Recommended Posts
Royd 0
Jakee's argument is that unless someone else is suffering harm, what we determine as morality, is a waste of time.
Incest, regardless of curcumstances, is still not accepted by society, unless you're a Jerry Springer fan.
By the standard above, if two related adults produce no children, and no other family member exists to be repulsed, is there still something wrong with it?
I think it is, and I've got some damn hot cousins.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Absurdity alert.] Let's say you are going for a walk with your children, pass an empty lot, and see some man screwing a dog. You would probably rush your children off and call the police.
He wasn't harming anyone.
Over a period of time, after many people see the same thing, they just ignore it. Some might even think it might be enjoyable. After all, the man seems to enjoy it.
The next thing you know, people are going to the pound to adopt a nice, young dog.
Then, a small group of beastiality practitioners get together and start calling the masses bigots and haters.
Soon, a bunch of liberals, who don't want to be seen in a bad light by the masses, jump on board and repeat the chant.
Pretty soon, there are politicians pushing for a law.
I could go on, but the point is, no matter how many people think that something is acceptable, just because no 'real' harm was done, it is still wrong. Always was, always will be.
Incest, regardless of curcumstances, is still not accepted by society, unless you're a Jerry Springer fan.
By the standard above, if two related adults produce no children, and no other family member exists to be repulsed, is there still something wrong with it?
I think it is, and I've got some damn hot cousins.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My argument is that there are certain things, regardless of the ambivelance of people as a whole, over a period of time, always will be wrong.QuoteJust as you stated above, our moral views are reflective of what is acceptable in our society today, and not necessarily derived from a religious stance. Otherwise incest would be acceptable according to the Bible. Like everything else in the world, religion has evolved and so has the image of God. If you choose to see the Bible as the absolute Truth, then you choose to believe in a teaching that is very contradicting in itself. Does that not trigger questions as to what IS the truth?? Who is the TRUE god if one exists at all?
I've always been fascinated by religion. Baptized as a Mormon, raised by Buddhist parents while studying Jehovah Witness for most of my childhood, went to a Catholic church as a teenager, and then spent a small chunk of my adulthood going to Christian churches to try to find an understanding of God. To this day, I have yet to say that I am absolutely certain that there is a God. In fact there are just too many...
[ Absurdity alert.] Let's say you are going for a walk with your children, pass an empty lot, and see some man screwing a dog. You would probably rush your children off and call the police.
He wasn't harming anyone.
Over a period of time, after many people see the same thing, they just ignore it. Some might even think it might be enjoyable. After all, the man seems to enjoy it.
The next thing you know, people are going to the pound to adopt a nice, young dog.
Then, a small group of beastiality practitioners get together and start calling the masses bigots and haters.
Soon, a bunch of liberals, who don't want to be seen in a bad light by the masses, jump on board and repeat the chant.
Pretty soon, there are politicians pushing for a law.
I could go on, but the point is, no matter how many people think that something is acceptable, just because no 'real' harm was done, it is still wrong. Always was, always will be.
jakee 1,594
Quote[Absurdity alert.] Let's say you are going for a walk with your children, pass an empty lot, and see some man screwing a dog. You would probably rush your children off and call the police.
He wasn't harming anyone....
.
I could go on, but the point is, no matter how many people think that something is acceptable, just because no 'real' harm was done, it is still wrong. Always was, always will be.
He may not be harming any human but the dog probably doesn't like it much.
It always amazes me when the bestiality argument is suddenly brought up in discussions about relationships between consenting adults. You can see the difference between a consenting adult and a dog, right?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
I understand your argument about what is socially acceptable may not be "moral" but I still don't see how you can claim that moral standards are defined by religion if the very book that most people "live" by clearly depicts situations that are immoral such as incest. How do you claim incest to be immoral if that is how humanity was created in the first place?? (So claims the book of Genesis).
As for the beastiality argument, you're right. It is absurd...which is what you're leading the discussion into. I highly doubt the animals are consenting to be violated.
As for the beastiality argument, you're right. It is absurd...which is what you're leading the discussion into. I highly doubt the animals are consenting to be violated.
~Built for Abuse
www.skydivethefarm.com
www.skydivethefarm.com
rushmc 23
QuoteI understand your argument about what is socially acceptable may not be "moral" but I still don't see how you can claim that moral standards are defined by religion if the very book that most people "live" by clearly depicts situations that are immoral such as incest. How do you claim incest to be immoral if that is how humanity was created in the first place?? (So claims the book of Genesis).
As for the beastiality argument, you're right. It is absurd...which is what you're leading the discussion into. I highly doubt the animals are consenting to be violated.
But earlier in this thread it was claimed animals have morals???
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
juanesky 0
Yes they do, and more than Paula Jones would ever have. {sarcasm}
"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon
rushmc 23
QuoteYes they do, and more than Paula Jones would ever have. {sarcasm}
Oh dam
dont do that
I have beer driping out my nose now
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Jakee's argument is that unless someone else is suffering harm, what we determine as morality, is a waste of time.
Incest, regardless of curcumstances, is still not accepted by society, unless you're a Jerry Springer fan.
By the standard above, if two related adults produce no children, and no other family member exists to be repulsed, is there still something wrong with it?
I think it is, and I've got some damn hot cousins.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites