pop morality

[LadyForCamus]

Wait, I want to get in on this.  Swearing for profit is like...the American Dream!

Especially when it's a cuntmuffin like Drich.

That'll be $39, please. Credit or debit?

Lol, I am stuffing 'cuntmuffin' up my sleeve as we speak.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I have a $5 royalty fee, ma'am.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Drich...it seems that you are putting consenting homosexual adults into the same category as predatory pedophiles.  If this is in fact the case, then you sir/ma'am, are a hateful, ignorant asshole of a bigot, and I would NEVER buy into your piece of shit god's moral code.  If this is not in fact the case, then I'm sorry.  But, you're still stupid.  

I didn't read what Drippy said that way. I've certainly seen plenty of Christians who try to draw parallels between the two, since they consider them both simply "perversions", but the argument I'm seeing there is that society, based on Judeo-Roman-Christian sexual values that spanned roughly three millennia, formerly (as a whole) prohibited homosexuality and/or viewed it as sinful, harmful, and perverse. 

But that changed.

The reason it changed, according to most people today, is that we discovered that the Biblical version of "morality" was in fact the prejudices of ancient societies enshrined in scripture, and did not fit with actual information about homosexuals, nor what science is discovering about the nature of human sexuality in general. Of course, the Christians see it as "we moved away from God's Plan for a Man and a Woman", blah blah blah.

Others here have tried to point out that the "God's Plan" we see in the Bible is simply immoral by every modern standard:

* It does not prohibit rape against women except in terms of their financial value to the men who "own" them.
* It specifically allows for permanent, heritable human enslavement (for other races, not fellow Hebrews, of course).
* It orders the murder of people for exercising the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
* It demands genocide of entire peoples, for the crime of living on "holy land" and being the wrong faith ("wicked").
* It goes on and on in this way. 

We learned better. Rape is bad. Don't own people. Freedom is good. Genocide is a war crime. Et cetera.

So, in an attempt to suggest a slippery slope, they ask us emotion-evoking questions, "What about people having sex with their pet turtles? Or children? What about the children!?!"

But it's just not the same question. Measurable, demonstrable harm is done by people who have neurochemistry that predisposes them to rape, be it of unwilling adults or of children incapable of giving consent. We, members of society, determine what is and is not tolerable moral behavior, and yes, it evolves though time. Thank goodness for that, or we'd still have slaves!!!

The real question to ask Drippy, here, since he claims that the Bible is the Ultimate and Unchanging Moral Authority™, is how can he condemn slavery or rape, since they are not prohibited by that Bible of his?

The suggestion that "moral relativity" (or whatever term of derision is being used this week) is inferior to that which comes from some Divine Lawgiver is demonstrably false. I'd say that moral relativity is the only type that has any chance at all of being fair to all, someday.

As hard as it might be to imagine, it's plausible that someday it will be discovered that no harm comes from sex with children, that pedophiles are genetically predisposed to it, and such, so that society accepts that as normal behavior (there is some evidence that at least some of the ancient Greeks did just that), but so far the research seems to point strongly in the other direction, and so I suspect it will never  be accepted by future societies... I hope that remains the case. 

Even the right to declare the nature of the universe, when it conflicts with what people thought the Bible says, had to be hard won. The simple fact is that Drippy has no argument, except "well the Bible says...", and only by ignoring that almost literally every right we cherish today was established in defiance of  Biblical Law (see above) can that argument be made.

[robvalue]

@All

If you define morality as anything other than acting in the best interests of people (and animals), then I don't much care about your definition. You're quite welcome to it, but I'm not going to debate it with you like it's of any actual real significance.

If you don't even know what helps people and what harms them, you must be seriously maladjusted.

It's the obsession with there being a "right answer" and wanting to project things onto an external opinion for some reason that brings up these ridiculous ideas about objectively morality.

I was thinking of doing a new thread on this, actually. There are objective moralities. An infinite possible number. Anyone can pick any one of them, for use either permanently or temporarily. Just like there would be an infinite number of ways you could "measure" things, but we tend to just use the ways that have some sort of practical use. Many of these objective moralities will be utterly useless, and even dogmatically minded people who pretend not to understand empathy will instantly reject some of them.

[robvalue]

Oh one more thing:

Apologists for the morality we see in the bible/Quran sound like they're writing an essay titled, "Why I deserve the daily beatings from my father".

[Lemonvariable72]

Oh one more thing:

Apologists for the morality we see in the bible/Quran sound like they're writing an essay titled, "Why I deserve the daily beatings from my father".

Would that work on a sociopath?

[robvalue]

Maybe. If religion is going to control anyone to conform, it would be nice if it was sociopaths who would otherwise go around doing things harmful to society.

But I wouldn't consider this a moral way to behave, just in order to control sociopaths. Not that I have an easy alternative though.

[Drich]

Your silver rule is just another form of train empathy that you borrowed from Christianity. I'm asking if one abandons God/God's righteousness completely what is left to return them to center? what is to anchor someone/you if society sets it's sights say on Children as being sexually viable partners? I asked someone   (red letters are used to spell his name) this question and got no response, so I will ask you since you seem froggy.

Lets say in a few years, while in search of the ever illusive 'gay gene' a pedophile gene is found.. a gene that when active makes certain people only sexually attracted to children. then another scientific break through occurs when mapping brain wave activity that states that children as young as 10 have the mental capacity to be completely responsible for any and all sexual activity, but only if this brain wave/activity is present.. This is studied 100 ways to sunday and low and behold it is true. Children as young as 10 have been properly documented and recorded in having said brain activity...

so then 'Nambla' starts pushing for access to Children but society says no.

Now does your 'silver rule' push you to write another paper putting pedophiles together with children? (in effect Does your 'silver rule state that just because someone can do something they should be allowed?) or are their limits? if so why do homosexuals get a pass and pedophiles don't?

To start with, I'm not aware of any wording in the NT that reflects the 'Silver Rule'. The first I encountered it was by way of Hillel. And before you start beating the drums and insisting that I've latched onto a 'religious' principle, I'd challenge you to explain in what sense the 'Silver Rule' requires belief in a deity. It strikes me as perfectly consistent with a secular viewpoint.

Maybe look up the word 'religion.' While religion can mean the worship of a deity, it also means a particular system of faith worship of DEVOTION.

A rule silver, gold or platinum indicates a system of belief because rules outline boundaries. That my friend when applied to how one rules or so orders his life is a religious system by definition.

It's only not 'religion' when you or people like you change the definition of the word to only mean the worship of deity.

As for your hypothetical, I would need to know how exactly one goes from mapping brain wave activity to determining that the subject is mentally capable of forming mature, responsible choices regarding sexuality -- especially given that the subjects in your hypothetical are pre-pubescent. Needless to say, I'm skeptical that the conditions that might establish a strong correlation could even be defined much less established experimentally. And even at that, you're still a long, long way from establishing a causal relationship. We know that the brains of children continue to grow and develop; that is indisputable. So your goofy hypothetical already flies in the face of what we know about physiology and child development, and you've made no effort to define the parameters by which one could jump to the conclusion that "Brain wave pattern A" = mature/responsible sexual self-awareness. You're grasping at straws.

Don't get your panties in a knot. I am not saying their is science out there, it a hypothetical designed to test your 'morality' and it's ability to decern right and wrong apart from how popular culture defines it. You yourself boasted of a "controlled story" where you via your religion beliefs that transcends pop morality were able to Identify a moral short coming of society. I am simply putting your 'morality' to the test. Now because this is just a hypothetical all of your concerns are easily remedied with a few taps of the key board!
Now lets say that Every concern you have is 100% scientifically proven to support my initial hypothetical senerio, and you are now complete satisfied that the findings are correct.

Does your morality have you write a paper supporting Nambla or any other sex with children group Even if soceity given all of this information still says no?

Regardless, the genetic proclivities of those who might harm others (pedophiles, psychopaths, etc.) don't provide ethical or legal cover -- much as you'd like to lump consenting gay adults into that group, which tells me a hell of a lot more about you than it does anyone else. There is nothing about the Silver Rule that necessitates anyone placing others in harm's way just because predators might have a certain genetic disposition.

Again sport don't try and back out of this. The science in this senerio proves that a certain portion of the population is not 'in harms way medically of psychologically in this senerio.' The the only 'harms way' of this senerio is a prudish society who wishes to stick with traditional values rather than follow the god of science.
Where does the silver rule draw the line for you? Again don't pretend that 'harms way' has anything to do with these children, because again science has undermined your 'bronze age values' and has proven their to be absolutely no harm with a small portion of the population.
So again does Your silver rule state that just because someone can do something they should be allowed to do it or are their limits?

The fact that you would even ask, "Does your silver rule state that just because someone can do something they should be allowed or are their limits?" shows that you don't grasp the most basic thing about it.

The silver rule is "do under other as others have done unto you." This makes no sense in your initial story that you felt bad for gay people who wanted to get married but couldn't, as 'they' didnt get a say on whether or not You or anyone else got married in 1985. (when you wrote your paper)

That means you have your own version that mirrors the golden rule because you were treating the gay people of 1985 the way you wanted to be treated.. But you claim not to follow that either so that is why I asked what does YOUR Silver rule say about...

[Drich]

all of that is Very nice... now answer the questions I ask.
If you were born In 1920's Germany and grew up under those conditions, would have been a good little German and fell into what the rest of society was doing?

If you don't think so, what is it about your currently value system that would transcend time and space and keep you from marching jews into death camps?

Not all Germans were nasty you know, some of them had a conscience and opposed the Nazis many coming to a sticky end. But many people did rather evil things because their own morality was circumvented by strong motivators like nationalism, politics and religion. The army had also had to make an oath to Adolf Hitler which people took seriously back then.

But my point and question is... (the point) The Germans of Nazi Germany did not see themselves as evil (the vast majority) Because their pop morality told them what they were doing was right! They could not challenge this because they had removed all absolutes of God and repplaced them with state written propaganda (and they used science just like we do) to justify their efforts and changes. Their only measure of right and wrong/their morality was corrupt by the state. so what ever the state said was always right and what it said was wrong was always wrong.. Again much like where we are now.

(the question)
So how then do we know in this soceity who like Nazi German has separated the state from God, have not made an 'evil' left turn like the nazi's did? Is it because your 'morality' says you are a good person? If so, I point back to the germans of Hitler's germany... They too thought they were all good people. and what they were doing was right, because they like us have nothing absolute to judge our pop morality by.

So then I ask again, what would stop you from following the path of the people of Nazi germany if pop morality made a hard left into evil?

What makes you think we haven't long ago made that turn, and their just hasn't been an 'allied force' to stop us?

[Drich]

Yes! but not if you hold the current pop morality as your definition of right and wrong.

...ok. So could you elucidate?

Shoo-wa,

If I give you an example, how besides your current value system could you determine if that system is right or wrong? Obviously it will be different perhaps radically different. Now if you subscribe to any western based philosophy you will assume that because it's core values are opposite of yours, you will deem it as being immoral.