sound to it. I have both my own sense of what is right and wrong, but when in doubt, I do apply what others think of certain issues.

Do I seek to justify it... hmm. Sometimes, when I feel the need to. Other times, when I think it is such a matter of fact issue, I do not seek to justify it. Obviously, it depends on the issue and my attitude towards it.

That is an age-long question and I myself am rather puzzled by it. I've thought about it many times before and each time I gave up while trying to come up with any definite answers (especially while thinking about complex ethical issues).

I do think the major tenets of our 'ethical code' have to be set in stone as they are and enforced by law: no to murder, no to intentional physical/psychological harm, etc. However, when it comes to certain issues that are rather more complex - when different 'rights' and ethical principles get entangled together - I don't think that any law can be applied to it...

I know laws are not synonymous with 'ethics', but they are largely based on them and when people are discussing laws, they always talk about ethics and vice versa...

Anywho, this is a huge and difficult topic...

Ooooh! JB, you better straighten up or he will... end ... this .... discussion .... with.... you (just plug these words in Fight Club's 'this discussion is over' scene)



Great comedy, do carry on Please!

the problem of homosexualism is a simple issue, so it can be treated as quick IQ test
if somebody begins to defend this idiotism this must be an indication of lowered intelligence and soft-headedness
finito

The higher intelligence beings out to learn to verbalize properly.....

__________________
The road to truth is long and lined the entire way with annoying bastards

under condition that somebody comes from the same lingual area
and I am from Denmark, blockhead

Words cannot express the stupidity of what you just said. Yopu just said that what your said should be read as the opposite of what you just said

First off, whether one defends a standpoint that is 'moral' or 'immoral' has no bearing on their honesty. You must show my arguments to be dishonest. Yet another fallacious assertion by you.

Secondly, you must demonstrate that my position is 'immoral', a meaningless and subjective term.

Everything I have written, unlike your blathering, has been perfectly reasonable and logical.

I am ignorant in the field of mindlessness? Not quite sure how to respond to that one other than to say that you seem quite familiar and comfortable with mindlessness.



There is no 'reason' or goal; I already refuted this some time ago, and posting it again does nothing to make it true. Clearly, you are not smart enough to have an intelligent discussion.

I see.... Danes use "homosexualism" rather than "homosexuality" and "idiotism" rather than "idiocy". Got it....

__________________
The road to truth is long and lined the entire way with annoying bastards

I have written explicitly
so

[quote=ST34;1315290]I have written explicitly
evidently not, given your efforts

demonstrate

Pathetic ad hom with no supporting evidence

And here we are./ All of your assertions being refuted, you fall completely to the old ad hom. You cannot rebut my points and all of your claims have been refuted. Now, like a child, you resort to name calling. It's not surprising; most of your ilk do the same in the end. Come back when you're able to discuss this like a mature and informed adult. Until then, this is for you

so you can now start to prove naturalnesses of pedophilia, sadism, masochism, exhibitionism, tuberculosis & AIDS - all these things are good and all these should be acceptable and regard as normal

grow up man, and when you will, come back
and for the moment it is for you

Once again you fall back on not only the naturalistic fallacy, but now also a blatant red herring You're like a caricature of yourself

You do realize that pedophiles are disproportionately heterosexual, right?