(August 11, 2016 at 3:45 pm)abaris Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 3:42 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Can't help you there. Maybe read her second and third answers to my questions again. Maybe, just maybe, you'll see it too.

Maybe it says about you a lot more than about Losty that you felt the necessity of second and third questions, since your first one has been already and repeatedly answered.

So we got to the part where we made up our minds about me, and nothing I say will get through. Ok, then, good to know. Continue.

Uhm, let's see. Everyone understood what's being said, one didn't and bitched and moaned over it a whole fucking page. Well, yes, it doesn't seem to matter much.

(August 11, 2016 at 3:42 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 3:38 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I find it quite remarkable that you seem to be the only one who sees it that way.

Can't help you there. Maybe read her second and third answers to my questions again. Maybe, just maybe, you'll see it too.


I ask her something. She fails to answer it, goes on a tangent.

I ask her something else, she flatly declares she doesn't want to answer because she doesn't see the point in doing so.

I can't force the conversation forward. There's only so much you can talk for both people involved in the conversation at once before that other person starts complaining you're putting words in their mouths.

Let me give you an example, because I happen to agree with her in that I'm not interested in having my personal morals codified into law either.

According to my personal morality, it is immoral to cheat on your spouse. Yet, I am not interested in making that illegal. Likewise, there are things that *are* illegal but not because they're necessarily immoral, but rather because making them illegal makes society function better.

If I were to draw a Venn diagram of the intersection of "things I agree should be illegal" and "things I agree are morally wrong", it would be quite clear that the latter does not necessarily inform the former.

If you can't see that, I can't help you.

(August 11, 2016 at 3:51 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 3:42 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Can't help you there. Maybe read her second and third answers to my questions again. Maybe, just maybe, you'll see it too.


I ask her something. She fails to answer it, goes on a tangent.

I ask her something else, she flatly declares she doesn't want to answer because she doesn't see the point in doing so.

I can't force the conversation forward. There's only so much you can talk for both people involved in the conversation at once before that other person starts complaining you're putting words in their mouths.

Let me give you an example, because I happen to agree with her in that I'm not interested in having my personal morals codified into law either.

According to my personal morality, it is immoral to cheat on your spouse.  Yet, I am not interested in making that illegal.  Likewise, there are things that *are* illegal but not because they're necessarily immoral, but rather because making them illegal makes society function better.

If I were to draw a Venn diagram of the intersection of "things I agree should be illegal" and "things I agree are morally wrong", it would be quite clear that the latter does not necessarily inform the former.

If you can't see that, I can't help you.

Except your thinking that cheating on your spouse is wrong is not part of your morality. Morality concerns what you think other people should do as well.

Making society function better is something I consider to be moral, I think you do too.

That's the short answer, I don't have much time now, I'll revisit later.

..I'm completely capable of thinking other people should do something without wanting it to become law.

I think it's moral to remain faithful to your partner(s). I think people should remain faithful to their partner(s). I don't think that this should be a law.

I think it's moral to take care of your body and not spend all day drinking booze. I think people should take care of their bodies and not spend all day drinking booze. I don't think that this should be a law.


Just because you think other folks should act a certain way because you might find it moral, doesn't mean you want it to have anything to do with what is legal and what isn't.

That's about as simply as I can put it, but I think it's been pretty clearly delineated by several other folks earlier in this thread.

For a specific example, take Joe Biden on abortion. He opposes it personally on moral grounds, but doesn't want to force his morals onto people via law.

(August 11, 2016 at 3:53 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Except your thinking that cheating on your spouse is wrong is not part of your morality. Morality concerns what you think other people should do as well.

Yeah, [citation needed] on that. As far as I can tell, that's your opinion, not something that follows from the plain meaning of the word, and I'm not particularly interested in arguing semantics or having someone tell me what I think.

Particularly the latter.

(August 11, 2016 at 1:50 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 1:36 pm)Losty Wrote: My moral stance and my legal stance are completely different stances because I don't think it's ok to force morals via laws. I don't know that I would agree that all incest is morally wrong...but it's definitely not for me. I don't think it should be illegal, but not because the illegality doesn't stop people from doing it. Just because...adults should be allowed to make their own choices as long as they're not harming others.

How can your morals not align with your views on legal matters, though? That doesn't make any sense.

Because morality is personal, while legality is civic.

(August 11, 2016 at 1:57 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 1:55 pm)Losty Wrote: Sure it does. I have no desire to legally force anyone to live in a way that aligns with my personal morals. Laws should be their to protect people from harm. No killing, no stealing, no speeding, no raping. And to enforce responsibilities: pay your taxes, register your vehicle, provide for your children.

Yes, you do. You literally just demonstrated that fact by telling us what you think laws should be about.

No, she spoke about what she thinks laws should not address, i.e., personal morals.

There's a slight difference.

(August 11, 2016 at 3:56 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: ..I'm completely capable of thinking other people should do something without wanting it to become law.

I think it's moral to remain faithful to your partner(s).  I think people should remain faithful to their partner(s).  I don't think that this should be a law.

I think it's moral to take care of your body and not spend all day drinking booze.  I think people should take care of their bodies and not spend all day drinking booze.  I don't think that this should be a law.


Just because you think other folks should act a certain way because you might find it moral, doesn't mean you want it to have anything to do with what is legal and what isn't.

That's about as simply as I can put it, but I think it's been pretty clearly delineated by several other folks earlier in this thread.

For a specific example, take Joe Biden on abortion.  He opposes it personally on moral grounds, but doesn't want to force his morals onto people via law.

That's mistaking my argument for something it's not.

I'm saying all laws are moral, not that all morals are laws.

(August 11, 2016 at 2:19 pm)Nymphadora Wrote:

(August 10, 2016 at 3:12 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

Oh look.... the same fucking thing I first posted. Don't see anyone jumping all over this though.



Typical.

/sarcasm

Climb down off the cross, hon. You're not being criticized for saying "eww", you're being criticized because "eww" is not a rational basis for law-making.