 | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Absolute Morality boils down to how we treat each other. This is directly related to issues of respect and responsibility. A breakdown on either side of the equation (you verses me) creates societal rifts. (...) Eeeeuuu. Both are equally (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) John, at last you're speaking like an atheist! Is there anything you want to tell me? 8^) By the way, Absolute Morality in this construction exists just fine without appeals to a higher, supernatural power. (...) Ideally, sure; the elected (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) And that's a way of looking at it. But again, to make the case--how is a texas high school cheerleader affecting you directly? And how is 'some' Shakespeare affecting you? I choose not to read things I'm not interested in reading. I choose to (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) :-0 Not in the least! That understanding comes directly from Jesus Himself: "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another." (...) Yeah, that you are closer to being a (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) But the upside here is that Howard moved. He's now on Sirius and free of FCC "control" of what's appropriate. That's a good thing. It means the market will decide whether his speech is wanted or not, rather than some kloomonk in FCC (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Well, I like Macbeth quite a bit, so I guess that part affects me. But most of the sonnets don't affect me at all. Ditto Romeo & Juliet. Dave! (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Maybe, if it weren't for that whole pesky "faith" thing... (...) But that construction breaks from the "absolute" as soon as human faith comes into it. An actual revelation for you is just hearsay for me, so that's where "absolute" falls (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) That just may be my new favorite word. What the heck is its etymology? Heck, I still get a giggle from (URL) Dave! (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) IBM Jargon... (1) Citing without intent to infringe, from an online version of same located (URL) here> among (URL) other> places: mark of Kloomok n. Official indication that a product has been released from PID. After one M. Kloomok, the (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) But you can't just play in your little room of Science and have no opinions about concrete things that Science cannot address. I am speaking about Creation. (...) We have been given intellects, and some revelation along the way. Heck, we may (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) Do we have that on .geek? That is so cool! This is one of the huge list o' reasons why Larry is good for this communiity--a wealth of knowledge (some would say useless, but I like it! (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: snip (...) Humble people don't go around telling other people that they have to start taking the 'specks out of their eyes', especially via legislation. And honest people realize that we're all flawed, (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Which? IBMJARG or the NHD? the NHD is already there... Twice. Which confuses me. Did I do that??? (...) Oh Dave... you've got curator now, remember? FIX IT! (...) Thanks! ++Lar (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) You lost me there. What's a concrete thing that science can't address? (...) Hmm? Hardwired how? Hardwired to believe in him (in spite of free will?) Or hardwired to want to believe in him? Not me. (...) Approximately one zillion things fueled (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) "I am speaking about Creation." (...) I was referring to our conscience. The knowledge deep down of right and wrong. (...) I'm citing a book whose title eludes me. I'll see if I can find it. In the mean time, I'll accept merely 1 million out (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) I don't know how long this "free of FCC" will last now that they (the FCC and others) are barking at cable and satellite TV providers to be more (URL) "family friendly">, whatever that means. Adr. (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) How's that concrete? I'm not seeing the creation myth as at all concrete. (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Everything that exists had to come from something. Whether you want to call Event 1 "God" or just "Some Random Occurance", neither fit into the model of Science. Even if you want to say that "the universe always was", that is still beyond (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) That's a false dilemma. The current (and correct) response is: "We currently don't have enough data to answer that question." (...) Suppose that one says "Current data suggests that the universe has always existed, in some form." How is that (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) But that's a disengenuous assertment. There will never be enough "data" to answer that question. It is unknowable. (...) Because there isn't or never will be any such data. The scientific method cannot explain the origin of something without (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Let's throw out the term "Creation" in this context, because it stacks the deck in favor your argument. Additionally, we've previously discussed the imprecision of term "Science" with a capital-S, so can we refer instead to science? The (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) I don't think that's quite right. On the one hand, let's think about lightning for a second. We have a pretty good idea how that gets generated nowadays. But for a long time science had nothing to say on the matter. Not enough data. Hence, to (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) But that doesn't really get us anywhere. At most, Person B can say "I've thought it over, and I think you're correct about X. Of course, I have no way to verify that X was communicated to you via revelation, but I still like it." So X, whether (...) (19 years ago, 9-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
