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.
I love your "facts". I love how the Christians are slowly infiltrating the government to stop you from whacking off, drinking beer and killing babies.
Hey guys.....kevK's seen through our rouse.
Time to go back to the drawing board and think up another way to strip people of all their civil liberties.
Muaaahahahahahaha!!!
I've got it, I've got it. Let's convince everybody that Islam is a "religion of peace". It won't be long before all of these things are capital offenses!
Abortion
Birth Control
Divorce
Homosexuality
Pre-Marital Sex
Teaching of Evolution, origins of Earth, Sex Ed in public schools
Profanity
Prayer in public schools
I would add to this list.
-Women's rights
-Probably alcohol
-They would like censorship of TV/radio/internet/publications etc.........
-Any other religions!
It is not about morals it is about fufilling a human need. Humans need order it is a proven fact. Without order we go insane literally, it is no more moral to promote some form of order then it is to promote eating. The same goes with tyranny in places like concentration camps and terror states a psychological fear grips the populace and causes tremendous emotional stress. So if you want to argue that fulfilling human needs ie, eating, sleeping, taking care of ones psychological health is a moral value then you got me, however; I think morality and ensuring one's survival/well being are entirely different.
The well being of another is a moral position. One can easily submit to the "survival of the fittest" ideology (many do) and proclaim all others either objects to be used, or obstacles to be extinguished. The well being of society is irrelevant and in some cases, the lack of well being provides opportunity for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
If you look at those tribes while those things are permitted they are highly ritualized and not allowed willy nilly that is what makes them functional. Also the fact that they are functional proves my point that the key is functionality and not morality.
Some yes, others no. Depends on the tribe. Some societies prescribe to the above ideal I mentioned. Also, many societies throughout history have varied in forms of similar note. My point is that some exist in forms that defy your claims of "functional" society using your conditions. Order they may have in a quite abstract and differing manner than we accept, more specifically your claims of what a "functional" society requires. Are they just as valid if they kill their lame children? Are they "just" by their own laws and customs? Is this the type of system you would accept if still functional?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
Second I never said anything at all about majorities erradicating people that is a faulty inference on your part that is not justified. I never said that because there is no such thing as an absolute majority. Sometimes the a majority will emerge on one issue and a completely different majority will emerge on another. If they were to eradicate that would harm order not support it.
I never said you did, but your system of reasoning supports majority power as the dictation of right and wrong. According to your reasoning, as long as society is "functional", then how it applies itself is irrelevant. In my example, the majority could easily proclaim this so and implement it as has been done throughout historic societies of past be it the elimination of political difference or simply the enslaving of a people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
First, that is a fallacious example based on your previous faulty inference about majority rule. Secondly did you miss the part about debate and dissent in my first paragraph? If a reasonable debate took place I guerenttee you that would not happen. If you started legislating morality and belief systems ala the middle ages it probably would.
Yet this is your position. The condition of your argument is "functionality". Your specific requirements as to how it is obtained is subjective as I explained to you by various tribes and historic societies that conflict with those conditions. Debate and dissent is only relevant when there is equal powers or a resistance of merit. How do you think oppressive governments exist? Elimination of opposition is a primary goal. Debate does not occur if the dissenter is dead and if the majority retains the power to effectively apply this, then society will obtain functionality as is your condition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
Where is the morality in the decision to eat each day, the decision to work out and be active, what role does morality play in sleeping or taking a bowl movement. A lot of stuff has nothing to do with morality. Part of morality is it is in addition to what is needed to survive and live healthy. A lot of decision we make are for survival and do not have to do with morality. I am just saying long term to ensure our general psychological health against the wear and tear of tyranny and chaos it is best to keep things that may inhibit harmonious existence out of government.
To live? Is not suicide considered a conflict of morality to some? Be it in some religons it is a sin. For some cultures, it is a requirement for failure and yet others, to starve is a sign of weakness that shows a person is not strong enough to provide for themselves. To work is to eat. To be active and excerciss is a matter of being fit to survive. The actions themselves are just actions, but how we view them is a moral issue. To kill another person is considered wrong. Suicide is often considered wrong. All of these things are just actions, but how we view each one is our moral position on them.
Your view of the government needing to be functional and harmonious is a moral position. If it does not then it results in conflict, conflict which you deem unhealthy for society, which you deem wrong. You hold a moral position as to what you believe society should or should not do. Your position is no different than that of many religons. The difference is, they admit their way is a specific way and discard all others as wrong.
The left wants to force people to have same-sex relationships? If you're saying the left wants to force you to accept them, that doesn't make sense. You can't force anyone to believe anything.
What are, in your opinion, the ultimate goals of the religious right?
They want to codify religious dogma.
- Reel
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.
