beowulf

yeah I agree with you.

Logic is not relative. Reasoning ... maybe I shouldn't have used reasoning? I most definately think logic is relative. I do a lot of programming and have had to go through others programming and seen their logic and disagreed with the it being the best way to approach the problem. My logic differed from their logic. Are you stating that your logic is better than their logic? No, I just said mine was different then theirs. My personal opinion is that mine is better, but that person might still think theirs is better then mine. Which is better is a matter of opinion. The point is logic is relative. There are many ways of doing the same thing in programming.

Logic is not relative. Reasoning ... maybe I shouldn't have used reasoning? I most definately think logic is relative. I do a lot of programming and have had to go through others programming and seen their logic and disagreed with the it being the best way to approach the problem. My logic differed from their logic.

Anybody can come up with a list of standards. That doesn't make them universal.

It's really diffucult to try and reply to everyone. Some peoples morals are out of whack and use anything to justify their actions. But you are using your logic and your reasoning. These differ from person to person.

Because everyone looks at things differently. If you were to take 5 groups of people and put each group in a seperate room and told them to each come up with a universal standard of morals you would most likely have 5 diferent sets of standards. They would be similar because the come from the same time period. If you could the 5 different groups of people from 5 totally different cultures and time periods I think you would end up with 5 much more different standards.

100 years from now if people are still around they would come up with a different list of "Universal" morals or human rights. I would hardly call that "Universal".

You haven't given any logic to support your assertion. My logic is pretty basic. History shows that many different times and cultures had much differnt morals compared to ours. If there were a "Universal Standard of Morals" then why don't all of these different cultures and times have this "Universal Standard of Morals". What makes your "Universal Standard of Morals" universal?

Ok What are the "Universal Standard of Morals"? Are they written down some where?

I think you are using faulty logic. Morals differ from person to person yet you think there is some "Universal Standard of Morals". From culture to culture and different time periods there are different sets of accepted morals. The people that believe in Sharia Law believe in it just as strongly as you believe in your "Universal Standard of Morals".

Morals/ right and wrong are a human construct and differs from human to human. If there are no humans then there are no morals or right or wrong. All that would be left are animals. They don't understand right and wrong. There is no "Universal Standard". That is your idea. You misinterpret my statment. I did not say there no correct absolute statments. I did say that your absolute statement is not correct. A big difference. BTW when I say there is no "Universal Standard" I am refering to the topic on hand. Meaning your "Universal Standard of Morals" not any universal standard.

People's morals and beliefs of right and wrong are based on their upbringing and culture they were brought up under. There is no "Universal Standard" because it all depends on where you were born, what your parents believed and what time period you were born in. If you were born and raised in Saudi Arabia you would most likely believe in Sharia law and believe it to be just and right. You would most likely agree with this sentence of 200 lashes. Myself having been born here in US I disagree. But that is bcause of where ,when I was born and who my parents were and what they believed in.

Read it closer. He is talking about the lines being detached from the risers. The risers are attached to the harness via the three rings.

You would have to know the people involved in the incident I was refering to. I saw the lines and he was doing him a favor by cutting the lines. It's not like a total stranger went up and cut his lines. These guys know each other well. I play poker with both every week.

If it's the story I am thinking of it was NOT sabotage as it was done right in front of the owner and the packer. The guy that did it saved the life of the owner that thought it was ok to jump it. I was there and those lines were the most ragged out lines I have ever seen. Nearly all the packers refused to pack that rig. I wouldn't jump that canopy. BTW what I am thinking of was not a BASE rig.

and therein lies the fundamental flaw of moral relativism. Think about it for a minute. You realize that your statement contradicts itself, right??? I don't know how you think it contradicts itself. Are you trying to say that there is only one set of morals? That all cultures and peoples have the same set of morals??

I assume that you never studied philosophy. Zero. Logic and reasoning do not require belief. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire I can claim a "universal" standard exists because logic and reasoning span cultures. I apologize, I should have used justified instead of acceptable. Can you give a situation where genocide (murder, rape, ...) is justified? Well I am sure the people who have commited genocide felt they were justified. Not every one every where shares your logic or reasoning. BTW you do understand that I am not endorsing any of these things and am simply saying we have no right to impose our sense of right and wrong and morals on another country whose morals and sense of right and wrong are different then ours.

If there is no universal standard then there exists situations in which genocide is acceptable ... do you care to explain those situations? Maybe you would rather explain murder, rape, ... Not every culture views those things the same way. If they did then there would be a "universal standard". Read your history book. Not that long ago people here in North America thought it was a good idea to exterminate the Native Americans. Apparently they didn't know about your "universal standard". I have read my history books. Just because people didn't or don't follow universal standards didn't and doesn't mean universal standards don't exist. All you have to do to prove that genocide (murder, rape, ...) isn't a universal standard is present a single situation in which genocide (murder, rape, ...) is acceptable ... I won't hold my breath. I think you pulled this "universal standard" idea out of your ass. For it to be "universal" how many people have to believe it? My point is not all cultures or countries see things the way you do so how can you claim a "universal standard" law exists? I gave you a time period and culture that genocide was accepted.

If there is no universal standard then there exists situations in which genocide is acceptable ... do you care to explain those situations? Maybe you would rather explain murder, rape, ... Not every culture views those things the same way. If they did then there would be a "universal standard". Read your history book. Not that long ago people here in North America thought it was a good idea to exterminate the Native Americans. Apparently they didn't know about your "universal standard".

In a real world there is no universal standard.

Every government should put pressure on every government that doesn't conform to universal standards. Do you not agree that some things are universal and some things are local? That's a nice utopian world you live in.

Should the US Gov. put pressure on every Gov that doesn't conform to the US standards? Or only for laws that don't meet your standard?

Those people can rise up and over throw the monarchy. It's been done before. Sure I care about freedom. What does that have to do with the laws of a country I don't live in. I don't have any interest in trying to change the laws in a country I don't live in.

As long as they conform to our immigration laws then they are welcome to immigrate to the US.

Well I sure as fuck ain't going to try to take on their judicial system from my back door. What's your fucking point? I don't think their laws right, but it's not enough to cause me to want to over throw their gov. "What if both parachutes don't open." sounds pretty similar to your argument.