Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If a person has been raised and lives in the ME, then that person will have a different moral construct than a person who was raised in the Western hemisphere. Every society from ancient to present have had a moral construct. However one thing is consistent through out all mankind since the day of its first existence ... killing one another is justified.
If a person murders some one we say that is illegal, yet, people murder others at an alarming rate.
If a person kills some one in an act of war, that is legal and people kill others in acts of war at an alarming rate.
If a person takes the life a child it is murder, yet, people take the lives of children at an alarming rate.
If a person takes the life of a child unborn, that is legal and people take the lives of unborn children at an alarming rate.
It is alarming that people fail to value life, whereas, they make killing one another, justified.
Morals has nothing to do with killing, except perhaps to provide another form of justification for the killing.
btw this has nothing to do with progressive liberalism or any of all political label one may want to conjure up in their mind. This has everything to do with value and the values one places on life.
Make it stop ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
At what point in the causality chain leading to a born child does it become immoral to terminate life?
Is it when there is a sperm cell? Because sperm cells are alive. If so we need to ban condoms.
Is it when there is an egg cell? Because egg cells are alive. If so we need to ban the pill.
Is it when they combine? That is also alive. In that the case we need to ban IVF and most women would be guilty of involuntary man slaughter since many times at that stage it gets spontaneously aborted by the woman's body and is flushed out with her period. Failure to implant. She might not even know.
Is it when there is a heartbeat? "Who" we are resides in the brain not the heart.
Or is it when the person that used to be a thing thinks its first thought and becomes aware of itself? To me that is the answer. Just because something is alive doesn't make it immoral to kill it. If it does then everyone who has ever taken antibiotics is a genocidal maniac. Hell, I genocided some fire ants yesterday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
At what point does a person place value on another person's life? When that person's life becomes of a monetary value?
Did you know that archeology dig sites have unearthed the skeleton remains of children placed in massive graves of 200 or more?
From that I can conclude we are not the only civilization that has difficulty in the determination that killing, is just wrong.
Morality is just another form of justification for that which is just wrong, but made right through moral applications, so as people can sleep nights.
Make it stop ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
Is it wrong to kill fire ants?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
In some cultures, yes ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
How bout in your culture?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
You are contradicting yourself, you are making moral judgments all over the place - this is wrong, that is wrong, then decrying the concept of morality itself. Guess what "things being wrong" is: That's right, its a moral judgement.
And you never answered if you, personally, think I am wrong for purging my yard of fire ants yesterday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
So you're saying that it is morality that justifies the taking of an unborn child, where as that same morality says killing children is illegal?
You're also saying the killing of ones neighbor through morality it is judged an act of murder, but the killing of one's neighbor during a time of war is legal?
When there is a very simply way to put something rather than choose that, we choose complicated so as we can justify our acts of to take one another's life.
It's just wrong ... stop doing it.
Simply put
Make it stop ...
The other part of that is .... you can't make it stop.
The human being hasn't the power within themselves to do one simple thing ... stop killing. Stop with the justifications for it and stop doing it. Placing a higher value on life above death, makes for a more civilized, more enlightened civilization than any civilization past or present. And no one on earth at the present has the power to make that happen. I find that odd, interesting and fascinating to say the least ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
If you can't respond to my actual post that's fine but don't put words in my mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
I just did ...
btw, your fire ants, they have an army that is constructed the same humans with an army ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
No, you didn't. You responded to a post that you wrote.
Don't make me go back and quote chain the whole thing to you.
That's easy enough done ...
Conclusion, the killing won't stop, until people place a value on human life that is above their own.
Just need the relevant bits. That is borderline spam.
Here is what I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
You are contradicting yourself, you are making moral judgments all over the place - this is wrong, that is wrong, then decrying the concept of morality itself. Guess what "things being wrong" is: That's right, its a moral judgement.
And you never answered if you, personally, think I am wrong for purging my yard of fire ants yesterday.
Here is what you said I said and what you responded to with the rest of your post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
So you're saying that it is morality that justifies the taking of an unborn child, where as that same morality says killing children is illegal?
You're also saying the killing of ones neighbor through morality it is judged an act of murder, but the killing of one's neighbor during a time of war is legal?
I do not know a way to make it more clear than this.
People like using this argument in various threads of this forum.
Given their position then, they must believe murder is okay for those people who consider it to be okay (which is, in fact, most murderers). If morals are truly subjective, then murder can only be illegal in a legal context.
So for example, a "morals are subjective" proponent can't say "it is wrong to kill." They must only say "it is currently illegal to kill." and they must also say "if the murderer thinks it's okay to murder, then it's okay for him/her, and it's not my business to change their opinion"
If the legal context ever changes, (as it has for, say, abortion), then these people must accept murder as okay for people who think it's okay, and legal, but can only refute it by saying "but it's not my kind of thing."
This is very dangerous thinking, which is why I believe progressive liberalism is absolutely destructive to societies.
Murderers are fairly often sentenced to death in states that allow it. So do you think, in order to be moral, women must be sentenced to death, who get an abortion?
Conclusion, the killing won't stop, until people place a value on human life that is above their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
You are contradicting yourself, you are making moral judgments all over the place - this is wrong, that is wrong, then decrying the concept of morality itself. Guess what "things being wrong" is: That's right, its a moral judgement.
And you never answered if you, personally, think I am wrong for purging my yard of fire ants yesterday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
So you're saying that it is morality that justifies the taking of an unborn child, where as that same morality says killing children is illegal?
You're also saying the killing of ones neighbor through morality it is judged an act of murder, but the killing of one's neighbor during a time of war is legal?
When there is a very simply way to put something rather than choose that, we choose complicated so as we can justify our acts of to take one another's life.
It's just wrong ... stop doing it.
Simply put
Make it stop ...
The other part of that is .... you can't make it stop.
The human being hasn't the power within themselves to do one simple thing ... stop killing. Stop with the justifications for it and stop doing it. Placing a higher value on life above death, makes for a more civilized, more enlightened civilization than any civilization past or present. And no one on earth at the present has the power to make that happen. I find that odd, interesting and fascinating to say the least ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
Just need the relevant bits.
Here is what I said:
Here is what you said I said and what you responded to with the rest of your post:
I do not know a way to make it more clear than this.
Murderers are fairly often sentenced to death in states that allow it. So do you think, in order to be moral, women must be sentenced to death, who get an abortion?
Is it when there is a sperm cell? Because sperm cells are alive. If so we need to ban condoms.
Is it when there is an egg cell? Because egg cells are alive. If so we need to ban the pill.
It's always hilarious when liberals try to look smart by not knowing anything like "is a sperm cell a human?? I'm so nuanced that I can't tell!"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
