Search results

You are speaking from a position of ignorance. "Our emotions tell us that something is wrong, let's not question that." I imagine you glossed over what Tom said in your custom fashion. He was trying to explain that our emotions can be understood, they come from somewhere. There is a reason you...

Yes, but this doesn't clash at all with what morality is all about. Morality is there to prevent harmful behavior and so if you say something is immoral and then say "let's not do anything about it", then that means either A) you don't care whether people do moral things or B) you don't really...

1. You suggest something immoral and common should be tolerated because it's common. 2. If it's acceptable now, that means it is considered moral now. Which means you are at odds with "society". 3. Saying "I find it immoral" means you are judging them. This is what judgment is.

I'll add one more. Opening people's minds (although that's probably just wishful thinking). It's sad to me that when you discuss morality with people it's so shocking to them that you could even do such a thing that all you get out of them are these emotional responses that amount to "OMG".

Yes. Curiosity. Communal exploration of morality.

Is there some reason why that topic should not be discussed?

Self contradiction. [/discussion]

This is incorrect. Moral truth is not observationally equivalent to physical truth. This is precisely what makes it different. Observing human behavior tells you nothing about this "objective morality". Human behavior is not moral. And even when it does conform with objective morality there is...

Okay, so we agree fully on this principle (I can't remember the last time that happened). But here is the thing. In physics it is obvious to me that there is some final truth. Things must be this way or that way, the particles must be here or there, we are dealing with the physical world. In the...

Let me use your argument. The fact that we argue about physics doesn't mean that any of us is right, both could easily be wrong. Obviously, both think they are right. But even if they had the same opinion, they could still be wrong despite agreement. So. Whenever we agree on a moral...

I think I see why you prefer to stick to jokey one liners.

When people say such things they're usually projecting.

Huge insight for you. You've just discovered that someone with sexual urges for family members could actually act on them, whether they thought it was immoral or not. What a revelation. I guess up to this point you thought incest is just a theoretical concept.

Tahir the Great.

And you, instead of coming up with arguments for why it might be harmful (which I think is a case that can be made) just laugh at us in your superior moral righteousness. Fine, whatever makes you happy.

I could "potentially" do it whether or not I thought it was immoral. Humans are not exactly strictly moral, are they? What we're saying here is that if there is no harm to anyone, why would it be immoral?

We don't see gay sex as being immoral either, I guess that means we're gonna get a piece of that action too, right? Because apparently it's not immoral = I wanna do it.

If you read back this thread you'll notice there were very sterile scenarios given that excluded the child issue. That was Rev's intention. Btw it's slightly amusing to me that people fawn over this family values issue like it's the crucial principle in civilization. Whereas family is...

I don't get how you make this argument. If inbreeding was common then, and ruined our gene pool by promoting regressive genes, then how did we achieve this gene variety later on?

Rev likes Godwin's law I guess. In any case I think the objective morality stuff is beaten to death because he and I have very different ideas about what is logical.