• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

More Ethics!

hammegk said:

Phooey. Reread your words under the quote of my words you were discussing. I took offense then, and would do so again.


I did not take it as a "request for facts". "List all liberals"!

The topic was clear, and my remarks could have reasonably been construed as specific in that posters in the 2 threads in question constitute my sampling of liberals. I.E. make your own "list".

Conversely, perhaps you suggest that moral relativism is a trait you have found in those you don't find "liberal"? I haven't.


Re your next posts's jab, do I seem to you to exhibit "exaggerated submission to authority"? I disagree.
If you wish to attribute the other Conservatives: Authoritarian personality syndrome items listed to me, you should hang out your shingle as a mind-reader & go for the $million.

Do you have anything of substance you'd care to bring up in this thread?


Hello again hammegk


You write:
Phooey. Reread your words under the quote of my words you were discussing. I took offense then, and would do so again.

What I wrote and you refer to:

Prejudice comes in so many shapes and as most times not seen as Prejudice if the words actions are said by them against another yet they are Prejudice if said by others about them.

Also such statements like above are most easily shown to be immature, hateful and illogical.

May I demonstrate.

Hello hammegk my friend.

May I ask that you list the names and address of all liberals that live now and that have ever lived. Then may I ask you present using each liberals full name and location their statements
quote: declaring these practices "immoral per se".


Thank you I look forward to this list and your proof.

May you be well and happy.

My response was to your original post of :
Or, equally factually (if not more so), what liberals have concluded is that there is no logical reason to declare these practices "immoral per se".

Are they using secular humanism or whatever basis they do or do not use to address moral questions, or is the conclusion moral bases do not exist?
My friend I can not judge what you do and do not personal take “offense” to but there is NO personal attack as you say.

I say clearly what my opinion is as to the STATEMENT, the act not the actor. Remember I said Also such statements like above are most easily shown to be immature, hateful and illogical.

I did not say anything about you I did not attack you but only the statement. I also offered the opportunity to prove your position to which lead you to your anger. I have no control over your anger I can not cause it only you can.

It seems when you are challenged or asked for facts to support your position you become angry again this has nothing to do with the asker it has to do with the person and his anger.

I find it rather silly that you take offense at my asking you to prove your statement and as to my opinion but do not mind branding all liberals this or that or any group or people whom may fall in some form in a group.

Rather silly.



You wrote
I did not take it as a "request for facts". "List all liberals"!


My friend you in another post said to me
Try reading it with understanding
I offer to you to do as you say.

It is clear what I asked for:
May I ask that you list the names and address of all liberals that live now and that have ever lived. Then may I ask you present using each liberals full name and location their statements
quote: declaring these practices "immoral per se".

As you can I said in a kind and respectful way would you make a list to prove your assertion that ALL liberals do or think this or that.

Again allow me to post YOUR words and statement.

what liberals have concluded is that there is no logical reason to declare these practices "immoral per se".

You did not say some, or half, a third, a quarter no such measure or names etc you said liberals indication all liberals act or think in this one way.

I ask simply for you to prove your position, you become angry and attack me, telling me
Pahansiri, please go pound sand.

Again this is hypocrisy on your actions not mine.


The topic was clear, and my remarks could have reasonably been construed as specific in that posters in the 2 threads in question constitute my sampling of liberals. I.E. make your own "list".

I do not find that information in your post or any reference to anyone other then “liberals think this”



Conversely, perhaps you suggest that moral relativism is a trait you have found in those you don't find "liberal"? I haven't.

I have suggested nothing as of yet to that as I am still waiting to see your proof as to your base allegation. We can move on from there when I see your proof.


If I or someone else here said you were wrong because all conservatives were caught in bed with Mrs X and it was this fact that proved you wrong you would want proof.

Why is it you would require facts and become so very angry when challenged?


Sadly I do not expect a response that will be considered real and respectful, factual honest debate so I will excuse myself from this thread.

May you be well and happy.
 
Pahansiri said:


Sadly I do not expect a response that will be considered real and respectful, factual honest debate so I will excuse myself from this thread.


Goodbye. You brought nothing, you leave with nothing.

May you feel vindicated.
 
:Originally posted by Pahansiri


Sadly I do not expect a response that will be considered real and respectful, factual honest debate so I will excuse myself from this thread.


Hammegk “responded”

Goodbye. You brought nothing, you leave with nothing.

May you feel vindicated.

Hmmmm will this qualify me for the million dollars?


No I must assume Mr. Randi will inform me my application was denied what I did was not reading the future but only stating the obvious. Hammegk/Franko is far to predictable to consider this “physic”.
 
Fade has a good example: "Kill some, tiny flags for the rest".

What?

I said "abortions for some, tiny american flags for the rest!"

The point was "don't get an abortion if you happen to think they are immoral."
 
Should not moral relativists expect a decline in ethics?

You know
eth·ic
A set of principles of right conduct.
A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain” (Gregg Easterbrook).

ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.

How can one be "ethical" if there is no agreed moral basis?
 
hammegk said:
Should not moral relativists expect a decline in ethics?

You know


How can one be "ethical" if there is no agreed moral basis?

First off, I don't think that you can prove that moral systems lead to ethics!

If we look at the abuse of church power, this will show that you can state you have ethic based on morals but they don't exist.


How to define morals?

Some thoughts,

A. To not cause harm.
B. To not force choices on others.
C. To not use 'power of position' unwisely.


A. gets right to the issue of abortion. Abortion cause harm to the inborn child, no doubt.
But then we kill animals to eat them, we kill people to prevent greater evil in wars, we kill all sorts of things. So often there is a decision made on which harm is greater.

B gets into what I conssider to be the 'ethics' area. In social work and many professions we can screw up the lives of others by making choices for them, that are against thier choices.

C. Another area of ethics, if your bosss selss Amway, you will feel obliged to buy.

What else should, could we add here?
 

Back
Top Bottom