Conquer Club

unriggable wrote:Good observation. Wasn't there another guy caught having sex with a male prostitute in an airport bathroom? One of those 'pro-family' fuckers?

Are you talking about George Michael?
[size=0]Of course I'm being fucking sarcastic you imbeciles...[/size]

Well, there was Senator Craig from Idaho, he never technically had sex with anybody in any bathroom, just solicting. Even then the case was kinda weak, but he pled guilty, so I guess it was true. Even so, no prostitutes, no actual sex. And semantics (literally?) but I believe Haggard was receving blow jobs, not giving them.[/quote]

Craig out there with the infamous Minnesota toe-tap...even though there was no contact, his intention were clear.

Haggard was in a LTR with a male prostitute who he would get high on crank with. I really dont want to know the details on this one.

And dont forget Mark Foley, the childrens advocate that was kicked from the congressional library for bending over pages.

All are scum-bags, and have caused severe damage to the Republican party.

Well they are huge huge hypocrites, it's really sad to be in denial like that and pushing legislation to ban shit you do.

unriggable wrote:'pro-family' fuckers?

quite, God (or rather the pervading force of nature that is the universe) forbid we ever move back to support the concept of a family! ugh...

Napoleon Ier wrote:

unriggable wrote:'pro-family' fuckers?

quite, God (or rather the pervading force of nature that is the universe) forbid we ever move back to support the concept of a family! ugh...

Well, disregarding whatever the force is that is making some people want to move back.

The notion of a traditional nuclear family....is not consistent with actual reality in most of the world. This includes more than simply the notion of gay marriage. The fact of the matter is, the majority of families reflect an idea that is different than the idea that people think normal is or should be.

When you suggest that something should be the social norm, when it is not at all the social norm, it not only shows a failure in society to catch up to its own behavior, and suggests a sense of delusion and inability to see social factors at work.

got tonkaed wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

unriggable wrote:'pro-family' fuckers?

quite, God (or rather the pervading force of nature that is the universe) forbid we ever move back to support the concept of a family! ugh...

Well, disregarding whatever the force is that is making some people want to move back.

The notion of a traditional nuclear family....is not consistent with actual reality in most of the world. This includes more than simply the notion of gay marriage. The fact of the matter is, the majority of families reflect an idea that is different than the idea that people think normal is or should be.

When you suggest that something should be the social norm, when it is not at all the social norm, it not only shows a failure in society to catch up to its own behavior, and suggests a sense of delusion and inability to see social factors at work.

I believe in absolute moral values

Murder is always wrong, in all societies.
Adultery is always wrong, regardless of trends
If the Social norm is to denounce capitalist kulak "ennemies of the state", or Jewish "inferiors", it is still wrong.

You have, like our society actually,succumbed to the ignominious dictatorship of moral relativism

Not to butt in, but I think unriggable was talking about the hypocrisy of someone advocating the nukulur family while also trying to have bumsex.

Snorri1234 wrote:Not to butt in, but I think unriggable was talking about the hypocrisy of someone advocating the nukulur family while also trying to have bumsex.

I hope so. I sincerely hope that he wasn't saying anyone advocating good old family values,and believing a loving and united family is the proper environment for a healthy child to be raised were all fuckers.

However I responded further to got tonked's wider point about societal norms and so forth.

no poll for independent?

left or right, hmmmmm, need to think, can see some of both at times

Napoleon Ier wrote:I believe in absolute moral values

Murder is always wrong, in all societies.
Adultery is always wrong, regardless of trends
If the Social norm is to denounce capitalist kulak "ennemies of the state", or Jewish "inferiors", it is still wrong.

You have, like our society actually,succumbed to the ignominious dictatorship of moral relativism

Slavery? Serfdom?

Guiscard wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:I believe in absolute moral values

Murder is always wrong, in all societies.
Adultery is always wrong, regardless of trends
If the Social norm is to denounce capitalist kulak "ennemies of the state", or Jewish "inferiors", it is still wrong.

You have, like our society actually,succumbed to the ignominious dictatorship of moral relativism

Slavery? Serfdom?

is always wrong regardless of societal attidtudes...

surely you of all people agree...?

(as for serfdom you know more than me, I wont try and debate that issue)

Napoleon Ier wrote:I believe in absolute moral values

Murder is always wrong, in all societies.
Adultery is always wrong, regardless of trends
If the Social norm is to denounce capitalist kulak "ennemies of the state", or Jewish "inferiors", it is still wrong.

You have, like our society actually,succumbed to the ignominious dictatorship of moral relativism

I could've cared less about gay marriage either way when I first started reading this thread but now your post has me thinking. I'm not sure if living in a moral relativist society is the best. I mean you could justify anything if you bought into it. Damn you for awakening my conscience!

I think some morals change because technology improves. We never really had a problem with deciding when to pull the plug on dying patients before because life support machines have just recently involved in making that decision. 200 years ago nobody would even have to think about making that choice.

silvanricky wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:I believe in absolute moral values

Murder is always wrong, in all societies.
Adultery is always wrong, regardless of trends
If the Social norm is to denounce capitalist kulak "ennemies of the state", or Jewish "inferiors", it is still wrong.

You have, like our society actually,succumbed to the ignominious dictatorship of moral relativism

I could've cared less about gay marriage either way when I first started reading this thread but now your post has me thinking. I'm not sure if living in a moral relativist society is the best. I mean you could justify anything if you bought into it. Damn you for awakening my conscience!

I think some morals change because technology improves. We never really had a problem with deciding when to pull the plug on dying patients before because life support machines have just recently involved in making that decision. 200 years ago nobody would even have to think about making that choice.

I am glad someone has decided to think a little and expand their intellect at last .

I response to your last point, I agree technology could bring in different ethical problems, but, I still think that there is (depending on circumstances) only ever one "right" choice. Obviously I believe pulling the plug is generally wrong, though it is a case by case thing. However, I think the rules used to decide what the right choice is are "Moral Law", which cant be changed.

silvanricky wrote:I think some morals change because technology improves. We never really had a problem with deciding when to pull the plug on dying patients before because life support machines have just recently involved in making that decision. 200 years ago nobody would even have to think about making that choice.

And I guess you could say that at that time similar choices existed, say your friend had received bullet wound to the gut at the battle of whatever, doyou put him out of misery, or let him die a slow and painful death?

Napoleon Ier wrote:And I guess you could say that at that time similar choices existed, say your friend had received bullet wound to the gut at the battle of whatever, doyou put him out of misery, or let him die a slow and painful death?

I guess I would do everything I possibly could to save him first. If I couldn't then I suppose I would have to put him out of his misery. f*ck, it's a tough choice either way.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

unriggable wrote:'pro-family' fuckers?

quite, God (or rather the pervading force of nature that is the universe) forbid we ever move back to support the concept of a family! ugh...

Well, disregarding whatever the force is that is making some people want to move back.

The notion of a traditional nuclear family....is not consistent with actual reality in most of the world. This includes more than simply the notion of gay marriage. The fact of the matter is, the majority of families reflect an idea that is different than the idea that people think normal is or should be.

When you suggest that something should be the social norm, when it is not at all the social norm, it not only shows a failure in society to catch up to its own behavior, and suggests a sense of delusion and inability to see social factors at work.

I believe in absolute moral values

Murder is always wrong, in all societies.
Adultery is always wrong, regardless of trends
If the Social norm is to denounce capitalist kulak "ennemies of the state", or Jewish "inferiors", it is still wrong.

You have, like our society actually,succumbed to the ignominious dictatorship of moral relativism

Murder is always wrong....and yet you belong to a church that has a vile record of murdering those who oppose it ! A church that has ( through its dogmatic opposition to contraception ) contributed greatly to the suffering and death of so many and yet owned a company that manufactured condoms ! You may weave your eloquent and intricate notions of morality but the bottom line is that you defend hypocrisy on a massive scale.

comic boy, that can be said about almost anything, not just religion.

muy_thaiguy wrote:comic boy, that can be said about almost anything, not just religion.

QFT. Everyone is a hypocrite regardless of what they believe in I guess.

What the hell muy_thaiguy! I see you post more than anyone on this site.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Not to butt in, but I think unriggable was talking about the hypocrisy of someone advocating the nukulur family while also trying to have bumsex.

I hope so. I sincerely hope that he wasn't saying anyone advocating good old family values,and believing a loving and united family is the proper environment for a healthy child to be raised were all fuckers.

Without fuckers there would be no children to raise.

muy_thaiguy wrote:comic boy, that can be said about almost anything, not just religion.

Please give an example then of a scale of hypocrisy that equals what I describe. An individuals hypocrisy will involve perhaps just a few people,which is hardly comparable to that of an institution that attempts to influence millions. Governments and multinational corporations certainly practice the same level of deceit , would you place much faith in them ?

communism is the way to go

Napoleon...sorry for being a little slow, i dont always have as good of access as i have on breaks from school.

Anyway i think silvan kind of makes the argument for me in a lot of ways. The problem with moral absolutism is it requires a social vaccum for it to have any effect, and it requires considerable mental gymnastics in terminology.

The issue of terminology seems to be rather straight forward. If murder is always wrong, then there probably cant be such a thing as a just war, if you use certain definitions of murder. If you used a rather simplistic definition of murder, ie you take someones life without their consent, then seemingly theres a pretty big problem with war, because most soilders dont want to die.

As a result for moral absolutism to stick, you have to therefore make a justification, by arguing deaths in war are not murder. Im not interested in actually having this discussion, but im just using it as rather simple evidence to the point that moral absolutism is constrictive to thinking.

Now to silvans brillant argument....

Frankly as society changes, we are forced to make different decisions about appropriate behavior than before. Technological assisted suicide is not necessarily something we thought about back in the day. However, we have to think about it now and clearly there are interesting dynamics that are involved.

However the bigger point is this. Morality is (as well as we can prove it, because we dont yet have access to a verifiable objective set of morality...though people on every side of the coin are working toward getting us there) a social construction. Because different societies have to take different stances on how to behave, one size of morality does not fit all.

In many societies, infanticide was practiced and in many other societies canniablism has been the norm. Now for people like you and me, those may seem like some pretty poor choices as far as how to deal with the human body. However, given the social sets of circumstances in those places, frequently religious (seemingly the moral authority right?) justifications were given to approve of these practices.

Yes, there are inherent problems to the idea of moral relativism. In many cases a weaker mind would not be able to take a stance on anything because it would be easy to make the arguments that cause relative morality to fall apart. However, perhaps using similar mental gymnastics, if not perhaps more refined that moral absolutism, these differences can be resolved by anyone with a bit of charcter in their way of thinking.

To make a long story short. Stop thinking like an individual who refuses to unlock their mental capacity. Its a tricky world out there and in order to face it at the end of the day you probably need to be a lot more critical (in this case, being able to see the different sides of the issue) than in many cases your infantile reasoning is currently allowing you to.


In other news....

what did everyone think of the debate last night? I think a Guilani/Huckabee ticket could be really interesting if that ended up getting put together.

comic boy wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:comic boy, that can be said about almost anything, not just religion.

Please give an example then of a scale of hypocrisy that equals what I describe. An individuals hypocrisy will involve perhaps just a few people,which is hardly comparable to that of an institution that attempts to influence millions. Governments and multinational corporations certainly practice the same level of deceit , would you place much faith in them ?

"Murdering those who oppose it."
That was the main problem with that post, you made it sound as if it was ony the church that had ever done that, well here's news for you, people have been killing eachother when they oppose one another since the begining of time, and for varioous reasons. Ranging from rebellion, to not forking over a few bucks.

Also, many people are hypocrites, doesn't matter the scale of it, it happens. Some people do it to a lesser degree, others, to a much larger. For instance? The so-called tolerance of Conservatives by many (not all, but quite a few) Liberals. Those Liberals claim to be tolerent, yet once someone disagrees, they start to try and drag that person's name through the mud. I have seen it done many times, some even tried it with me. So before making such a claim about one thing, look into others, it happens with just about everything at point or another.

Oh, and silvan, I just like to chat with people.

got tonkaed, an oasis of rational thought in this desert of blathering idiots.....

tonkaed your post does not offer proof that there is no moral absolute, but simply gives cases where morality is ambiguous. In war, perfectly absolute moral values (outlined by Aquinas) can specify whether it is a Just War or not.
In any ethical case, there are many factors to consider, but its like maths, there's only absolute answers, provided by the laws of morality. Youmay not like the idea of objective morals, but that no less makes my rationale puerile.