Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

OT: Supreme Court to hear two gay marriage cases next year


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 226-250 of 527 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 9:49:56 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 9:54:19 AM PST
"History is just the record of what happened in the past. The Bible gives a specific record of events,"

-____-

...Both of which are to have happened in the past, correct? How is this different from history again?

"I have a code that I go by to determine what morality is."

But since this is only a belief you've accepted (and not truth, as you've admitted before) - You therefore admit that it could be a fallacy, just the same as one mans moral compass (apart from religion) can be different from anothers....Correct? It seems as if both viewpoints are a result of (subjective) common sense if viewed in this way, therefore to proclaim that common sense cannot be used to determine morality is to exclude all viewpoints.

It's either all or nothing, you can't pick the Bible out and say "B..B...But it's the only proponent of true morality!" without invalidating the opposition - apart from it.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 9:50:36 AM PST
To be fair, he took a position and logically maintained that position throughout. If you take the position that the Bible is the sole authority of Morality and that the Bible does not actively condemn slavery, then slavery is not morally wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 9:52:18 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 9:55:09 AM PST
If you take this position then you remove any personal assessment from the picture rendering the word "Morality" useless and instead replace it with "gods word".

Simply repeating that gods word = morality is not a very cohesive argument.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 9:54:32 AM PST
No, but when faced with a challenge that was intended to erode his base supposition, he followed the path of following his own assumptions to their logical conclusion. I don't agree with the guy OR his base supposition, but I do have a respect for a person who at least has the stones to do that.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 9:55:02 AM PST
Nightmare says:
I've never learned morals from history. Just because I hurt somebody doesn't mean that it's wrong. There must be something more to actually tell me what morality is. If I liked hurting somebody, how can my pleasure be wrong?

Morality is right from wrong? Ok, what is right and what is wrong?

"For the first part, you're misplacing the burden of proof.

If you're going to restrict a group of people from doing something, it is your responsibility to show why it is wrong, not their responisibility to show why it is right.

For the second part, the majority hasn't shown a good, logical reason for it to be considered wrong. Their case is even furthered hurt by the fact that they allow certain people to do it and not others."

In our government, the majority doesn't need any such proof. All they have to do is vote it into law. No burden necessary. And again, I'm not for banning gay marriage.

"Morality is just a series of things that humans have found make a group of people function together. I mean, the bible is just a collection of ideas that people had that make a society work, you know based on history. I suppose if you assume the world goes back to the garden of Eden 6,000 years ago, and that the ideas in the bible magically appeared out of nowhere, I could see how you would assume that morals and history are separate. But they're just not."

If morality is all about functionality, then it's far from obligatory. You see morality as practicality for the whole (from what I can tell). Do you think others are obligated to follow such principles?

"You're the one who keeps bringing up morality for some reason. I'm talking about equality. Opponents of equality are always on the wrong side of history."

The equality you are talking about has very much to do with morality. If something is wrong, it has to do with morality (by the definition of wrong you are using, at least). And how can anybody be on the wrong side of history? History is nothing more than recorded events. There is no right or wrong side of history, because all sides are represented.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 9:57:55 AM PST
So you have never made a mistake in regards to how to treat people and then consequently learned from it? You've never watched someone make a mistake regarding how to treat others that affected your decisions of right and wrong?

You never, say, saw kids getting bullied in school and decided based on observation of that occurance that it was wrong?

Must be nice to have been born with a perfect understanding of morality.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 9:58:35 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 10:02:22 AM PST
"he followed the path of following his own assumptions to their logical conclusion."

What logical conclusion did he arrive at? I was there for that conversation, he did nothing other than repeating his conviction that gods word is the only thing which can define morality. I understand that he had nowhere to go which is why he reverted to his standpoint - but this is not logical nor a path in which he followed - it's a brick wall he was pressed against from the getgo and refused to budge from.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:00:57 AM PST
Nightmare says:
History merely tells us events. The Bible tells of a God that expounded what morality actually is. Big difference.

"It's either all or nothing, you can't pick the Bible out and say "B..B...But it's the only proponent of true morality!" without invalidating the opposition - apart from it."

The only opposition I've seen is that history is our way of learning morality, but I think I've invalidated that already. You can't use history as a learning tool when history contains nearly every moral code imaginable. Which one is correct? History certainly doesn't tell you. It just tells you that such moral codes existed. And, again, I'm not arguing that the Bible is true. I just want people to back up their claims that "X" is wrong/immoral.

"If you take this position then you remove any personal assessment from the picture rendering the word "Morality" useless and instead replace it with "gods word"."

If personal assessment can come up with "morality" then there is no absolute morality (since differing personal assessments come to different conclusions on a regular basis). If there is no absolute morality, then why say something is wrong? It either is wrong (absolutely) or not.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:01:37 AM PST
"If morality is all about functionality, then it's far from obligatory. You see morality as practicality for the whole (from what I can tell). Do you think others are obligated to follow such principles?"

It's obligatory because the people in power say it is, via laws. So obviously others are obligated to follow them, I mean if they want to stay out of jail. The difference here is insurmountable for you and I unfortunately, you see morality as having appeared from thin air, and I see it as something humans have developed over millennia of trying to organize into societies.

This doesn't change the fact that in America we have decided that liberty and justice are for ALL. If the states can't see their way to doing that, it is up to the federal government to.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:02:42 AM PST
It doesn't have to be a cohesive argument to have a logical conclusion, though. The conclusion can suck, and will be completely faulty by virtue of its base supposition, but it will have a direction that it naturally points. In his particular case it was "God's morality is the only morality > God's morality is contained within the Bible > The Bible does not condemn slavery > Ergo, slavery is not immoral." The entire thing collapses when you examine base supposition, but he didn't back down from it like a lot of people would. I've watched a lot of theological debates in my college days and when people on his side of the argument were faced with situations like that, they'd water down and immediately revert to social norms not dictated by the Bible.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:03:53 AM PST
Nightmare says:
Observation does not teach morality. I couldn't learn morality from watching somebody get bullied any more than I could learn morality from tripping. I might have feelings about it, and feel bad for somebody in my gut. But such subjective feelings are not moral teachings. Others will find pleasure in watching others get bullied. Does that mean that history is teaching them that bullying is ok?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:06:12 AM PST
Dukeshire says:
Earlier, you never answered my question or comment. Instead you went on a long and incoherent ramble about the Federalist Papers. There are several interpretations of the Constitution; many believe that it is a living document meant to change over time. Some Framers felt that too.

Posted on Dec 14, 2012 10:06:45 AM PST
Morality is based on a personal level. What one finds moral another may not.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:06:52 AM PST
Nightmare says:
So you're saying that morality by your definition is obligatory because people in power make it so? That implies that what people in power say is by definition moral (unless I'm misunderstanding you).

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:07:46 AM PST
"Does that mean that history is teaching them that bullying is ok?"

Yes, and historically "bullying" has been okay in certain societies. Which is weird since all morality comes from the bible. The fact is that morality isn't even definable across the board, what is moral in America is not moral in India (eating beef). And canabalism is perfectly fine on some pacific islands, whereas nowhere else it would be. A society, based on it's history and populous, decides what "moral" is. You can't blanket statement this stuff. I mean YOU can, because you believe morality came from god, but in reality it just doesn't work that way.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:08:22 AM PST
Nightmare says:
That's my problem with most Christians. They don't stand by what they say.

"Earlier, you never answered my question or comment. Instead you went on a long and incoherent ramble about the Federalist Papers. There are several interpretations of the Constitution; many believe that it is a living document meant to change over time. Some Framers felt that too."

What question did I fail to answer?

"Morality is based on a personal level. What one finds moral another may not."

And therefore, no morality is obligatory?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:10:23 AM PST
Nightmare says:
Is there anything that is absolutely wrong, no matter what? Is human sacrifice absolutely wrong, or can it be moral in a given society?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:11:34 AM PST
"And therefore, no morality is obligatory? "

Technically by human nature, no. No morals are obligatory. However thankfully in our society some morals have lead to laws. but laws don't stop people from having different morals.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:12:59 AM PST
Nightmare says:
So there is nothing intrinsically wrong with anything (including human sacrifice or rape), per se?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:14:58 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 10:23:59 AM PST
What if I pointed to a blue car and said - "that car is white, because my daddy jimbob told me so!".

Regardless of your attempts to convince me via a color spectrometer, outside verification from experts, etc. that the color I am viewing is blue - I stubbornly put my foot down in the face of a valid counterpoint and again say "No, it's white!"

Have I presented a logical argument? If the basis for the argument is irrational then the entire argument cannot be seen as forming a logical conclusion - regardless of the path taken thereafter.

Also - Why would you consider it a bad thing to change your viewpoint when faced with extreme opposition? Admitting that you are wrong in the face of strong opposition is a far more logical/commendable outcome vs refuting all evidence to the contrary without providing a full explanation.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:16:03 AM PST
it's completely against my morality, and most societies. But turn back the clock to when we were cavemen... and probably not. no. And anyone who willingly sacrifices a human and/or rapes someone, also doesn't seem to have a moral objection to it.

Only supporting my statement that everyone's morals are different.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:18:21 AM PST
Soulshine says:
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that I was trying to speak with someone who isn't familiar with any turn of phrase.

"Wrong side of history" refers to the concept that, after the dust is settled and the history books are written, society may determine a right/wrong side.

Nazis were on the wrong side of history. Slave owners were on the wrong side of history. Women's suffrage opponents were on the wrong side of history. Equal rights opponents may be the majority at any given time, they may feel they're morally right, but after the dust settles they'll find themselves on the wrong side of history too.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:22:41 AM PST
Nightmare says:
Whose history? America's only? Other countries are on completely different paths than ours. Are Iraqi's on the wrong side of history? Everybody is on the wrong side of history depending on how far you go back and what society you look at. But everybody is on the right side of history based on the same principle.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:23:30 AM PST
Soulshine says:
Far out, man.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:23:43 AM PST
Nightmare says:
So it wasn't wrong for such societies to commit human sacrifice or rape?
‹ Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 22 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  49
Total posts:  527
Initial post:  Dec 7, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 18, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions