Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on July 11, 2014, 08:37:46 AM
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10958728/Australian-judge-says-incest-may-no-longer-be-a-taboo.html
A judge in Australia has been criticised after saying incest may no longer be a taboo and that the community may now accept consensual sex between adult siblings.
Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and "unnatural" but is now widely accepted.
He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.
"If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you'd invariably have, they would say it's unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone."
Judge Neilson made the comments during the trial of a brother charged with raping his younger sister....
"The complainant has been sexually awoken, shall we say, by having two relationships with men and she had become 'free' when the second relationship broke down. The only thing that might change that is the fact that they were a brother and sister but we've come a long way from the 1950s – when the position of the English Common Law was that sex outside marriage was not lawful."
The libertines are going to put The Onion out of business.
At first blush, I thought someone was making sport of and pulling a parody on the libertines. But, nope, just the natural outgrowth of social trends in the West these last few decades.
Shows up the fallacy of declaring "This far and no farther!" with regard to the breakdown of sexual mores. There will always be someone to push the line a bit farther, who yesterday was beyond the pale but today must be celebrated and subsidized. Any moral qualms you might have had about the following steps will paint you a bigot once the line has shifted, so be quick to change your tune when it does!
The only safe place to be is on right on the line, to genuflect to today's libertine orthodoxy. Admit to qualms about what the line passed over(1): bigot. Admit to fears of where the line may go(2): bigot. Get used to balancing on the tightrope as it is shaken by the narcissistic sociopaths.
(1) Did no-fault divorce and decriminalizing homosexual relations between adults have deleterious consequences?
(2) Are we headed to decriminalizing incest, pedophilia, and bigamy?
-
(2) Are we headed to decriminalizing incest, pedophilia, and bigamy?
Between 2 or more consenting adults it's no ones business but theirs. That leaves out pedophiles.
-
Between 2 or more consenting adults it's no ones business but theirs. That leaves out pedophiles.
QFT.
-
How do you know if a sheep is giving consent? ;)
-
It is so terrible to be a persecuted white Christian male these days.
-
How do you know if a sheep is giving consent? ;)
I have no idea. Please enlighten us? :angel: =D
Next you will ask me what songs I sing in the shower or something.
-
Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo
sloppy with the language? There's always an incest taboo. Always.
(Which is not to say that the details don't differ, from society to society. Or that the taboo is not always broken in private.)
-
Before you know it masturbation may be accepted. Or fellatio.
-
Before you know it masturbation may be accepted. Or fellatio.
So, just to be clear, you're in favor of abolishing laws against incest?
-
So, just to be clear, you're in favor of abolishing laws against incest?
and incest is no different than self pleasuring? :facepalm:
-
Broken marriage.
Re-marriage.
Two un-related by blood "kids".
Incest?
They're step-kids to each other.
Shouldn't be a taboo on them.
Funny if they lasted longer than their parents.
Might be the cause of the parents break up though.
Lots of permutations.
Between blood siblings and/or parents?There's a reason it's not done.
Abortion as an easy way out from calving(potentially) defective offspring?Abhorrent.
-
Unrelated by blood?
Not really incest in my view.
-
Unrelated by blood?
Not really incest in my view.
I believe the laws are consistent with that, though obviously it varies by location.
-
So, just to be clear, you're in favor of abolishing laws against incest?
I had no idea there were laws against incest. What kind of sicko would make laws about something like that!?!?!?!?
Wait . . . are there laws against masturbation too? :O What's the statute of limitations again?
For the record, I'm in favor of abolishing many laws. Like most traffic laws for instance.
-
and incest is no different than self pleasuring? :facepalm:
There is no closer relative than the self.
-
How do you know if a sheep is giving consent?
How do you know if it's old enough? Can you imagine the hassle of trying to come up with an age for each individual species that somebody might potentially want to poke or be poked by?
-
Between 2 or more consenting adults it's no ones business but theirs. That leaves out pedophiles.
This.
And the originating article is on regards to a criminal trial on rape and sexual assault. While I am firmly a member of the "Ewwww" folks, I believe the incest aspect is besides the damn point. He was 18 or 19 when he started raping his 10-11 year old sister. That's squarely in pedophile territory.
Apparently the judge was navel gazing about add-on charges.
-
I had no idea there were laws against incest. What kind of sicko would make laws about something like that!?!?!?!?
Wait . . . are there laws against masturbation too? :O What's the statute of limitations again?
For the record, I'm in favor of abolishing many laws. Like most traffic laws for instance.
That's not really an answer.
Pretty simple yes no question.
Are you in favor of abolishing laws against incest? What about necrophilia? Beastiality? Yes or no would be fine, thanks.
-
I never knew how much of a kill joy Michigan was.
MICH. COMP. LAWS SERV. § 551.3 (2013). INCAPACITY; PERSONS MAN PROHIBITED FROM MARRYING
A man shall not marry his mother, sister, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, or cousin of the first degree, or another man.
-
That's not really an answer.
Pretty simple yes no question.
Are you in favor of abolishing laws against incest? What about necrophilia? Beastiality? Yes or no would be fine, thanks.
I'm not actually required to answer, regardless how simple a question, or how many times you ask, or how much you want an answer. What difference does it make if you know my stance on this subject? What difference does it make if I have no stance on this topic?
I never thought about the legality of incest before this thread. I couldn't care less whether it's legal or illegal. If the law made it illegal to procreate when the couple knew that it was extremely likely any issuance of said procreation would result in significant birth defects, I'd take the time to form an opinion, and look for alternative methods to achieve the goal of limiting birth defects. If incest is illegal because it's "icky," or "just wrong, everyone knows that," or because some particular religious text says it's wrong than I'm going to question it's validity, just out of habit.
Plus, laws and taboos are two different things, not necessarily related.
-
Beastiality? Yes or no would be fine, thanks.
Isn't that still legal in WA?
-----------------------------
Nevermind,I see that was illegalized a few years ago.
:police:
-
So, just to be clear, you're in favor of abolishing laws against incest?
I favor abolishing all laws regulating activities amongst consenting adults.
-
I favor abolishing all laws regulating activities amongst consenting adults.
As long as what the (consenting human adult) freaks want to do to each other doesn't physically endanger me or mine, or cost me money, I can't really be bothered to care. Now, for courtesy and decency's sake I would hope all consenting human adults, of *any* predilection, would keep their private lives more-or-less private and not go beyond minimal PDA's, but that goes to Rule 1: "Don't be a dick."
Necrophilia and bestiality and pedophilia are not intellectually valid, nor serious, "slippery slope" arguments as long as the underlying premise is *consenting human adults*.
-
I'm not actually required to answer, regardless how simple a question, or how many times you ask, or how much you want an answer.
Of course you're not required to do anything, but it's a discussion forum and if you refuse to do anything other than make smart ass comments then it's not much of a discussion.
What difference does it make if you know my stance on this subject? What difference does it make if I have no stance on this topic?
See above.
I never thought about the legality of incest before this thread. I couldn't care less whether it's legal or illegal. If the law made it illegal to procreate when the couple knew that it was extremely likely any issuance of said procreation would result in significant birth defects, I'd take the time to form an opinion, and look for alternative methods to achieve the goal of limiting birth defects. If incest is illegal because it's "icky," or "just wrong, everyone knows that," or because some particular religious text says it's wrong than I'm going to question it's validity, just out of habit.
Plus, laws and taboos are two different things, not necessarily related.
That's the basis of all laws, everywhere, in all time periods. And whatever your personal moral basis for viewing laws as legitimate, they have no more validity than anything you listed.
-
As long as what the (consenting human adult) freaks want to do to each other doesn't physically endanger me or mine, or cost me money, I can't really be bothered to care. Now, for courtesy and decency's sake I would hope all consenting human adults, of *any* predilection, would keep their private lives more-or-less private and not go beyond minimal PDA's, but that goes to Rule 1: "Don't be a dick."
Necrophilia and bestiality and pedophilia are not intellectually valid, nor serious, "slippery slope" arguments as long as the underlying premise is *consenting human adults*.
Why are those the lines you have drawn, and how are they more valid or less arbitrary than any other? Why are animals property in all senses except that of sexual intercourse? I can kill my animal, or have a doctor mutilate it for aesthetic reasons, or even allow it to be damaged for animal testing: and yet you're ok with banning a person from having sex with it?
Why are you such a freedom hating statist?
-
Of course you're not required to do anything, but it's a discussion forum and if you refuse to do anything other than make smart ass comments then it's not much of a discussion.
See above.
That's the basis of all laws, everywhere, in all time periods. And whatever your personal moral basis for viewing laws as legitimate, they have no more validity than anything you listed.
Yeah, but I like smart-ass comments . . . .
-
Why are those the lines you have drawn, and how are they more valid or less arbitrary than any other? Why are animals property in all senses except that of sexual intercourse? I can kill my animal, or have a doctor mutilate it for aesthetic reasons, or even allow it to be damaged for animal testing: and yet you're ok with banning a person from having sex with it?
Why are you such a freedom hating statist?
We have laws against animal cruelty as well. they recognize that while an Animal is property it is also alive. You can kill your property, but you are limited to doing it humanely*. Animal testing is regulated for the same reasons, and you can't just drop your pet off and say "throw some shampoo in it's eyes". So there is current president that there are limits to what you can do to your animal property.
That would then, I think, but the onus on the lover in question to prove that his animal enjoyed, or at least wasn't traumatized by the activity. I do shudder to think what that court hearing would be like.
There are other cultures** where beastiality is much more accepted. I have seen a guy railing a sheep on the side of a major highway. While those cultures have issues, I don't really think farm animal fun time is the cause.
*as painlessly as possible is the normal standard
**not all cultures are =, and I am not endorsing beastiality here. Just pointing out that where practiced it hasn't exactly led to crazy let's screw everything/one mores.
-
We have laws against animal cruelty as well. they recognize that while an Animal is property it is also alive. You can kill your property, but you are limited to doing it humanely*. Animal testing is regulated for the same reasons, and you can't just drop your pet off and say "throw some shampoo in it's eyes". So there is current president that there are limits to what you can do to your animal property.
That would then, I think, but the onus on the lover in question to prove that his animal enjoyed, or at least wasn't traumatized by the activity. I do shudder to think what that court hearing would be like.
There are other cultures** where beastiality is much more accepted. I have seen a guy railing a sheep on the side of a major highway. While those cultures have issues, I don't really think farm animal fun time is the cause.
*as painlessly as possible is the normal standard
**not all cultures are =, and I am not endorsing beastiality here. Just pointing out that where practiced it hasn't exactly led to crazy let's screw everything/one mores.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Bestiality
Consequences I've been pointing our since the beginning of this debate. (As in more than a decade ago.)
-
We have laws against animal cruelty as well. they recognize that while an Animal is property it is also alive. You can kill your property, but you are limited to doing it humanely*. Animal testing is regulated for the same reasons, and you can't just drop your pet off and say "throw some shampoo in it's eyes". So there is current president that there are limits to what you can do to your animal property.
That would then, I think, but the onus on the lover in question to prove that his animal enjoyed, or at least wasn't traumatized by the activity. I do shudder to think what that court hearing would be like.
There are other cultures** where beastiality is much more accepted. I have seen a guy railing a sheep on the side of a major highway. While those cultures have issues, I don't really think farm animal fun time is the cause.
*as painlessly as possible is the normal standard
**not all cultures are =, and I am not endorsing beastiality here. Just pointing out that where practiced it hasn't exactly led to crazy let's screw everything/one mores.
None of that addresses the basic question, why do we have those laws and what is their moral basis?
-
OK. Why do we have beastiality laws?* Incest I can see for inbreeding, but that seems to be a non issue for sheep.
Other then the ick factor, why are they still on the books, and how are they different from the recently repealed laws against sodomy?
*Since you asked, and I don't want to seem like I'm dodging anything, I don't really know why. I would assume some combination of gross, Bible, and maybe cross species disease? If Swine Flu is bad what does Swine Syphilis do?
Also, in a Squirell! moment it just occured to me: Do animals (non primate) have STD's? You never here about it, and most animals aren't exactly monogamous.
-
OK. Why do we have beastiality laws?* Incest I can see for inbreeding, but that seems to be a non issue for sheep.
Other then the ick factor, why are they still on the books, and how are they different from the recently repealed laws against sodomy?
*Since you asked, and I don't want to seem like I'm dodging anything, I don't really know why. I would assume some combination of gross, Bible, and maybe cross species disease? If Swine Flu is bad what does Swine Syphilis do?
Also, in a Squirell! moment it just occured to me: Do animals (non primate) have STD's? You never here about it, and most animals aren't exactly monogamous.
The whole point of asking questions like that is to get people thinking about the basis of laws, and what is an acceptable vs not acceptable reason to have those laws. Most folks don't ever actually stop and think about that.
-
When do we scrap the taboo on non-consensual behavior?
-
The whole point of asking questions like that is to get people thinking about the basis of laws, and what is an acceptable vs not acceptable reason to have those laws. Most folks don't ever actually stop and think about that.
OK we're thinking. I'm thinking what's the point? As mentioned we have animal cruelty laws on the books if one were to injure an animal. We're right back to me not caring where anyone else's penis has been.
Fistful, nonconsensual (between humans) acts pretty clearly infringe on the natural rights of those that didn't consent. That's why we have laws against those acts.
-
OK we're thinking. I'm thinking what's the point? As mentioned we have animal cruelty laws on the books if one were to injure an animal. We're right back to me not caring where anyone else's penis has been.
Fistful, nonconsensual (between humans) acts pretty clearly infringe on the natural rights of those that didn't consent. That's why we have laws against those acts.
What are natural rights, where do they derive from, and why do we care about them?
-
Where do you think they come from?
-
Where do you think they come from?
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
-
Yeah, see I would have gone with something more like this:
every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.
But lets not quibble, as one was cribbed from the other. Both thought that a person's body was sacrosanct. Which covers Fistful's nonconsensual sideing.
So we both agree that a person has the right to (at minimum) their body, and that this right does not come from the government they subject themselves (or are subjected) to. So to bring this about full circle, where do these government's get off telling folks what to do with their persons?
Historically, much of the "Common Law" evolved because there was only one major culture making the law. So it was easy to agree on stuff. No incest on one end of the spectrum and stoneing rape victims to death on the other. But the modern world, and most especially America no longer really have one super-majority culture that makes it easy to agree on stuff. So maybe it is worth re-examining the "common Law" stuff we have left over. Certainly some of it is good and just (many of the laws protecting children, however misapplied) but some of it is just leftover cultural bias from (in our case) Protestantism. As a culture we decided that the common laws about slavery had to be repealed. Well most of us did, some took some convincing. Today human slavery is considered beyond the pale in America. For the most part homosexuality is tolerated with little to no comment these days. (actual relationships. Obviously we're still working out the legal details)
Based on the Declaration, you have to ask, since we have made laws saying, for instance, you can't bang your sheep, what purpose do those serve our society. We are limiting a persons rights over his body and his property for what?
I don't claim to have all the answers except for a default position of "If I don't know, fewer laws are better." So unless someone could come up with a compelling reason that our society needs to intervene between a man and his sheep, Sure, repeal the laws. And that's the calculus I try to apply to all such questions, although I am sometimes overwhelmed by my own "ick".
Before anyone asks, it's still my body after I'm dead, no you can't bang it.
-
Yeah, see I would have gone with something more like this:
But lets not quibble, as one was cribbed from the other. Both thought that a person's body was sacrosanct. Which covers Fistful's nonconsensual sideing.
So we both agree that a person has the right to (at minimum) their body, and that this right does not come from the government they subject themselves (or are subjected) to. So to bring this about full circle, where do these government's get off telling folks what to do with their persons?
Historically, much of the "Common Law" evolved because there was only one major culture making the law. So it was easy to agree on stuff. No incest on one end of the spectrum and stoneing rape victims to death on the other. But the modern world, and most especially America no longer really have one super-majority culture that makes it easy to agree on stuff. So maybe it is worth re-examining the "common Law" stuff we have left over. Certainly some of it is good and just (many of the laws protecting children, however misapplied) but some of it is just leftover cultural bias from (in our case) Protestantism. As a culture we decided that the common laws about slavery had to be repealed. Well most of us did, some took some convincing. Today human slavery is considered beyond the pale in America. For the most part homosexuality is tolerated with little to no comment these days. (actual relationships. Obviously we're still working out the legal details)
Based on the Declaration, you have to ask, since we have made laws saying, for instance, you can't bang your sheep, what purpose do those serve our society. We are limiting a persons rights over his body and his property for what?
I don't claim to have all the answers except for a default position of "If I don't know, fewer laws are better." So unless someone could come up with a compelling reason that our society needs to intervene between a man and his sheep, Sure, repeal the laws. And that's the calculus I try to apply to all such questions, although I am sometimes overwhelmed by my own "ick".
Before anyone asks, it's still my body after I'm dead, no you can't bang it.
All laws, and by extension all governments that enforce them, can do is "tell folks what to do with their persons."
-
A lot of it boils down to if one believes that there is relative or absolute morality. Are rape/murder/theft bad because they are bad, or do we merely take a pragmatic look and decide if they are beneficial to society?
-
All laws, and by extension all governments that enforce them, can do is "tell folks what to do with their persons."
Right. but society can also confer advantages. For example, I don't like to farm. So the implicit agreement with "society" is that we will allow a government to tell us what to do with certain aspects of our persons for some sort of tangible benefit.
They can tell us where to crap, so we don't all get sick.
They can take some of our labor, but will provide armed men to make sure the inevitable folks that break the contract get nabbed.
and so forth.
We also right laws so that folks have a clear example of other folk's persons and labor.
Don't kill folks.
Don't take their stuff.
She really meant "No"
Thirdly we have some laws left over from when folks didn't think so much, everyone pretty much agreed, and they wanted to control dissenting opinions.
Can't buy alcohol on Sundays.
Can't smoke weed.
Girls have to have shirts on at all times.
Not all of that third subset are bad even if they came about from flawed thinking. But it's worth examining them and either fitting them into the "tangible benefit that outweighs infringing on your natural rights" category, or dumping them.
<shrug> Most sex laws were, I feel, pretty obviously crafted to control and shun deviants*. That's not really a good enough reason to take control from the individual.
*Dictionary definition there. One who deviates from an established norm. Not the definition with the implied negative baggage.
-
A lot of it boils down to if one believes that there is relative or absolute morality. Are rape/murder/theft bad because they are bad, or do we merely take a pragmatic look and decide if they are beneficial to society?
FWIW I believe in an absolute morality. Rape/Murder/Theft are inherently bad in their own right.
I also know that laws exist legislating things that are far beyond the reach of that inherent evil. It's worth getting rid of the laws that overreach, while being careful of actual evil acts.
-
FWIW I believe in an absolute morality.
Ok, honest question here because I've never actually understood this.
As an atheist, how do you arrive at that conclusion? I've seen it presented as "they have universally undesirable externalities" which I understand. But making a moral judgment of something as "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong" would seem to require an appeal to an external factor over and above pragmatism. Not trying to fight, just honestly never heard that explained by any of my atheist friends, many (all?) of whom ascribe to absolute morality.
-
Fistful, nonconsensual (between humans) acts pretty clearly infringe on the natural rights of those that didn't consent. That's why we have laws against those acts.
It's clear now. We have those laws now. There is no reason to think those laws (or the consensus view of them) will be any more permanent than others.
We are busy changing (or trying to change) the meaning of fundamental concepts today. There is not much reason to think that "consent" will not someday be interpreted as, "she didn't run away as soon as she saw me, so she was into it."
-
Kind of longing for the days when we didn't discuss *expletive deleted*ing farm animals and family members....
-
Ok, honest question here because I've never actually understood this.
As an atheist, how do you arrive at that conclusion? I've seen it presented as "they have universally undesirable externalities" which I understand. But making a moral judgment of something as "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong" would seem to require an appeal to an external factor over and above pragmatism. Not trying to fight, just honestly never heard that explained by any of my atheist friends, many (all?) of whom ascribe to absolute morality.
Because we can think for ourselves? Just because you need "right", "wrong", "good" and "bad" defined for you by a book, doesn't mean everyone else does.
-
Ok, honest question here because I've never actually understood this.
As an atheist, how do you arrive at that conclusion? I've seen it presented as "they have universally undesirable externalities" which I understand. But making a moral judgment of something as "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong" would seem to require an appeal to an external factor over and above pragmatism. Not trying to fight, just honestly never heard that explained by any of my atheist friends, many (all?) of whom ascribe to absolute morality.
I'm not an atheist. I don't generally talk about my spirituality on the Internet because it's very personal to me.
I also go out of my way to make sure no hint of religion seeps into my thinking and talking about laws because 1. I don't think laws should be religiously based and 2. I don't want to give anyone the "I don't believe in that God, so that laws doesn't apply to me" out.
-
I'm not an atheist. I don't generally talk about my spirituality on the Internet because it's very personal to me.
I also go out of my way to make sure no hint of religion seeps into my thinking and talking about laws because 1. I don't think laws should be religiously based and 2. I don't want to give anyone the "I don't believe in that God, so that laws doesn't apply to me" out.
I could kiss you right now.
:)
-
Have any WV APS members checked in yet on this issue? This is squarely in their wheelhouse for sure
-
I never knew how much of a kill joy Michigan was.
MICH. COMP. LAWS SERV. § 551.3 (2013). INCAPACITY; PERSONS MAN PROHIBITED FROM MARRYING
A man shall not marry his mother, sister, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, or cousin of the first degree, or another man.
So who's left besides the sheep?
If he's a preacher he probably can't marry a parishioner. If he's a teacher he for damn sure can't marry a student. If he's a doctor many would look askance if he married a patient (especially if he's a shrink type doctor).
-
Because we can think for ourselves? Just because you need "right", "wrong", "good" and "bad" defined for you by a book, doesn't mean everyone else does.
And you think abortion should be legal, right?
-
And you think abortion should be legal, right?
Yeah, because we all have the exact same definitions of right and wrong. ;/
Why this whole board is just full of patting each other on the back since we all think the same things and nobody disagrees about what is good and bad.
Grow up, fistful.
-
Let's try to be civil, shall we?
You claimed you could think for yourself, and insulted those who supposedly cannot. Pardon me for pointing out that your self-assured moral reasoning has a large beam in its eye.
-
Let's try to be civil, shall we?
You claimed you could think for yourself, and insulted those who supposedly cannot. Pardon me for pointing out that your self-assured moral reasoning has a large beam in its eye.
No, I am insulted that Balog even asked the question, because it's so incredibly self involved.
Look, the whole point is people are diffrent. With diffrent spirtual needs and veiws. My issue is this delusion that some posters on this board have that without Christianity (or even just obvious signs of it), the rest of us are next thing to wild savages without any belifes or ideals.
Look, I don't question the validity of your religion to you're life. Return the favor and respect the validity of others lack of religion.
-
Once our threads go abortion they pretty much just get locked. For the sake of having a discussion of any type, you might think of refraining from going to that particular well.
We are deeply divided on that issue, and the two sides seem unlikely to change the others mind. May we constrain or conversation to the already emotionally charged topic of deviant sex, without going down a road we know will end with dissatisfaction and locks?
Eta: I'm with BSL though. Bring up, Sex, the gayz, or abortion on this board and the Christianity gets pretty thick and wields broad brushes. It does get old.
-
Once our threads go abortion they pretty much just get locked. For the sake of having a discussion of any type, you might think of refraining from going to that particular well.
We are deeply divided on that issue, and the two sides seem unlikely to change the others mind. May we constrain or conversation to the already emotionally charged topic of deviant sex, without going down a road we know will end with dissatisfaction and locks?
Eta: I'm with BSL though. Bring up, Sex, the gayz, or abortion on this board and the Christianity gets pretty thick and wields broad brushes. It does get old.
When a judge claims that family *expletive deleted* ought to be legal because abortion solves the issue of the Funny Looking Kids that result...that's *expletive deleted*ed up and just ain't right, no matter how one tries to justify it.
-
When a judge claims that family *expletive deleted* ought to be legal because abortion solves the issue of the Funny Looking Kids that result...that's *expletive deleted*ed up and just ain't right, no matter how one tries to justify it.
I actually do agree with this. To have an abortion is a highly personal decision. Any legislation that takes the personal choice out of the equation is not right.
I think prevention options are enough. Or better yet, just don't screw blood relatives.
-
Here is some food for thought. In monarchies (sp) it was/is practice that incest was encouraged so that a family would keep hold of the power forever. With that since Australia was a British colony and ruled by a monarch, wouldn't it be in line that some people still hold that true and would support that thought?
-
My issue is this delusion that some posters on this board have that without Christianity (or even just obvious signs of it), the rest of us are next thing to wild savages without any belifes or ideals.
Is that the point that is being made? I always thought it was an opening gambit to the argument that non-religious people who grow up immersed in western culture are inculcated to a large extent with Judeo-Christian ethos regardless of their personal religious beliefs.
-
Is that the point that is being made? I always thought it was an opening gambit to the argument that non-religious people who grow up immersed in western culture are inculcated to a large extent with Judeo-Christian ethos regardless of their personal religious beliefs.
Bingo
None of us are an island.
The question was posed to search out the foundation or first principles behind ones world view.
Folks start getting real touchy when they are presented with confronting their own unfounded assumptions about reality.
Regarding cultural immersion I submit "Christianity" is being heavily influenced by being immersed in a moral libertine culture run by despotic bureaucrats.
-
Is that the point that is being made? I always thought it was an opening gambit to the argument that non-religious people who grow up immersed in western culture are inculcated to a large extent with Judeo-Christian ethos regardless of their personal religious beliefs.
No, it wasn't. If that was the discussion, he wouldn't have asked the question because we already know the answer. I don't deny that I have morals that are partially grounded in Judeo-Christian ethics because of where and how I was raised.
I recent the implication that I and the others who try to leave religious or personal philosophical world veiws out of our politics are just in denial and we really are just bad Christians.
-
No, it wasn't. If that was the discussion, he wouldn't have asked the question because we already know the answer. I don't deny that I have morals that are partially grounded in Judeo-Christian ethics because of where and how I was raised.
People ask questions that they know the answer to all the time, especially if they are trying to lead you to think about specific things or try to make you come to a certain conclusion. Nothing unusual about that. Then again, maybe he was genuinely curious.
More, if your morality is so based in the religion and moral culture of your society (which is, of course, true for all of us), are you really defining right and wrong by thinking for yourself? Obviously you differ with some interpretations of morality that comes from the bible and the non-biblical traditions surrounding the majority religion - which is equally true of its practitioners.
I recent the implication that I and the others who try to leave religious or personal philosophical world veiws out of our politics are just in denial and we really are just bad Christians.
Does anyone leave personal philosophy out of politics? If so, I have never seen it and I am not even sure that it would be a good thing. Nearly everyone believes some morality should be imposed on others and other morality that should remain a personal decision.
As to just being a "bad Christian," if your morals aren't grounded in Christianity at all then of course you aren't. However, at that point the original question of whence comes the irreducible axioms of your morality becomes entirely appropriate. If you admit your morals are rooted in religion, then the question of the basis of your disagreements is equally apt. That is not to say that religious folks couldn't be asked to justify some of the extra-biblical origins, strained justifications or neglected components of their own moral code.
All that to say, I'm not sure why you would get huffy about anything that has been said or asked. If you take pride in the fact that you have generated your own moral code through introspection and thinking for yourself then being asked to share the rationale behind it isn't a slight to you. If you have a foundation in Christian morals but have improved them through original thought then again, asking the genesis of your tweaks as well as the reasoning behind what you leave unchanged isnt a criticism.
-
I think the problem here is folks are only reading: there's a lack of other communication cues, which can cause misreading of each-others' posts.
I have a good friend up here named Billy Ray. VERY devout Christian, with major hang-ups against organized churches. He and I are close, and have discussed religion many times. We can do this without misunderstandings because it's not just words: tone, inflection, body language... all take part.
Another example: Bedlamite and I once got called to task on here by a mod, for cutting on each-other. Dick (correctly) pointed out that this is how we talk to each-other on a regular basis. But others reading, not knowing that we are friends in meat space, not able to hear and see other cues, thought a fight was brewing.
Just food for thought
-
Does anyone leave personal philosophy out of politics? If so, I have never seen it and I am not even sure that it would be a good thing. Nearly everyone believes some morality should be imposed on others and other morality that should remain a personal decision.
Bingo.
All politics, government, and law is based on some idea of bringing about good (even if it is actually done cynically, for self-interest), and good must be defined in some way. So there most certainly is a place for religion in politics, just as much as there is a place for non-religious ideas.
Contrary to popular myth, there is nothing about secular beliefs that make them more valid in our politics than the religious ones. We are not more free if our liberty is curtailed by the non-religious dietary laws of Michael Bloomberg, instead of religiously-motivated laws that keep liquor stores closed on Sundays. On the flip side, Hobby Lobby shouldn't have to play the religion card, to avoid paying for abortifacients. Every atheist employer should be just as free, to pay or not pay for whatever.
-
No, I am insulted that Balog even asked the question, because it's so incredibly self involved.
Look, the whole point is people are diffrent. With diffrent spirtual needs and veiws. My issue is this delusion that some posters on this board have that without Christianity (or even just obvious signs of it), the rest of us are next thing to wild savages without any belifes or ideals.
I could be wrong, but it seems to be the pro-abortion side that has made a point of claiming that any objection to abortion is a religious one (because they believe that makes it easier to dismiss). The anti-abortion side seems to have bought into the former, but not the latter. It's the same way with all of the sex and gender issues. So if someone's claiming that non-religious people tend to be wild savages (who kill their children, and can't figure out how to do sex and marriage properly), it's not just the Christians. It's not even primarily the Christians.
None of which means that I, personally, think that atheists are incapable of morals. We have atheist(s) on this board that oppose abortion, and all manner of other evils.
Look, I don't question the validity of your religion to you're life. Return the favor and respect the validity of others lack of religion.
I, as much as anyone, respect your right to believe as you choose. But I just don't see religions in terms of one being valid for one person's life, and another for someone else. I have a different perspective on it.
-
Bingo.
All politics, government, and law is based on some idea of bringing about good (even if it is actually done cynically, for self-interest), and good must be defined in some way. So there most certainly is a place for religion in politics, just as much as there is a place for non-religious ideas.
Contrary to popular myth, there is nothing about secular beliefs that make them more valid in our politics than the religious ones. We are not more free if our liberty is curtailed by the non-religious dietary laws of Michael Bloomberg, instead of religiously-motivated laws that keep liquor stores closed on Sundays. On the flip side, there shouldn't be anything about Hobby Lobby's religious ownership that allows it to avoid paying for abortifacients. Every atheist employer should be just as free, to pay or not pay for whatever.
Interesting.
So, if I'm understanding what you're saying, Hobby Lobby ought to be forced to pay for abortofascients in spite of the fact they have morality-based misgivings about it.
So the "you can't legislate morality" crowd/liberals are perfectly happy forcing >their< morality on the religious ... they just don't want religious peoples' morality forced on them.
???
Ooookaaaaayyyyyyyyy.....
-
I guess that's a very confusing sentence. Sorry about that.
What I mean is that Hobby Lobby shouldn't have to say, "But religion!" They should just have to say, "But I don't wanna, and it ain't nunya business why!"
Of course, the government wouldn't need to make so many allowances for religion (or anything else), if they would just not try to be involved in every little thing.
-
I guess that's a very confusing sentence. Sorry about that.
What I mean is that Hobby Lobby shouldn't have to say, "But religion!" They should just have to say, "But I don't wanna, and it ain't nunya business why!"
Of course, the government wouldn't need to make so many allowances for religion (or anything else), if they would just not try to be involved in every little thing.
Dayglo BINGO right there! ;)