Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So, your religion is mind like for other atheists. Look on Northern Corea and Soviet Russia – it was made in the honor of the mind. Tens million were killed because they did not match the rules made up by someone's mind.---so, you approve that for some cultures there is "good" to commit mass murders, don't you? Do you accept if some people will start killing your neighbours only because it is their free choice according to their culture?---Moral relativism is very close to the ideology of liberalism, which stands for people since their born are good. So, the more people have freedom, the better conditions of living are in a whole society. Maybe some could hesitate, but for me is obviuos that people are not good and need to be overseed. So, there is no reality which leads to the peoples' wishes. There is only reality which sometimes is against sensivity and comfort living.
The love, which is so adorable for extreme liberals, could hurt a lot. And that is the point!
Yes, i agree that liberalism and moral relativism can be compatible.
However, people are not born "good" or "bad". They are born "neutral" with varying temperamental dispositions.
Their psychological development will decide if their learned behavioral patterns are "good/bad" according to their cultures.
.
Why don't you understand my morality position of "Live and Let Live"?
Killing others without rational justification is not moral in my book.
Please read my previous posts carefully. Religion, a cultural artifact, is not rational.
.
---So, your religion is mind like for other atheists. Look on Northern Corea and Soviet Russia – it was made in the honor of the mind. Tens million were killed because they did not match the rules made up by someone's mind.---so, you approve that for some cultures there is "good" to commit mass murders, don't you? Do you accept if some people will start killing your neighbours only because it is their free choice according to their culture?---Moral relativism is very close to the ideology of liberalism, which stands for people since their born are good. So, the more people have freedom, the better conditions of living are in a whole society. Maybe some could hesitate, but for me is obviuos that people are not good and need to be overseed. So, there is no reality which leads to the peoples' wishes. There is only reality which sometimes is against sensivity and comfort living.
The love, which is so adorable for extreme liberals, could hurt a lot. And that is the point!
Yes, i agree that liberalism and moral relativism can be compatible.
However, people are not born "good" or "bad". They are born "neutral" with varying temperamental dispositions.
Their psychological development will decide if their learned behavioral patterns are "good/bad" according to their cultures.
.
Why don't you understand my morality position of "Live and Let Live"?
Killing others without rational justification is not moral in my book.
Please read my previous posts carefully. Religion, a cultural artifact, is not rational.
.
Is it not logical to kill people if this could lead to common prosperity? You are killing one and 100 are happy. Very rational, I think.
i am orthodox christian---So, your religion is mind like for other atheists. Look on Northern Corea and Soviet Russia – it was made in the honor of the mind. Tens million were killed because they did not match the rules made up by someone's mind.---so, you approve that for some cultures there is "good" to commit mass murders, don't you? Do you accept if some people will start killing your neighbours only because it is their free choice according to their culture?---Moral relativism is very close to the ideology of liberalism, which stands for people since their born are good. So, the more people have freedom, the better conditions of living are in a whole society. Maybe some could hesitate, but for me is obviuos that people are not good and need to be overseed. So, there is no reality which leads to the peoples' wishes. There is only reality which sometimes is against sensivity and comfort living.
The love, which is so adorable for extreme liberals, could hurt a lot. And that is the point!
Yes, i agree that liberalism and moral relativism can be compatible.
However, people are not born "good" or "bad". They are born "neutral" with varying temperamental dispositions.
Their psychological development will decide if their learned behavioral patterns are "good/bad" according to their cultures.
.
Why don't you understand my morality position of "Live and Let Live"?
Killing others without rational justification is not moral in my book.
Please read my previous posts carefully. Religion, a cultural artifact, is not rational.
.
Is it not logical to kill people if this could lead to common prosperity? You are killing one and 100 are happy. Very rational, I think.
I agree, it could be rational to kill another human; never said otherwise.
I'm more of an AGNOSTIC than atheist; don't believe in ghosts.
I take the scientific approach to knowledge-based beliefs, supported by philosophy of science concepts.
Your references to Soviet Russia & North Korea don't apply to me.
What are your morality rules?
.
------I see... You want everyone to stay out of everyone else's bedrooms so long as they are only relationships that you approve of... Sort of sounds like what the nuclear heterosexuals wanted until the progressives decided that they should stay out of the bedrooms and marriage rights of homosexuals.---Then let's do this one...
All mature willing companions should be allowed to marry as they choose because it's neither the governments nor your business... Therefore multiple partner, close relative, and interspecies, marriage should be allowed.
I view "Moral Relativism" as realistic, flexible, tolerant, and having Normative components.
Therefore, its position needs not reflect your conclusion that "if you're a moral relativist both sides are right".
In your example, I believe it's OK for the mature/responsible individuals to make their own decisions re: who to marry, and the gov should simply record for legal implementations.
I am a Libertarian, with a "social responsibility" flavor. Ethically, i take the "Live & Let Live" position, which has both relative (to each their own) & normative (Golden Rule) features.
Just like the "Nature vs Nurture" debate is senseless (it's usually both), the Normative/Universal vs Relative Morality debate is extreme & unrealistic at both ends.
Back to your example ...
I favor individuals choosing multiple partners if they take responsibility over their children (if they have any), but NOT agree with marriage among close relatives; two genetically similar adults are more likely to give a child two copies of a defective gene (not fair to the child).
Also, interspecies coupling is difficult to defend; the other species is not likely to understand the relationship's commitments from the human perspective.
.
What business is it of yours to judge other relationships if the premise of the homosexual argument was that others should stay out of their bedrooms and business?
Why isn't it the right of all mature willing companions to form relationships as they choose in your little world?
Why do you accept that people with known genetic defects such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, inheritable diabetes, etc,... can marry but in turn you deny those same right to close relatives because of only possible genetic defects?
Do you really believe that 'all people' understand a relationships commitments when they form a marriage vow?
What makes you think that your view of marriage any better than the nuclear heterosexual view if you're going disallow other marriages that are between other mature willing companions?
*****CHUCKLE*****
"What business is it of yours to judge ..."
I responded to your example(s) about moral disputes, and provided rational explanations.
That's what "morality" reflects: rational judgements.
I also implied tolerance is a part of my moral relativism; if another culture practices inbreeding responsibly, for example, i would not impose my rational preferences on them.
However, if another culture killed its members for behaving against its irrational preferences (religion), then i would have a moral problem with them.
What are YOUR rational judgements for the examples you provided?
.
No you haven't. You've evaded the whole issue by implying that multiple partners and close relatives have to be responsible while you've placed no conditions on any currently 'approved' marriages.
Why should any other forms of not currently approved marriage types be held to a higher standard than your 'approved' marriage types?
You hypocrisy is starting to show.
*****CHUCKLE*****
No hypocrisy. No fallacy. Apparently, my consistent "moral relativism" position is difficult to understand, esp for inflexible traditionalists. Therefore, i'll review & elaborate further ...
As i mentioned previously, i take the "Live & Let Live" position, with a "social responsibility" amendment.
If one lives alone on an island, there's no need for "morality", which is a SOCIAL concept.
Morality reflects social responsibility with rational judgments.
Therefore, in a social environment, the "Let Live" portion of my definition reflects avoidance of victimization.
In your marriage examples, my morality position focuses on the innocent children. Willing adults are free to relate with each other as they wish, but when children are involved, then marriage as a moral & legal obligation reflects fairness & protection for minors.
My morality says a baby "ought" to be born healthy (without maladaptive genetic mutations), and if the couple/society chooses not to abort the mutant, then THEY should take on the responsibility for the child's best development.
IMO, there should be no legal marriage until a child is born or adopted. Otherwise, the childless adults are just "partners".
Therefore, my marriage morality has a Normative component (must take responsibility for child's development), and is tolerant with Relative cultural laws that may or may not allow genetically related couples to reproduce.
.
---i am orthodox christian---So, your religion is mind like for other atheists. Look on Northern Corea and Soviet Russia – it was made in the honor of the mind. Tens million were killed because they did not match the rules made up by someone's mind.---so, you approve that for some cultures there is "good" to commit mass murders, don't you? Do you accept if some people will start killing your neighbours only because it is their free choice according to their culture?---
Yes, i agree that liberalism and moral relativism can be compatible.
However, people are not born "good" or "bad". They are born "neutral" with varying temperamental dispositions.
Their psychological development will decide if their learned behavioral patterns are "good/bad" according to their cultures.
.
Why don't you understand my morality position of "Live and Let Live"?
Killing others without rational justification is not moral in my book.
Please read my previous posts carefully. Religion, a cultural artifact, is not rational.
.
Is it not logical to kill people if this could lead to common prosperity? You are killing one and 100 are happy. Very rational, I think.
I agree, it could be rational to kill another human; never said otherwise.
I'm more of an AGNOSTIC than atheist; don't believe in ghosts.
I take the scientific approach to knowledge-based beliefs, supported by philosophy of science concepts.
Your references to Soviet Russia & North Korea don't apply to me.
What are your morality rules?
.
don't believe in ghosts too.
---All I see in you is another hypocritical bigot who wants to change where the bar is set because it suits his standards even though it doesn't match the arguments he utilizes to justify his beliefs.------I see... You want everyone to stay out of everyone else's bedrooms so long as they are only relationships that you approve of... Sort of sounds like what the nuclear heterosexuals wanted until the progressives decided that they should stay out of the bedrooms and marriage rights of homosexuals.---
I view "Moral Relativism" as realistic, flexible, tolerant, and having Normative components.
Therefore, its position needs not reflect your conclusion that "if you're a moral relativist both sides are right".
In your example, I believe it's OK for the mature/responsible individuals to make their own decisions re: who to marry, and the gov should simply record for legal implementations.
I am a Libertarian, with a "social responsibility" flavor. Ethically, i take the "Live & Let Live" position, which has both relative (to each their own) & normative (Golden Rule) features.
Just like the "Nature vs Nurture" debate is senseless (it's usually both), the Normative/Universal vs Relative Morality debate is extreme & unrealistic at both ends.
Back to your example ...
I favor individuals choosing multiple partners if they take responsibility over their children (if they have any), but NOT agree with marriage among close relatives; two genetically similar adults are more likely to give a child two copies of a defective gene (not fair to the child).
Also, interspecies coupling is difficult to defend; the other species is not likely to understand the relationship's commitments from the human perspective.
.
What business is it of yours to judge other relationships if the premise of the homosexual argument was that others should stay out of their bedrooms and business?
Why isn't it the right of all mature willing companions to form relationships as they choose in your little world?
Why do you accept that people with known genetic defects such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, inheritable diabetes, etc,... can marry but in turn you deny those same right to close relatives because of only possible genetic defects?
Do you really believe that 'all people' understand a relationships commitments when they form a marriage vow?
What makes you think that your view of marriage any better than the nuclear heterosexual view if you're going disallow other marriages that are between other mature willing companions?
*****CHUCKLE*****
"What business is it of yours to judge ..."
I responded to your example(s) about moral disputes, and provided rational explanations.
That's what "morality" reflects: rational judgements.
I also implied tolerance is a part of my moral relativism; if another culture practices inbreeding responsibly, for example, i would not impose my rational preferences on them.
However, if another culture killed its members for behaving against its irrational preferences (religion), then i would have a moral problem with them.
What are YOUR rational judgements for the examples you provided?
.
No you haven't. You've evaded the whole issue by implying that multiple partners and close relatives have to be responsible while you've placed no conditions on any currently 'approved' marriages.
Why should any other forms of not currently approved marriage types be held to a higher standard than your 'approved' marriage types?
You hypocrisy is starting to show.
*****CHUCKLE*****
No hypocrisy. No fallacy. Apparently, my consistent "moral relativism" position is difficult to understand, esp for inflexible traditionalists. Therefore, i'll review & elaborate further ...
As i mentioned previously, i take the "Live & Let Live" position, with a "social responsibility" amendment.
If one lives alone on an island, there's no need for "morality", which is a SOCIAL concept.
Morality reflects social responsibility with rational judgments.
Therefore, in a social environment, the "Let Live" portion of my definition reflects avoidance of victimization.
In your marriage examples, my morality position focuses on the innocent children. Willing adults are free to relate with each other as they wish, but when children are involved, then marriage as a moral & legal obligation reflects fairness & protection for minors.
My morality says a baby "ought" to be born healthy (without maladaptive genetic mutations), and if the couple/society chooses not to abort the mutant, then THEY should take on the responsibility for the child's best development.
IMO, there should be no legal marriage until a child is born or adopted. Otherwise, the childless adults are just "partners".
Therefore, my marriage morality has a Normative component (must take responsibility for child's development), and is tolerant with Relative cultural laws that may or may not allow genetically related couples to reproduce.
.
*****CHUCKLE*****
---i am orthodox christian---So, your religion is mind like for other atheists. Look on Northern Corea and Soviet Russia – it was made in the honor of the mind. Tens million were killed because they did not match the rules made up by someone's mind.---so, you approve that for some cultures there is "good" to commit mass murders, don't you? Do you accept if some people will start killing your neighbours only because it is their free choice according to their culture?
Why don't you understand my morality position of "Live and Let Live"?
Killing others without rational justification is not moral in my book.
Please read my previous posts carefully. Religion, a cultural artifact, is not rational.
.
Is it not logical to kill people if this could lead to common prosperity? You are killing one and 100 are happy. Very rational, I think.
I agree, it could be rational to kill another human; never said otherwise.
I'm more of an AGNOSTIC than atheist; don't believe in ghosts.
I take the scientific approach to knowledge-based beliefs, supported by philosophy of science concepts.
Your references to Soviet Russia & North Korea don't apply to me.
What are your morality rules?
.
don't believe in ghosts too.
Русская Православная Церковь?
I attended this orthodox church in my youth, before discovering critical thinking methods, and then i rejected dogma.
Don't Christians believe in the "Holy Ghost", including orthodox adherents?
.
---All I see in you is another hypocritical bigot who wants to change where the bar is set because it suits his standards even though it doesn't match the arguments he utilizes to justify his beliefs.------I see... You want everyone to stay out of everyone else's bedrooms so long as they are only relationships that you approve of... Sort of sounds like what the nuclear heterosexuals wanted until the progressives decided that they should stay out of the bedrooms and marriage rights of homosexuals.
What business is it of yours to judge other relationships if the premise of the homosexual argument was that others should stay out of their bedrooms and business?
Why isn't it the right of all mature willing companions to form relationships as they choose in your little world?
Why do you accept that people with known genetic defects such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, inheritable diabetes, etc,... can marry but in turn you deny those same right to close relatives because of only possible genetic defects?
Do you really believe that 'all people' understand a relationships commitments when they form a marriage vow?
What makes you think that your view of marriage any better than the nuclear heterosexual view if you're going disallow other marriages that are between other mature willing companions?
*****CHUCKLE*****
"What business is it of yours to judge ..."
I responded to your example(s) about moral disputes, and provided rational explanations.
That's what "morality" reflects: rational judgements.
I also implied tolerance is a part of my moral relativism; if another culture practices inbreeding responsibly, for example, i would not impose my rational preferences on them.
However, if another culture killed its members for behaving against its irrational preferences (religion), then i would have a moral problem with them.
What are YOUR rational judgements for the examples you provided?
.
No you haven't. You've evaded the whole issue by implying that multiple partners and close relatives have to be responsible while you've placed no conditions on any currently 'approved' marriages.
Why should any other forms of not currently approved marriage types be held to a higher standard than your 'approved' marriage types?
You hypocrisy is starting to show.
*****CHUCKLE*****
No hypocrisy. No fallacy. Apparently, my consistent "moral relativism" position is difficult to understand, esp for inflexible traditionalists. Therefore, i'll review & elaborate further ...
As i mentioned previously, i take the "Live & Let Live" position, with a "social responsibility" amendment.
If one lives alone on an island, there's no need for "morality", which is a SOCIAL concept.
Morality reflects social responsibility with rational judgments.
Therefore, in a social environment, the "Let Live" portion of my definition reflects avoidance of victimization.
In your marriage examples, my morality position focuses on the innocent children. Willing adults are free to relate with each other as they wish, but when children are involved, then marriage as a moral & legal obligation reflects fairness & protection for minors.
My morality says a baby "ought" to be born healthy (without maladaptive genetic mutations), and if the couple/society chooses not to abort the mutant, then THEY should take on the responsibility for the child's best development.
IMO, there should be no legal marriage until a child is born or adopted. Otherwise, the childless adults are just "partners".
Therefore, my marriage morality has a Normative component (must take responsibility for child's development), and is tolerant with Relative cultural laws that may or may not allow genetically related couples to reproduce.
.
*****CHUCKLE*****
Sorry, your response had no philosophical value and no specific constructive criticism.
Only an emotional rant.
*****CHUCKLE likewise*****
.
------i am orthodox christian---So, your religion is mind like for other atheists. Look on Northern Corea and Soviet Russia – it was made in the honor of the mind. Tens million were killed because they did not match the rules made up by someone's mind.---
Why don't you understand my morality position of "Live and Let Live"?
Killing others without rational justification is not moral in my book.
Please read my previous posts carefully. Religion, a cultural artifact, is not rational.
.
Is it not logical to kill people if this could lead to common prosperity? You are killing one and 100 are happy. Very rational, I think.
I agree, it could be rational to kill another human; never said otherwise.
I'm more of an AGNOSTIC than atheist; don't believe in ghosts.
I take the scientific approach to knowledge-based beliefs, supported by philosophy of science concepts.
Your references to Soviet Russia & North Korea don't apply to me.
What are your morality rules?
.
don't believe in ghosts too.
Русская Православная Церковь?
I attended this orthodox church in my youth, before discovering critical thinking methods, and then i rejected dogma.
I might believe the former assentation about the Orthodox thingee however I don't believe the latter one since all you're using is the liberal handbook of 'What To Believe And Say As A Liberal'.
Don't Christians believe in the "Holy Ghost", including orthodox adherents?
.
Where did I say I was Christian?
Is this another bigoted assumption on your part?
*****CHUCKLE*****
------All I see in you is another hypocritical bigot who wants to change where the bar is set because it suits his standards even though it doesn't match the arguments he utilizes to justify his beliefs.------
"What business is it of yours to judge ..."
I responded to your example(s) about moral disputes, and provided rational explanations.
That's what "morality" reflects: rational judgements.
I also implied tolerance is a part of my moral relativism; if another culture practices inbreeding responsibly, for example, i would not impose my rational preferences on them.
However, if another culture killed its members for behaving against its irrational preferences (religion), then i would have a moral problem with them.
What are YOUR rational judgements for the examples you provided?
.
No you haven't. You've evaded the whole issue by implying that multiple partners and close relatives have to be responsible while you've placed no conditions on any currently 'approved' marriages.
Why should any other forms of not currently approved marriage types be held to a higher standard than your 'approved' marriage types?
You hypocrisy is starting to show.
*****CHUCKLE*****
No hypocrisy. No fallacy. Apparently, my consistent "moral relativism" position is difficult to understand, esp for inflexible traditionalists. Therefore, i'll review & elaborate further ...
As i mentioned previously, i take the "Live & Let Live" position, with a "social responsibility" amendment.
If one lives alone on an island, there's no need for "morality", which is a SOCIAL concept.
Morality reflects social responsibility with rational judgments.
Therefore, in a social environment, the "Let Live" portion of my definition reflects avoidance of victimization.
In your marriage examples, my morality position focuses on the innocent children. Willing adults are free to relate with each other as they wish, but when children are involved, then marriage as a moral & legal obligation reflects fairness & protection for minors.
My morality says a baby "ought" to be born healthy (without maladaptive genetic mutations), and if the couple/society chooses not to abort the mutant, then THEY should take on the responsibility for the child's best development.
IMO, there should be no legal marriage until a child is born or adopted. Otherwise, the childless adults are just "partners".
Therefore, my marriage morality has a Normative component (must take responsibility for child's development), and is tolerant with Relative cultural laws that may or may not allow genetically related couples to reproduce.
.
*****CHUCKLE*****
Sorry, your response had no philosophical value and no specific constructive criticism.
Only an emotional rant.
*****CHUCKLE likewise*****
.
No! That would be the arguments you've used to deny others the same rights for other marriage arrangements even though they meet the criteria you use to justify SSM (Same Sex Marriage).
As I stated... You are a hypocritical bigot.
Your critical thinking skills come right out of the Progressive Handbook of how to parrot a talking point against a far right conservative.
It doesn't teach you how to deal with a independent with a conservative lean, such as myself, who does know how to think critically and make you look like the hypocritical bigot you truly are.
*****CHUCKLE*****
------All I see in you is another hypocritical bigot who wants to change where the bar is set because it suits his standards even though it doesn't match the arguments he utilizes to justify his beliefs.---No you haven't. You've evaded the whole issue by implying that multiple partners and close relatives have to be responsible while you've placed no conditions on any currently 'approved' marriages.
Why should any other forms of not currently approved marriage types be held to a higher standard than your 'approved' marriage types?
You hypocrisy is starting to show.
*****CHUCKLE*****
No hypocrisy. No fallacy. Apparently, my consistent "moral relativism" position is difficult to understand, esp for inflexible traditionalists. Therefore, i'll review & elaborate further ...
As i mentioned previously, i take the "Live & Let Live" position, with a "social responsibility" amendment.
If one lives alone on an island, there's no need for "morality", which is a SOCIAL concept.
Morality reflects social responsibility with rational judgments.
Therefore, in a social environment, the "Let Live" portion of my definition reflects avoidance of victimization.
In your marriage examples, my morality position focuses on the innocent children. Willing adults are free to relate with each other as they wish, but when children are involved, then marriage as a moral & legal obligation reflects fairness & protection for minors.
My morality says a baby "ought" to be born healthy (without maladaptive genetic mutations), and if the couple/society chooses not to abort the mutant, then THEY should take on the responsibility for the child's best development.
IMO, there should be no legal marriage until a child is born or adopted. Otherwise, the childless adults are just "partners".
Therefore, my marriage morality has a Normative component (must take responsibility for child's development), and is tolerant with Relative cultural laws that may or may not allow genetically related couples to reproduce.
.
*****CHUCKLE*****
Sorry, your response had no philosophical value and no specific constructive criticism.
Only an emotional rant.
*****CHUCKLE likewise*****
.
No! That would be the arguments you've used to deny others the same rights for other marriage arrangements even though they meet the criteria you use to justify SSM (Same Sex Marriage).
As I stated... You are a hypocritical bigot.
Your critical thinking skills come right out of the Progressive Handbook of how to parrot a talking point against a far right conservative.
It doesn't teach you how to deal with a independent with a conservative lean, such as myself, who does know how to think critically and make you look like the hypocritical bigot you truly are.
*****CHUCKLE*****
Apparently, you don't read very carefully & jump to conclusions.
I think independently, so if my thoughts reflect a liberal or conservative group, then i honor them.
I don't deny anyone rights if their behavior does not victimize others.
Please be specific where you believe i am a "hypocritical bigot".
I noticed you have not provided your definition of "morality". How come?
.
actually it would seem the culture that doesn't employ moral relativism is the one implying it's infallibleConsidering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.
---------All I see in you is another hypocritical bigot who wants to change where the bar is set because it suits his standards even though it doesn't match the arguments he utilizes to justify his beliefs.---
No hypocrisy. No fallacy. Apparently, my consistent "moral relativism" position is difficult to understand, esp for inflexible traditionalists. Therefore, i'll review & elaborate further ...
As i mentioned previously, i take the "Live & Let Live" position, with a "social responsibility" amendment.
If one lives alone on an island, there's no need for "morality", which is a SOCIAL concept.
Morality reflects social responsibility with rational judgments.
Therefore, in a social environment, the "Let Live" portion of my definition reflects avoidance of victimization.
In your marriage examples, my morality position focuses on the innocent children. Willing adults are free to relate with each other as they wish, but when children are involved, then marriage as a moral & legal obligation reflects fairness & protection for minors.
My morality says a baby "ought" to be born healthy (without maladaptive genetic mutations), and if the couple/society chooses not to abort the mutant, then THEY should take on the responsibility for the child's best development.
IMO, there should be no legal marriage until a child is born or adopted. Otherwise, the childless adults are just "partners".
Therefore, my marriage morality has a Normative component (must take responsibility for child's development), and is tolerant with Relative cultural laws that may or may not allow genetically related couples to reproduce.
.
*****CHUCKLE*****
Sorry, your response had no philosophical value and no specific constructive criticism.
Only an emotional rant.
*****CHUCKLE likewise*****
.
No! That would be the arguments you've used to deny others the same rights for other marriage arrangements even though they meet the criteria you use to justify SSM (Same Sex Marriage).
As I stated... You are a hypocritical bigot.
Your critical thinking skills come right out of the Progressive Handbook of how to parrot a talking point against a far right conservative.
It doesn't teach you how to deal with a independent with a conservative lean, such as myself, who does know how to think critically and make you look like the hypocritical bigot you truly are.
*****CHUCKLE*****
Apparently, you don't read very carefully & jump to conclusions.
I think independently, so if my thoughts reflect a liberal or conservative group, then i honor them.
I don't deny anyone rights if their behavior does not victimize others.
Please be specific where you believe i am a "hypocritical bigot".
I noticed you have not provided your definition of "morality". How come?
.
I'll apologize for the not noting on that post who you were replying to since I'm a little tired. However...
You deny close relatives the right to marry while continuing to not speak out against other people with known genetic defects who are allowed to marry.
I have no reason to provide a definition of my morality since you've already proven that you're nothing but a hypocrite who uses his Progressive Handbook to do his critical thinking.
*****CHUCKLE*****
---actually it would seem the culture that doesn't employ moral relativism is the one implying it's infallibleConsidering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.
---------All I see in you is another hypocritical bigot who wants to change where the bar is set because it suits his standards even though it doesn't match the arguments he utilizes to justify his beliefs.
*****CHUCKLE*****
Sorry, your response had no philosophical value and no specific constructive criticism.
Only an emotional rant.
*****CHUCKLE likewise*****
.
No! That would be the arguments you've used to deny others the same rights for other marriage arrangements even though they meet the criteria you use to justify SSM (Same Sex Marriage).
As I stated... You are a hypocritical bigot.
Your critical thinking skills come right out of the Progressive Handbook of how to parrot a talking point against a far right conservative.
It doesn't teach you how to deal with a independent with a conservative lean, such as myself, who does know how to think critically and make you look like the hypocritical bigot you truly are.
*****CHUCKLE*****
Apparently, you don't read very carefully & jump to conclusions.
I think independently, so if my thoughts reflect a liberal or conservative group, then i honor them.
I don't deny anyone rights if their behavior does not victimize others.
Please be specific where you believe i am a "hypocritical bigot".
I noticed you have not provided your definition of "morality". How come?
.
I'll apologize for the not noting on that post who you were replying to since I'm a little tired. However...
You deny close relatives the right to marry while continuing to not speak out against other people with known genetic defects who are allowed to marry.
I have no reason to provide a definition of my morality since you've already proven that you're nothing but a hypocrite who uses his Progressive Handbook to do his critical thinking.
*****CHUCKLE*****
What don't you understand about my morality reflecting anti-victimization?
In the case of marriage and children, i don't think an innocent baby should start its life deformed, whether born from genetically-related parents or from a parent with a genetic defect.
If both, then the baby has double chance of being deformed.
HOWEVER, if the adults/culture take rational precautions in their reproductive activities (genetic analysis or embryo testing) and abort any "mistake" (deformed fetus/embryo) or take FULL responsibility in raising that mutant, then my tolerant morality says "OK".
Why would you disagree?
Why are you afraid of providing your definition or views on morality?
.
---actually it would seem the culture that doesn't employ moral relativism is the one implying it's infallibleConsidering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.
Good luck in seeing Unk provide any rational explanation!
He can't even define/explain his normative version of morality.
The best he can do is to say "it's ONE Thing".
.
Considering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.
------------
Sorry, your response had no philosophical value and no specific constructive criticism.
Only an emotional rant.
*****CHUCKLE likewise*****
.
No! That would be the arguments you've used to deny others the same rights for other marriage arrangements even though they meet the criteria you use to justify SSM (Same Sex Marriage).
As I stated... You are a hypocritical bigot.
Your critical thinking skills come right out of the Progressive Handbook of how to parrot a talking point against a far right conservative.
It doesn't teach you how to deal with a independent with a conservative lean, such as myself, who does know how to think critically and make you look like the hypocritical bigot you truly are.
*****CHUCKLE*****
Apparently, you don't read very carefully & jump to conclusions.
I think independently, so if my thoughts reflect a liberal or conservative group, then i honor them.
I don't deny anyone rights if their behavior does not victimize others.
Please be specific where you believe i am a "hypocritical bigot".
I noticed you have not provided your definition of "morality". How come?
.
I'll apologize for the not noting on that post who you were replying to since I'm a little tired. However...
You deny close relatives the right to marry while continuing to not speak out against other people with known genetic defects who are allowed to marry.
I have no reason to provide a definition of my morality since you've already proven that you're nothing but a hypocrite who uses his Progressive Handbook to do his critical thinking.
*****CHUCKLE*****
What don't you understand about my morality reflecting anti-victimization?
In the case of marriage and children, i don't think an innocent baby should start its life deformed, whether born from genetically-related parents or from a parent with a genetic defect.
If both, then the baby has double chance of being deformed.
HOWEVER, if the adults/culture take rational precautions in their reproductive activities (genetic analysis or embryo testing) and abort any "mistake" (deformed fetus/embryo) or take FULL responsibility in raising that mutant, then my tolerant morality says "OK".
Why would you disagree?
Why are you afraid of providing your definition or views on morality?
.
So now you're saying that people who have genetic abnormalities should not be allowed to reproduce... I'm sure the Navajo Nation will appreciate your views. Shall we round them all up and sterilize them to fit with your aggressive stance on child protection since half the Navajo's have diabetes and the other half most likely are carriers of the genetic inheritable diabetes defect? Can we prosecute you for Hate Crimes afterwards since now you've decided that a whole minority group is pretty much not worthy of reproducing? How about black people with Sickle Cell? Is Lactose Intolerance on your list of genetic defects? That last one should pretty much wipe out the Asian population of the world.
If you must know... I'm a Constitutional conservative and so far you've been failing the test.
*****CHUCKLE*****
------actually it would seem the culture that doesn't employ moral relativism is the one implying it's infallibleConsidering how many people in today's society have fallen prey to the siren song of moral relativism, I thought it might be edifying to examine some of the problems inherent in this logical fallacy.
I'll start by pointing out that moral relativism carries the implication of infallibility on the part of the culture or individual employing it.
Good luck in seeing Unk provide any rational explanation!
He can't even define/explain his normative version of morality.
The best he can do is to say "it's ONE Thing".
.
This is why you have to sit at the kiddie table.
