What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Would you kill to defend your infant child?  That is not self-defense. Is it moral, by your lights?

Don't ask me if I would do it or not, because I can't possibly know. Ask me whether I consider the act inherently immoral. :-)

Can you give me a scenario?

I just did ask you whether it was immoral. You said that killing in self-defense is justified, but all other killing isn't.

You want a "scenario"? Christ, I thought you religious folk had answers. You read more like a lawyer than a believer.

Answer the question, or don't: Is killing a person to defend the life of an infant moral?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Are you saying you think this sort of marriage arrangement is inherently immoral, Neim? I'm confused. I thought you guys were the moral relativists here. Are you going to take a stand on this one?

Just because someone makes a moral judgement, it doesn't follow that that judgement is automatically objective.

You're smarter than this. Quit stooping, and answer the points put to you without hiding behind rhetoric.

[Catholic_Lady]

Don't ask me if I would do it or not, because I can't possibly know. Ask me whether I consider the act inherently immoral. :-)

Can you give me a scenario?

I just did ask you whether it was  immoral.  You said that killing in self-defense is justified, but all other killing isn't.

You want a "scenario"? Christ, I though you religious folk had answers.  You read more like a lawyer than a believer. Answer the question, or don't. Is killing  a person to defend the life of an infant moral?

Your question was "Would you kill to defend your infant child? That is not self-defense."

Ok, what does this mean? You're asking if I would kill to defend my child, but then tell me it wouldn't be defense? I asked for a scenario so I could understand what exactly you are asking.

---

Are you saying you think this sort of marriage arrangement is inherently immoral, Neim? I'm confused. I thought you guys were the moral relativists here. Are you going to take a stand on this one?

Just because someone makes a moral judgement, it doesn't follow that that judgement is automatically objective.

You're smarter than this.  Quit stooping, and answer the points put to you without hiding behind rhetoric.

I know that this is yall's belief, which is why I was so confused by Neim's objection at me saying it was not inherently immoral.

I don't know how I can have an honest, conducive discussion if I get reprimanded every time I ask for clarification. ;-)

[Thumpalumpacus]

Right.  Because every rape victim wants to marry her rapist, and it's totally ok because the rapist made it up monetarily to daddy.  You are absolutely disgusting if you really believe all that, Randy. Actually, you're disgusting if you don't really believe it; just spouting it on the internet for the world to see is enough.

This bears repeating.

Just as Drich defended slavery simply because his god approved it in the Bible, we now have another theist defending rape, simply because it was approved by his Biblical god.

This is only more evidence showing that Christianity undermines morality.

[rexbeccarox]

Just because someone makes a moral judgement, it doesn't follow that that judgement is automatically objective.

You're smarter than this.  Quit stooping, and answer the points put to you without hiding behind rhetoric.

I know that this is yall's belief, which is why I was so confused by Neim's objection at me saying it was not inherently immoral.

I don't know how I can have an honest, conducive discussion if I get reprimanded every time I ask for clarification. ;-)

Reprimanded? Jeezus in a clamshell...

[Catholic_Lady]

I know that this is yall's belief, which is why I was so confused by Neim's objection at me saying it was not inherently immoral.

I don't know how I can have an honest, conducive discussion if I get reprimanded every time I ask for clarification. ;-)

Reprimanded?  Jeezus in a clamshell...

It wasn't completely serious, hence the winky face.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Your question was "Would you kill to defend your infant child? That is not self-defense."

Ok, what does this mean? You're asking if I would kill to defend my child, but then tell me it wouldn't be defense? I asked for a scenario so I could understand what exactly you are asking.

What is there to misunderstand? I am asking you if you would kill to defend an infant child. I am pointing out that it would not be self-defense, which is the only exclusion you've drawn (so far!) to "thou shalt not kill" -- and something you left out of your reply (I've put that part in red), as if you could drop that "self-" prefix and no one would notice.

You said self-defense is the only reason killing someone might be moral. Am I to understand that you would not kill a person who was trying to kill an infant?

This is like interrogating Bill Clinton -- "That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". Quit shilly-shallying, quit wriggling for argument's sake, and tell me: if you saw a baby being attacked, would you kill the attacker, if necessary, to save the baby? And would that killing be moral, in your eyes?

---

I know that this is yall's belief, which is why I was so confused by Neim's objection at me saying it was not inherently immoral.

I don't know how I can have an honest, conducive discussion if I get reprimanded every time I ask for clarification. ;-)

Perhaps if your requests for "clarification" weren't loaded questions, you wouldn't face such tough sledding. You're obviously a smart person. When you ask for "clarification" over simple matters, and using framework to load the answer, it doesn't go unnoticed, and it undermines confidence in your sincerity.

Also, "conducive" is an adverb, not an adjective.

[Catholic_Lady]

Your question was "Would you kill to defend your infant child? That is not self-defense."

Ok, what does this mean? You're asking if I would kill to defend my child, but then tell me it wouldn't be defense? I asked for a scenario so I could understand what exactly you are asking.

What is there to misunderstand? I am asking you if you would kill to defend an infant child. I am pointing out that it would not be self-defense, which is the only exclusion you've drawn (so far!) to "thou shalt not kill" -- and something you left out of your reply (I've put that part in red), as if you could drop that "self-" prefix and no one would notice.

You said self-defense is the only reason killing someone might be moral.  Am I to understand that you would not kill a person who was trying to kill an infant?

This is like interrogating Bill Clinton -- "That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". Quit shilly-shallying, quit wriggling for argument's sake, and tell me: if you saw a baby being attacked, would you kill the attacker, if necessary, to save the baby? And would that killing be moral, in your eyes?

Ah, gotcha. That's why I asked. To clear up any misunderstanding.

I should have clarified. By self defense, I meant defense of yourself or another person. I have said this on other posts, but did not make the distinction on the particular post you were responding to. My fault.

---

---

I know that this is yall's belief, which is why I was so confused by Neim's objection at me saying it was not inherently immoral.

I don't know how I can have an honest, conducive discussion if I get reprimanded every time I ask for clarification. ;-)

Perhaps if your requests for "clarification" weren't loaded questions, you wouldn't face such tough sledding.  You're obviously a smart person.  When you ask for "clarification" over simple matters, and using framework to load the answer, it doesn't go unnoticed, and it undermines confidence in your sincerity.

Also, "conducive" is an adverb, not an adjective.

They were not loaded questions. I meant every single one of them. Perhaps I'm not so smart.

Thanks for the correction.

[Longhorn]

from my perspective I see it as immoral. the people who arranged those marriages thought it was perfectly fine. Subjective, see? Nothing on its own has moral value. It needs context.

Please read carefully.

I specifically said I do not think it is just A-OK any time. I simply said I don't think this specific act is inherently immoral. Meaning I don't think Joseph and Mary, for example, were doing anything immoral by getting engaged because that was their custom at the time. And since this is not an inherently immoral act, it is not always immoral everywhere and in every situation, like acts that actually are inherently immoral. Now, do I think it would be severely inappropriate in the here and now? Absolutely. I think it would take a pretty immoral man to do that.

Moral. Subjectivity. Fucking Christ. You're describing it right now, whether you admit it or not.

For you to pass it on as I think it's all good and dandy is a misrepresentation of my views and comes off as kind of dishonest.

What I find appalling is that you think it's ok. That's sick.

Neim, you and I have exchanged messages and spoken to each other on a personal level. Come on. Don't refer to my views here as "appalling" and "sick". Plenty of people here have said plenty of things I vehemently disagree with, but I have more respect for all of you than to say "that's sick" and "your thinking is sick and appalling" I have respected their decision to think what they think regardless of my feelings towards it, and that's that. I don't expect the same treatment in return from most people, but from you.... I would have.

....but Joseph and Mary are an exception, right?

Don't guilt trip me. That's a nasty catholic habit.

To me the idea that you find a forced marriage between a child and a full grown man acceptable is sick.

And you're a moral relativist if I've ever seen one.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ah, gotcha. That's why I asked. To clear up any misunderstanding.

I should have clarified. By self defense, I meant defense of yourself or another person. I have said this on other posts, but did not make the distinction on the particular post you were responding to. My fault.

So we've stretched the boundary a little more.

Would you regard a battlefield killing in wartime to be immoral? What if I were an artilleryman, lobbing shells in support of infantry defending our borders, but not in direct danger myself? I mean, I'm defending another person -- indeed, I'm helping to defend an entire nation of people. Is that moral, or immoral?