Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?

Hey - I did concede that consent wasn't a unifying principle Anyway - My thread from the time, A critique of moral relativism, is still open if anyone is interested in going back. The answer - I contend in the above thread, is 'descriptive' versus 'normative'. Descriptively I'm a relativist. Normatively, I'm a fallible absolutist. Hence why I can say rape is always 'wrong', while also observing that some cultures have felt non-consensual sex in some contexts is perfectly moral.

It's a philosophical question. Morals are subjective, but laws are the morals of law-givers which may not be universally recognized by the adherents.If siblings want to marry, but are disallowed because it is illegal, you have to ask the question why it is illegal if they are above the age of consent. Aren't they prohibited on the basis of someone else's version of morality and not their own?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Yes, I think that would be more appropriate than in here. This thread is technically about how horrible of a person you are.... and me, for that matter.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

No, not we. If you recall, I answered this question to you many times. As long as they don't hurt anyone, I say go for it. Personally, I see a lot of genetic problems if they decide to breed, but every time I bring up the breeding issue I get shunned by my peers for wanting to put people in concentration camps (even though I just want to educate people about the option of not reproducing if you ain't got what it takes in your genes).Try again. No, it doesn't.I have also pointed out many times that I'm not a moral relativist by any stretch of imagination. Here is why you insist on there being a problem. No offense, but you're still taking the creationist approach to solving moral problems.In science, we sometimes have to accept that we just ain't got all the answers yet. We may even have to admit that there are some questions we may never know the answer to. This doesn't mean that science is wrong.With morality, we really have to accept that sometimes we ain't morally and philosophically sophisticated enough to answer EVERY question any twisted mind can conjure up.In short, this is what living your life is about. You continue to ponder at these scientific and moral questions.As far as moral absolutes go, I don't think we have all of it down yet, not by any stretch of imagination.

Hyro, you and mod are sleeping together aren't you? I knew this would happen one day.And could you tell your boyfriend to rid himself of the sideburns?Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

They are. And I am against that.

I don't disagree with you, I am just asking why it is illegal. There are many taboo things that are illegal without the slightest bit of reason why. Can you elaborate, because that sounds contradictory? It's not creationist, it's that you cannot occupy two contradictory answers simultaneously. Right, and I am not saying that morals are absolute or relative, I am saying that philosophically there seems a need for both to exist -- that they only make sense in relation to one another. That sounds paradoxical to me, and I am awaiting an answer for my own sake. Indeed! That's what we're doing now. Even if there were moral absolutes, understanding what morals are absolute is as seemingly unprovable as God. So, even knowing that they might make sense philosophically, they serve no practical purpose.I'm just wrestling with ideas here.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Yes, but just literally sleeping together in the same bed. Our relationship hasn't quite progressed sexually just yet.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Hmmm, you know how in the mornings you can't sit down comfortably, and Mod has that twinkle in his eye...

quote:

---

If siblings want to marry, but are disallowed because it is illegal, you have to ask the question why it is illegal if they are above the age of consent. Aren't they prohibited on the basis of someone else's version of morality and not their own?

---

I thought inbreeding was the reasoning behind not allowing those too closely related to marry today.

Sure, but an incestuous couple do not have to consider having children. And a gay incestuous couple don't have that worry. There have been plenty of situations where long separated siblings have met up and fallen deeply for each other. Do we allow a fear of inbreeding to force them apart by law?

I don't think there is a reason, and that's the point. I think this is a moral that's been grandfathered in just because, well, it seems wrong to us.The same question regarding why polygamy among consenting adults is illegal is another one.Also, just a heads up to all, the Morality thread is open. I think that thread would be more appropriate for this latest conversation.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

You don't have to be married to get kids, you know.Also, you don't have to get kids because you're married.

They're illegal because people want to get involve in other people's personal business, like prop 8. Yes, you are taking the creationist approach.One of the sure signs of creationist attitude is the need to explain everything. Any scientist will tell you "I don't know" if they run into something that they can't explain. This ain't so for creationists. They refuse to admit that there are gaps in our knowledge.The reason you think there are paradoxes in our moral framework is because you absolutely must have an answer for every moral question out there.I'm a moral absolutist and I will freely admit that there are moral questions we are not sophisticated enough to answer just like there are scientific questions we are not advance enough to answer. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, in this thread at least. I really don't see the need for moral relativism or any conflict at all. But we already know that there are moral absolutes that nobody can argue against. For instance, genocide is wrong by any standard. Even sociopaths think it's wrong. Even the nazi bastards thought it was wrong. Even people in biblical times thought it was wrong. That's why after the Israelites murdered everyone in the city of Jericho, all the soldiers involved had to stay outside the camp to cleanse themselves of the evil.I would argue that moral absolutes do exist. The only reason they appear not to exist is because people tend to over complicate things with philosophical bullshit and fortune cookie language. This is why in the past I had raised objections many times to Holmes' arguments. He should really sleep with people like Nietzsche and Kant. I don't believe for a minute that any sane mind could understand what the hell their arguments truly are.

Actually, there was a purpose behind it. Early civilizations probably noticed the high rates of birth defects in cases of inbreeding. It's like the thou shalt not eat shellfish thing in Leviticus. Because there were high concentrations of lead, ancient people probably noticed something was wrong with people who ate too much shellfish.You see, ancient people were really good with rules of thumb. What started as just a few simple cases could turn into a social taboo.**********************
Added by edit.Case in point. We today still don't like the idea of our dogs drinking from stagnant water. There's really nothing wrong with it if it's clean. But because of those mother fucking ginea worms, it became culturally disgusting to drink stagnant water.
************************* Because the culture and religions that happened to become dominant on Earth happened to be monogamous. Again, I find nothing wrong with polygamy or polyandry.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.