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.
MY question, Vizio. You are not being genuine or legitimate. You pretend that you have an objective morality that does not involve human subjectivity . . . but you do NOT. It is impossible for anything involving humans to be anything but subjective, period. There always has to be a rationale for it.
If what your saying is considered principals concerning the distinction between right and wrong, or good and bad behavior wouldn't exist.
Last edited by Sophronius; 08-24-2014 at 06:22 AM..
If what your saying is considered principals concerning the distinction between right and wrong, or good and bad behavior wouldn't exist.
Now your talking. Principalities and Powers, Spiritual Wickedness in high places.
With the model of do no harm. You run into problems. Run the experiment in a simulation.
An example would be the bank robbers in Cali a while back that wore full body armor and had automatic rifles. The only way to stop them was a head shot by a sniper.
Just like religion all Scientist have motivations. So the outcome of the data is from the observers perception. We still got a lot of hurdles in the Scientific Community. All knowledge today is built upon the founders. And it is subject to change.
I find it interesting that a frame of the universe is 4 forces 4 states of matter, and 4 dimensions. Huh looks familiar ...
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,872,467 times
Reputation: 4559
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinacled
Now your talking. Principalities and Powers, Spiritual Wickedness in high places.
With the model of do no harm. You run into problems. Run the experiment in a simulation.
An example would be the bank robbers in Cali a while back that wore full body armor and had automatic rifles. The only way to stop them was a head shot by a sniper.
Obviously those bank robbers are breaking the second part of the construct:
"If it harms you or someone else, don't do it."
So they are being immoral. Stopping some one from doing lethal harm is no different then that commandment, "Thou shalt not kill".
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,872,467 times
Reputation: 4559
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinacled
Just like religion all Scientist have motivations. So the outcome of the data is from the observers perception. We still got a lot of hurdles in the Scientific Community. All knowledge today is built upon the founders. And it is subject to change.
I find it interesting that a frame of the universe is 4 forces 4 states of matter, and 4 dimensions. Huh looks familiar ...
No, most scientists do not have motivations in pursuing their science.
The scientific method is agnostic as to results, it just reports them. That means if the hypothesize is not demonstrated as a result of the experimentation, it's back to the drawing board. If new information becomes available, the theory gets tested again against that new information.
Science is dynamic in that manner. It builds on previous proofs, and will change its mind if evidence shows it should.
Religion is rigid, and no matter how juvenile and asinine a construct is presented, it will always defend that, because, you know, those wandering desert goat herders from 3000 years ago had it oh so right. \
I always wonder why those people who insist those goat herders were the epitome of spiritual knowledge don't subscribe to their knowledge in medicine (Benny Hinn followers excepted)?
With the model of do no harm. You run into problems. Run the experiment in a simulation.
An example would be the bank robbers in Cali a while back that wore full body armor and had automatic rifles. The only way to stop them was a head shot by a sniper.
Odd reference to choose but it you're talking about the North Hollywood, California (Cali is a city in Colombia) incident: that didn't happen. One died from a self-inflicted (possibly unintentional) shot to the chin and the other died from blood loss after being shot in the legs.
They definitely caused harm to other people.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 08-24-2014 at 11:47 AM..
The Scientific method is in no way perfect.
Look back at the history of the rotation of the planets and the Sun Revolving around the Earth.
The early Scientist were able to build a model that worked according to there belief.
The fact of the planets revolving around the Sun was accepted eventually. But it was only recently actually observed.
Perception will motivate your beliefs. Those who truly serve God seek the truth.
Odd reference to choose but it you're talking about the North Hollywood incident: that didn't happen. One died from a self-inflicted (possibly unintentional) shot to the chin and the other died from blood loss after being shot in the legs.
Their intention from the start was to do harm to other people.
Well when I watched it live they reported it was a sniper shot. Even interviewed the sniper. I guess history has been tampered with.
But the question is. Are the Cops immoral for harming the robbers.
...snip...
But the question is. Are the Cops immoral for harming the robbers.
And the answer is no.
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.
