Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 5:53 AM
25 online now:
PaulK, Porkncheese, Pressie, vimesey (4 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,657 Year: 3,694/19,786 Month: 689/1,087 Week: 58/221 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
29NextFF
Author Topic:   Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
dronestar
Member (Idle past 420 days)
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 256 of 424 (567531)
07-01-2010 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by onifre
07-01-2010 1:20 PM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
How VERY INTERESTING!!!

When you get more info (title, show premiers dates), please let me know. Just update our "Gender and Humor" thread or PM me.

In the humor thread, I think Rrhain has only used his brief introductory remarks so far, so it should still be lemony fresh by then.

thanks Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by onifre, posted 07-01-2010 1:20 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


(1)
Message 257 of 424 (567534)
07-01-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Huntard
07-01-2010 12:47 PM


Re: The Bombshell of Revelation
And now look what NJ's become!

A filthy, godless heathen!


"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." Blaise Pascal
This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Huntard, posted 07-01-2010 12:47 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Huntard, posted 07-01-2010 1:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 375 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 258 of 424 (567536)
07-01-2010 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Hyroglyphx
07-01-2010 1:33 PM


Re: The Bombshell of Revelation
Hyroglyphx writes:

A filthy, godless heathen!


I hope Buz's heart doesn't give out when he learns the news.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-01-2010 1:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 259 of 424 (567538)
07-01-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by New Cat's Eye
07-01-2010 11:49 AM


Re: Just curious.
How/why did so many people insist that the latter was the only proper interpretation? And so much so that not moderating NJ because of it was reason enough to abandon the forum?

Because it is a touchy subject that inspires a great deal of very personal feeling and strong opinions with seemingly little opportunity for middle ground or more sensitive use of language to make the same points.

That and the fact that once a perceived injustice has been committed a loss of perspective ensues and people start to interpret every little thing as supportive of their case.

IMHO.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2010 11:49 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 424 (567571)
07-01-2010 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by cavediver
07-01-2010 11:10 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
As Hyro has articulated, he could not change the language without changing the actual argument.

Sure he could. He was told precisely how he could do that, both then and now.

If he really wanted to discuss how moral relativists could find some thing immoral and not others, there are an infinite number of examples he could have used, none of which would have had anything to do with gay sex.

Why is Scrabble moral, he might have asked, and not murder? Why is it wrong to rape someone but not to bake them a cake? Why does our moral sense recoil at the prospect of eating human flesh but not at eating the flesh of cattle?

If moral relativism was actually the subject he wanted to discuss, that discussion could have proceeded from the basis of any number of illustrative examples. There was absolutely no need to continue using the language that I and many others found so divisive, inflammatory, and ultimately distracting from his point.

And since it did distract from his point, why did he continue to use it? Well, he's told us - because he was a homophobic jerk-off back then.

Remember what I said at the time?

quote:
Suffice to say, while that may have been the argument you intended to make, you did so in an offensive manner, and you really should have known better (since you've done it before to the exact same reaction.) At the very least, using trigger language like you did makes people respond to your language instead of your argument, so you should reconsider making such comparisons simply from a practical standpoint of not giving your opponents an excuse to avoid your points.

If I say something like "a nigger leaves a train station going south at 50 mph, and a spic leaves another station 50 miles south, going north at 30 mph, how fast are they going when they drive-by each other?" it doesn't really matter that I'm trying to make a point about algebra, not about race. I've been deliberately offensive and opponents, obviously, are going to ignore my much less interesting point and react to my bigotry. Why should I expect them to do any different?

I invite you to use other comparisons in the future, if only out of self-interest.


Are you saying that I can't make a point about word problems and the use of algebra except by using racial slurs against black people and Hispanics? Curious, my Calculus textbook is able to do so in over a thousand examples of word problems.

How is that possible if what you say is true?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by cavediver, posted 07-01-2010 11:10 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by AZPaul3, posted 07-01-2010 8:38 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 263 by cavediver, posted 07-02-2010 3:38 AM crashfrog has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3815
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 261 of 424 (567594)
07-01-2010 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by crashfrog
07-01-2010 5:10 PM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
Deleted.

Edited by AZPaul3, : Not necessary


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by crashfrog, posted 07-01-2010 5:10 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1856 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 262 of 424 (567637)
07-02-2010 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Hyroglyphx
06-30-2010 12:24 PM


Re: Jackass Perspective
quote:
If I was an incredibly disingenuous and despicable person, I probably wouldn't have told the forum who I was.

Sure, like the thief who is so impressed with their handiwork, they beg to be caught, so their brilliance might be vindicated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-30-2010 12:24 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2010 8:39 AM DBlevins has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1724 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 263 of 424 (567638)
07-02-2010 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by crashfrog
07-01-2010 5:10 PM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
If he really wanted to discuss how moral relativists could find some thing immoral and not others, there are an infinite number of examples he could have used, none of which would have had anything to do with gay sex.

True, but NJ's whole argument was about applying moral relativism *TO* gay sex. And there is nothing wrong with posing this argument - the debate is then on to the validity of the argument. This argument is certainly going to upset/insult/offend some people, whether they are gay or not. But that cannot take away from the validity of the argument.

why did he continue to use it? Well, he's told us - because he was a homophobic jerk-off back then.

No, that is what he was. But that is not why he chased the argument so vociferously. It was because he was an evangelical Christian. His default position was that heterosexuality was the God-given norm and homosexuality was a God-damned perversion (along with incest, bestiality, etc). This is what evangelical Christians typically believe. So all the questions relating to why he was picking on homosexuality for his comparisons and not heterosexuality were stupidly naive.

Now, I have every respect for someone who thinks that evangelical Christians are disgusting homophobes who should be shunned, suspended, banished for daring to mention their prejudices. BUT THIS IS A FUCKING EVOLUTION VS CREATIONISM DISCUSSION BOARD and there is just a tiny chance that we may get some of those evangelical Christians turning up here, armed with their homophobic views. And the topic of homosexuality may just come up in discussion. And one of these evangelical Christians may just try to understand the arguments that non-"evangelical Christians" use to justify why homosexuality is not just to be tolerated but is actually on an equal footing with heterosexuality. And he may just think that if your reasoning opens the door to one God-damned sexual perversion, then how come it doesn't open the door to the other God-damned sexual perversions that God mentioned in the SAME FUCKING VERSE of Leviticus.

And so the debate is on. But just yelling "consent" repeatedly doesn't win it: why is consent so essential? etc, etc. NJ brought up the point that consent did not seem to be rife in the animal kingdom. Schraf's reply - well you should see my horses - again isn't quite at the level to settle the issue. And that is as far as the debate was allowed to progress.

As far as I am concerned, we* never gave a sufficiently coherent and satisfactory reply to NJ, and so he kept pushing, thinking that he was actually winning the argument. All of the demands for moderator action must have seemed to him as pure defeatism. And don't forget that it was his own faith and beliefs that he was defending, not some simple homophobic hang-up.

* I was actually still an evangelical at the time, and so tended to stay quiet around such topics. I couldn't justify to other Christians my own beliefs around sexuality, as they were contrary to both standard evangelical Christian belief and to condescending liberal Christian inclusiveness. And for the record, some of my best friends have seen Brokeback Mountain, and they say it's actually quite good.

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by crashfrog, posted 07-01-2010 5:10 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2010 9:15 AM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 295 by crashfrog, posted 07-02-2010 3:42 PM cavediver has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 264 of 424 (567641)
07-02-2010 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
06-27-2010 4:44 PM


Wow...it seems the topic has already diverted. But let's answer a few questions directly:

Modulous writes:

quote:
No doubt, if it is ignored - he'll bring it up again in few years and I'd rather it was put to rest.

There's an easy way to do it:

Say you're sorry. Say that you made a horrendous mistake, you realize that your logic was faulty, and that you'll try harder in the future not to let it happen again.

However, if you continue to behave in exactly the same manner, dumping on B for responding to A's misbehaviour rather than recognizing that the problem is A, then why do you think it shouldn't be mentioned that you have a history of this problematic thought process and that given your authority as moderator, you will trash the board rather than simply admit your mistake?

quote:
quote:
And given your own personal history regarding the treatment of gay people on this board (*Dan Carroll*cough!*cough!*), you're not exactly helping.

You should probably notify Dan and his girlfriend that he is gay


OK, I handily admit that what I said could easily be interpreted as implying that Dan is gay. That was not my intention. I was referring to the entire concept of Hyro-nee-NJ's homophobia resulting in berberry's reaction and suspension and Dan's subsequent suspension for pointing out that it was wrong to suspend berberry for reacting to blatant homophobia.

That is, I wasn't saying that you have a problem due to Dan being gay. I was saying that you have a problem due to the way Dan was treated in coming to the defense of a gay person defending himself against homophobia.

You let the homophobia slide. Arguments that you wouldn't allow were they made about blacks or Jews are considered fair game when it comes to gays. Dan called you out on it and you kicked him out for it.

It's complicated, I didn't express it well, my apologies.

quote:
The Admin team seemed to be in consensus that whatever N_J was doing - it didn't merit suspension.

And they were wrong. Is that really so hard to grasp? Do I really need to remind you that I had to literally grab y'all by the neck and shove your nose in Hryo-nee-NJ's posts to make you see it?

But I forget, you admit you don't actually read the board you are charged with monitoring.

quote:
I didn't suspend Dan for pointing out it was wrong to ban berberry.

Can we please stop playing dumb? Yes, you will say that you suspended him because he was "disrespectful," but as crash points out, that didn't seem to be sufficient to suspend NJ...and in fact, you reduced his suspension when it finally did come to that.

But the only reason Dan was "disrespectful" is because he was disagreeing with the decision to suspend berberry and the subsequent disingenuousness of the moderators regarding what was happening on the board.

Remember, you specifically said Dan hadn't broken any rules.

You're trying to pull a variant of "love the sinner, hate the sin" which has always been a bullshit argument.

quote:
Dan made like 14 posts before he got suspended - if I was going to suspend him for pointing out it was wrong to ban berberry why did I not do it immediately after Message 55? Why did I let him make a dozen posts criticising berberry's suspension?

Can we please stop playing dumb? Are you seriously saying that the proof that you weren't being capricious is because you didn't shut him down at post one? If he points out your failure and you don't acknowledge it, you don't get to claim that you aren't behaving like a prick if it goes back and forth multiple times before you finally decide to pull the switch.

The underlying problem still exists: You failed, he pointed it out, you shut him down.

Instead, the words you were looking for were, "Oops. My mistake."

Once again, you failed at every single turn: Rather than focus on the person causing the problem (you), you decide to throw your wrath at the person pointing out the cause of the problem (Dan).

quote:
Percy said "saying even more things he might later come to regret", which implies he had been saying regretful things.

So? Saying something you regret is a punishable offence? Can we please stop playing dumb? That is not a statement saying that berberry is being suspended about past statements. It's a statement that berberry is predicted to say things in the future. It was predicted that berberry was going to cross the line and thus he was suspended before he could.

quote:
quote:
You need to STOP.

I stopped.


Can we please stop playing dumb?

My request for you to stop was not for you to stop talking. It was for you to stop doing what you were doing and consider if your actions were having the effect you were hoping to achieve.

You were driving the board off a cliff and I was hoping you would stop. That doesn't mean I want the board to shut down. It means I want it to keep going but that your actions are going to destroy it.

And sure enough, there was the collapse.

What would have happened, do you think, if you had simply listened to berberry from the beginning? If you had had enough sense to realize that Hryo-nee-NJ was the source of the problem and put your attentions to him first, exactly how much grief could have been saved?

quote:
How are their 'corpses' my liability?

Because you, as a moderator, were in a position to do something about it.

Instead, you went on and on defending the actions of the moderators and actually was involved in the very stupid moderator activity that caused the problem in the first place.

It never occurred to you to say, "You know, you might have a point."

You were the second-most vocal person on that thread. Do you really think you had nothing to do with the way the users felt about the moderators?

quote:
I have already conceded that I made mistakes in that post.

But you haven't apologized. And you're still behaving in exactly the same way.

So what's changed, Modulous? If you had to do it all over again, what would you do differently?

quote:
what errors I made and what impact those errors had.

What posts from Dan Carroll, me, and crashfrog are causing you trouble? The big one was the refusal by the moderator team, of which you are a part, from taking berberry's complaints seriously. That then led to the incorrect suspension of Dan (by you) and the reduction of NJ's suspension (by you). That then led to my suspension (not by you, but you were part of the team). And over all, your continued defense of the moderators' actions through that entire episode.

quote:
I don't have high hopes that you will be able to even attempt this method of discussion.

(*chuckle*)

See, there we go with the false humility again, the "more reasonable than thou" attitude.

And since you had mentioned Percy, let me point out: I don't hold you solely responsible. As I said to Minnemooseus in that thread, he needed to step down. You, he, Percy, Phat, y'all seemed to have taken leave of your senses. The only reason I'm coming down on you is because you're the one who spoke up and started engaging in the exact same behaviour that caused the problem (coming down on B for defending himself against A rather than focusing on A for causing the trouble in the first place).

You haven't learned your lesson and I will point it out every time you make the same mistake.

And as you've mentioned the private message, I should say that I did reply to it...or at least I thought I did. It seems that it didn't take...it isn't in my Sent folder. That said, I think it's safe to say that your assumption you made in it isn't true:

No, we're not.

Not until you apologize for your behaviour and change your ways.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 06-27-2010 4:44 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by cavediver, posted 07-02-2010 4:28 AM Rrhain has not yet responded
 Message 266 by AZPaul3, posted 07-02-2010 5:08 AM Rrhain has not yet responded
 Message 267 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2010 8:28 AM Rrhain has not yet responded
 Message 338 by purpledawn, posted 07-04-2010 8:29 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1724 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 265 of 424 (567643)
07-02-2010 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Rrhain
07-02-2010 4:14 AM


Hey, late for the party much?

Not until you apologize for your behaviour and change your ways.

Sorry, you seem to have missed out on our conclusion: nothing to apologise for, nothing to change...

Moving on...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Rrhain, posted 07-02-2010 4:14 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3815
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 266 of 424 (567652)
07-02-2010 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Rrhain
07-02-2010 4:14 AM


Rrhain to Mod:
You haven't learned your lesson and I will point it out every time you make the same mistake.

The only lesson to be learned here is that holding on to a grudge for three years is poisonous to the soul.

We have just been through the archives and all the messages courtesy of Crashfrog and the majority of us find that Mod, Purpledawn, Percy and any and all other members of the Moderation team did not err in this case.

Your's is not the only opinion on this matter, Rrhain. You can continue to rant and rave to your hearts content but you will not change this opinion.

There was no error. There is nothing for Mod or any other member of the Moderation staff to apologize for.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : Addition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Rrhain, posted 07-02-2010 4:14 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by crashfrog, posted 07-02-2010 3:51 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 267 of 424 (567688)
07-02-2010 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Rrhain
07-02-2010 4:14 AM


Starting with Dan
Say you're sorry.

quote:
I have conceded the points where I think Rrhain was right. I have conceded the points where I think you were right. I have expressed sorrow - but please also accept my apologies.

Message 31

That is, I wasn't saying that you have a problem due to Dan being gay. I was saying that you have a problem due to the way Dan was treated in coming to the defense of a gay person defending himself against homophobia.

Since when is "Modulous is a retarded monkey that's so retarded he'd fail the retarded monkey test.", defending a gay person? Sounds like he's attacking a bisexual one personally if you ask me.

You let the homophobia slide.

Homophobia isn't against the forum rules. Especially in topics dedicated to the morality of homosexuality or homosexual marriage.

Arguments that you wouldn't allow were they made about blacks or Jews are considered fair game when it comes to gays. Dan called you out on it and you kicked him out for it.

No - I kicked out Dan for calling me a retarded monkey that was so retarded I'd fail the retarded monkey test. He was allowed to make a dozen posts calling the moderators out. He even came back after his suspension and said some more.

I don't have a problem with someone wanting to debate miscegenation, and they wouldn't be suspended simply for so doing.

But the only reason Dan was "disrespectful" is because he was disagreeing with the decision to suspend berberry and the subsequent disingenuousness of the moderators regarding what was happening on the board.

Calling people retarded monkeys that are so retarded they'd fail the retarded monkey test is not how we like to encourage expressing disagreement.

Remember, you specifically said Dan hadn't broken any rules.

I said, Dan hadn't explicitly broken the rules, but in my opinion he had - it was a thinly veiled reference to an earlier post of his. He then confirmed that he had broken the rules, making it explicit. And he got banned.

I've said this several times already.

Are you seriously saying that the proof that you weren't being capricious is because you didn't shut him down at post one?

I'm saying that it is evidence that it wasn't for criticising the moderators that Dan was suspended. Of course, had I done it at post 1 or post 13 - it'd all be evidence for Rrhain's conspiracy theory.

The underlying problem still exists: You failed, he pointed it out, you shut him down.

Dan called me a retarded monkey that was so retarded it would fail the retarded monkey test and got suspended for that and not being on topic and ignoring moderator requests. I know you want to really believe he was a martyr to the Great Purge. Saint Dan or something, but really - he broke the rules.

Once again, you failed at every single turn: Rather than focus on the person causing the problem (you), you decide to throw your wrath at the person pointing out the cause of the problem (Dan).

If I was a problem (after having done nothing) - then Dan should probably have followed crashfrog's methodology. It worked out for Crash. Directly insulting members of the board didn't work out for Dan.

Feel free to rewrite history.

I don't have high hopes that you will be able to even attempt this method of discussion.I can be persuaded by evidence, I've done it before. I'm human, and maybe I'll see it better if someone were to civilly and calmly explain - without endlessly questioning my intelligence and my intellectual honesty - what errors I made and what impact those errors had.

(*chuckle*)

See, there we go with the false humility again, the "more reasonable than thou" attitude.

It seems I was right though. You didn't post any evidence, you didn't put much of a civil argument forward. You just repeated yourself.

"More reasonable than thou" is not humility, Rrhain. It's the exact opposite. You post with a tone of absolute superiority - which I think is worse. I'll let others decide on such issues since neither of us is sufficiently detached.

And as you've mentioned the private message, I should say that I did reply to it...or at least I thought I did. It seems that it didn't take...it isn't in my Sent folder. That said, I think it's safe to say that your assumption you made in it isn't true:

No, we're not.

Apologies for thinking the worst of you there. It seems the message never got to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Rrhain, posted 07-02-2010 4:14 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by crashfrog, posted 07-02-2010 4:31 PM Modulous has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 268 of 424 (567690)
07-02-2010 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by DBlevins
07-02-2010 3:07 AM


Re: Jackass Perspective
Sure, like the thief who is so impressed with their handiwork, they beg to be caught, so their brilliance might be vindicated.

How hard is it to hide online?... No brilliance, there.


"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." Blaise Pascal
This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by DBlevins, posted 07-02-2010 3:07 AM DBlevins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by DBlevins, posted 07-02-2010 1:09 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 269 of 424 (567695)
07-02-2010 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by cavediver
07-02-2010 3:38 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
As far as I am concerned, we* never gave a sufficiently coherent and satisfactory reply to NJ, and so he kept pushing, thinking that he was actually winning the argument. All of the demands for moderator action must have seemed to him as pure defeatism. And don't forget that it was his own faith and beliefs that he was defending, not some simple homophobic hang-up.

At the time I really thought I was on to something, as you've stated. If you recall, apologetics and the philosophies of religion and existentialism were my schtick. I thought that while atheism had many good arguments in its defense, I thought the answers for why morality would be independent of a God was lacking.

And yes, I never felt like I received a sufficient answer for why "consent" should be the unifying principle. After all, if an 18-year old teenager consentually wants to marry his 21-year old biological sister, they still cannot legally do that. Why, if age-of-consent is the arbiter? The only real justification anyone has (at the end of the day) is that it's taboo. We just feel that it's wrong, and so, it's wrong.

I brought that up too. My arguments weren't confined to homosexuality by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, as it stands with my beliefs today, I think legally one should be able to do just about anything that does not hurt or impede someone else, but morally I still do not have an answer to that conundrum. I think my initial assesment was right. It ultimately does boil down to opinion if moral relativism is true, and nothing else.

I also still stand by the notion that laws derive from a moral framework, as we don't simply arbitrarily create laws. We create laws with a moral in mind. That, of course, does not mean necessarily that an absolute moral law-giver exists, or if it does, we haven't the ability to distinguish which morals are absolute.

The paradox between moral relativity and moral absolutes still stand in my mind. I haven't been able to solve that quandry. It seems on some philosophical level, both are necessary.


"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." Blaise Pascal
This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by cavediver, posted 07-02-2010 3:38 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Huntard, posted 07-02-2010 9:25 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 271 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2010 9:33 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 274 by Taz, posted 07-02-2010 10:27 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 375 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 270 of 424 (567696)
07-02-2010 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Hyroglyphx
07-02-2010 9:15 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
Hyroglyphx writes:

Now, as it stands with my beliefs today, I think legally one should be able to do just about anything that does not hurt or impede someone else, but morally I still do not have an answer to that conundrum.


Why shouldn't they be allowed morally to do as they please, as long as they don't hurt anybody else?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2010 9:15 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2010 9:41 AM Huntard has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
29NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019