Upright Biped Schools Ed George

_{Barry Arrington

November 25, 2019

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Everything below is from a comment posted by UB:

Ed at 34,

[re: Ed on telling the truth]
It is just one of the rules we have to follow if we want to be welcome in society. If I chose to live by myself in a cabin in the hills I would have no obligation to be honest to the rare person that stumbled upon me.

Yes, you’ve been very concise on this feature of your belief system, and we understand you. If you live in a society then you have to tell the truth as a moral obligation to the consensus of that society (who collectively believe that people should tell the truth). But if you live out on your own, then you are your own consensus, and as you clearly say, you ”have no obligation” to tell the truth to some poor sap who might happen upon you.

You’ve made yourself perfectly clear on this.

And if that poor sap who happens to come upon you on your hill also happens to be of the fairer variety, with breasts and a vagina … well tough shit, eh Ed?

I’ve asked you repeatedly if a woman being raped needed the consensus of a group in order to know for certain that the brutalization she feels is actually valid. That is certainly the belief you seem to espouse here. You promote this as the advanced and enlightened view of human life, and judging by your insistence, you apparently think others should follow your lead on the matter, particularly those god-fearers around you who still mistakenly believe that raping a woman is an immoral act whether or not there is even one other ‘effing human being on the entire surface of planet who thinks so.

You’ve understandably refused to answer my question, of course, but you’ve certainly shed some light on the matter now. Whatever happens to that curvy sap who happens upon your hill, she can’t really say that what’s happening to her is “wrong”, per se, she’ll just have to keep in mind that what’s happening to her literally goes with the territory, and in this instance, she was merely on the “wrong” territory. As you say, there is no moral dilemma on your part, having acted on your decision. It’s just a geographic misfortune on her part. Hell, it could even be sheer dumb luck.

But you view this whole thing as a trick question, a “loaded question” as you called it. We all know that you aren’t the type of man so hardened of heart that you would actually ever rape a woman (regardless of when and where she happens upon you). It’s just that you are the type who is hardened enough to think that you decide if it is wrong for her to be raped. It’s a deformity of reason, but I see you come here daily to sell it in public — and you seem to really enjoy it, with that special kind of superior arrogance: Does a woman being raped need the consensus of society in order to know for certain that the brutalization she feels is valid. Yes she does, but a man living by himself on a hill outside society can rape her without any moral obligation whatsoever.

Comments

VB
Huh?? It most certainly does exist objectively!
How so? If we are using this as a comparison to objective moral values, this would suggest that objective moral values can change. Although black cherry is my favorite Ice cream now, a few years ago it was rum raisin. Surely you are not suggesting that objective moral values are as flexible. (And don’t call me Shirley :) ). But I would like to thank you for being able to discuss this without making a personal attack. I really do appreciate it.Ed George_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

EG @ 29, I don't follow the idea of being comforted by the direction of current change, and membership in the majority, when change is so rapid now that literally anything can happen in less than a generation. When we have said goodbye to any sort of stability, what is the source of such comfort? (I clearly don't have your "faith" in humanity.) In particular, we are fracturing along nearly every line imaginable (speaking of the US anyway). That equals growing instability, which has to be worrisome.EDTA_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

I never knew that an "obsession" for the facts and evidence could be unhealthy. Perhaps it is for evoTARDs like Eddie...ET_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

Ed George:
you seem to have an unhealthy obsession.
No, I am entertained by your being a pathological liar, cowardly equivocator, bluffing lose and a willfully ignorant, insipid troll. My case is there for all to see. And all you can do to respond is become the belligerent, infant, lying coward that you are. YOU are the one who needs professional help, Ed. You and Sybil seem to have much in common.ET_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

“ Does my preference for black cherry ice cream have no existence? It surely has no “objective” existence. “ Huh?? It most certainly does exist objectively! Vividvividbleau_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

Ed George:
What about ET’s hatred of homosexuals?
What about your beating your wife? What about your child abuse? What about your penchant for lying?
It has no “objective” existence, but anyone who has read his comments knows that this hatred exists.
No, only the desperate and insipid trolls "knows" that, Ed.
I realize that I am using absurd examples,...
That, and your lies, are all you have, Ed.ET_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

ET@26, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession. You should probably seek professional help.Ed George_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

EDTA
Given where the majority is taking us these days, I’m not sure this should be a comforting thing.
Yes, I am very comforted. Women are now attaining the level of equality previously restricted to white heterosexual men. So are homosexuals, transgendered, racial minorities, people with other religions, indigenous peoples, etc. We still have a long way to go, but I have “faith”.Ed George_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

VB
Our differences run deeper than that such as it is my position that that which has no objective existence has no existence at all.
Does my preference for black cherry ice cream have no existence? It surely has no “objective” existence. But to me, it exists. What about ET’s hatred of homosexuals? It has no “objective” existence, but anyone who has read his comments knows that this hatred exists. I realize that I am using absurd examples, but you would be hard pressed to demonstrate the objective reality of either, but I can assure you that both are true.Ed George_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

EG @ 19, >"And, thankfully (in my opinion), more people share my moral values than yours." Given where the majority is taking us these days, I'm not sure this should be a comforting thing.EDTA_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

How I know that Ed George is "Acartia bogart"/ "William spearshake"- Other than the obvious verbatim, moronic posts, Ed said that he was engaged with a nice discussion with "Nic". This took place over on Dr Hunter's blog. Ed then lied and said that I was mad at Nic for having a discussion with "William spearshake". "Wlliam spearshake" is the only anti-reason SoB that had such a discussion with Nic and also spewed the same lie about me. And Acartia bogart has already laid claim to be "William spearshake". Acartia bogart/ William spearshake / Ed George also just happen to be from the same part of Canada and have similar occupations.ET_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

“I think most of our disagreement is a disagreement over the definitions of objective and subjective, with respect to morality.” Our differences run deeper than that such as it is my position that that which has no objective existence has no existence at all. How one can converse and engage those that advocate for that which has no existence I will admit poses its challenges. It is however fascinating to observe how those that advocate the existence of something they affirm has no existence are incapable of understanding how absurd that position is. Vividvividbleau_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

E.G. quotes Seversky.
Finally, why don’t you answer the question I’ve asked many times before: are you really telling me you wouldn’t know that rape or child abuse or any other atrocity, is morally wrong unless you had been told so by some third party? You are not capable of any independent judgement yourself?
I had to make sure that it was indeed Seversky, a Darwinian atheist, that had asked that question because that is the same exact type of question that a Theist would ask of an moral subjectivist, (i.e. an atheistic materialist), in regards to our innate moral intuition. i.e. "Just how in blue blazes does Seversky 'intuitively know' that empathy and the golden rule are good and that a woman being raped is evil?" Because of his atheistic materialism, Seversky simply has no foundation to intuitively know that empathy and the golden rule are good and that a woman being raped is evil. Don't take my word for it, biologist Randy Thornhill and the anthropologist Craig T. Palmer, both Darwinian atheists. wrote a book arguing that rape is 'natural' and that it is not a pathology, i.e. arguing that rape is not inherently wrong!.
Nancy Pearcey: What Phillip Johnson’s Wedge Of Truth Made Clear - November 17, 2019 Excerpt: Shortly after Johnson finished his book, his forewarnings were confirmed by the appearance of a book titled The Natural History of Rape, which argued that, biologically speaking, rape is not a pathology; instead, it is an evolutionary strategy for maximizing reproductive success: In other words, if candy and flowers don’t do the trick, some men may resort to coercion to fulfill the reproductive imperative. The book calls rape “a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage,” akin to “the leopard’s spots and the giraffe’s elongated neck.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nancy-pearcey-what-phillip-johnsons-wedge-of-truth-made-clear/
Darwinian materialism simply gives Seversky no foundation in which he can argue that empathy and the golden rule are always good and that a woman being raped is always evil. As an atheistic materialists, all he can possibly have as a foundation for ethics is "nothing but pitiless indifference.”
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
Thus Seversky himself, whether he even realizes it or not, honestly admitted that he intuitively knows that objective morality exists when he indignantly claims that he does not have to be told, 'by some third party', that it is wrong to rape. As J. Budziszewski stated in his book "What We Can’t Not Know", "“Yet our common moral knowledge is as real as arithmetic, and probably just as plain. Paradoxically, maddeningly, we appeal to it even to justify wrongdoing; rationalization is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge.”
“Yet our common moral knowledge is as real as arithmetic, and probably just as plain. Paradoxically, maddeningly, we appeal to it even to justify wrongdoing; rationalization is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge.” – J. Budziszewski, What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide
To repeat, Seversky simply has no basis within his materialistic worldview to declare anything as being either objectively good or objectively evil. As Michael Egnor pointed out, "Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,"
The Universe Reflects a Mind - Michael Egnor - February 28, 2018 Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/
Bottom line, If Good and Evil Exist, (as Seversky himself inadvertently admitted in his claim that he intuitively knows that it is wrong to rape and that he does not have to be told that it is wrong by some third party), then God necessarily Exists.
If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: - Peter Kreeft - Prager University - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM
The moral argument for God is succinctly structured like this,
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos – video https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276
Of supplemental note, But what of objective morality? An atheist, (if he was ever inclined to be rigorously honest with himself and with others), might honestly ask, “OK, I agree that objective morality must necessarily exist, but so what? That still does not mean that I have to be a Christian! I can still base my objective morality on some other Theistic worldview!” And herein the necessity of Jesus’s atoning sacrifice becomes apparent. God’s criteria for meeting His standard of objective morality is moral perfection. And yet no finite human can possibly meet that absolute standard of moral perfection. All other religions have man trying to work his way to moral perfection. Only Christianity deals with the situation honestly and admits that the moral perfection required by God, whilst a noble goal, is unattainable by mere human effort alone and that we are all in desperate need of God’s grace. As Frank Turek points out at the 41:00 minute mark of the following video, despite what is commonly believed, of someone being ‘good enough’ to go to heaven, in reality both Mother Teresa and Hitler fall short of the moral perfection required to meet the perfection of God’s objective moral code
Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament is True – Frank Turek – video – November 2011 (41:00 minute mark – http://saddleback.com/mc/m/5e22f/
Thus humans find themselves in quite a moral dilemma. People intuitively know that objectively moral exists, (as Seversky himself inadvertently admitted on this very thread), and yet we have no way, by our own finite efforts, of reaching the moral perfection that the existence of objective morality in itself directly implies. The only way we can possibly be considered morally perfect in God’s eyes, (that is to say the only way we can be forgiven in God's eyes), is if God himself somehow imparts that moral perfection onto us. Christianity is the only mono-theistic religion that deals correctly, and directly, with that infinite moral shortfall of man in regards to ever truly attaining moral perfection in God's eyes.
Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ
The technical term for what God has done for us through Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice is called ‘propitiation’:
Falling Plates (the grace of propitiation) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGlx11BxF24
An atheist might further honestly object, (again if he were ever inclined to be rigorously honest with himself and others), “But why doesn’t God just simply forgive us? Why did God go through all the trouble of dying a horrid death on a cross? He is God after all!” Well, aside from the fact that justice itself must be adequately dealt with if God is not to be considered capricious in his moral judgments, in response to that particular question, I think the following article hits the nail squarely on the head. Specifically, “With the Incarnation, the reality of evil is absorbed into the deity, not dissolved into thin air, because God freely tastes the bitterness of the medicine as wounded healer, not distant doctor. Further, given the drastic nature of this solution, we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,,
The Problem of Evil by Benjamin D. Wiker – April 2009 Excerpt: We still want to cry, Job-like, to those inscrutable depths, “Who are you to orchestrate everything around us puny and pitiable creatures, leaving us shuddering in the darkness, ignorant, blasted, and buffeted? It‘s all well and good to say, ‘Trust me! It‘ll all be made right in the end,‘ while you float unscathed above it all. Grinding poverty, hunger, thirst, frustration, rejection, toil, death of our loved ones, blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation — that‘s the meal we‘re served! You‘d sing a different tune if you were one of us and got a taste of your own medicine.” What could we say against these depths if the answer we received was not an argument but an incarnation, a full and free submission by God to the very evils about which we complain? This submission would be a kind of token, a sign that evil is very real indeed, bringing the incarnate God blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation on the cross. As real as such evil is, however, the resurrection reveals that it is somehow mysteriously comprehended within the divine plan. With the Incarnation, the reality of evil is absorbed into the deity, not dissolved into thin air, because God freely tastes the bitterness of the medicine as wounded healer, not distant doctor. Further, given the drastic nature of this solution, we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,, http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/the-problem-of-evil
Verse:
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
bornagain77_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

Ed George:
My definition is that if it relies on early learning, indoctrination, reinforcement, reasoning, predicting consequences, then it is subjective.
Total BS. Math relies on that. Is math now subjective? And no one can prove anything to the willfully ignorant, Ed. Arguing morals with Ed, a known liar, bluffer, equivocator and coward, is the epitome of futility. One of Ed's sock posted that all he is interested in is poking us and muddying the waters- it's over on TSZ under "Acartia"ET_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

VB
As it relates to the existence of an objective moral standard I say “so what?”
I think most of our disagreement is a disagreement over the definitions of objective and subjective, with respect to morality. My definition is that if it relies on early learning, indoctrination, reinforcement, reasoning, predicting consequences, then it is subjective. I see objective as being something that is wrong, independent of all of these. Objective morality may be true, but I just don’t see how you can prove it without pretzel like logic. As KF keeps presenting.Ed George_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

Ed George:
Really?
Perhaps YOU think that child abuse is OK, Ed. Most people would disagree with you
And, thankfully (in my opinion), more people share my moral values than yours.
Thankfully and contrary to you, most people say that child abuse is wrongET_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

E.G. I don’t think anyone disagrees learning, education, etc influence our moral values and in many cases responsible for them. As it relates to the existence of an objective moral standard I say “so what?” Vividvividbleau_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

ET
From your example it looks like the really messed up moral values arise that way. Nice own goal.
Really? You obviously think that many of my moral values are messed up. I think that many of yours are. Sounds like subjective morality is ruling the world. And, thankfully (in my opinion), more people share my moral values than yours. Otherwise KF wouldn’t always be talking about civilization heading over the cliff, to the rocks below.Ed George_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

Ed George:
The fact that a significant percentage of pedophiles were sexually abused as kids suggests that this may be the case. Almost sounds like early learning, repetition, reinforcement, indoctrination etc. is responsible for our moral values.
From your example it looks like the really messed up moral values arise that way. Nice own goal.ET_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

seversky:
It also grounds “moral obligation” very simply: if you don’t rape me, I won’t rape you.
How many rapes has that prevented? The rapist stopped cuz the potential victim said "Look, if you don't rape me then I won't rape you."
Finally, why don’t you answer the question I’ve asked many times before: are you really telling me you wouldn’t know that rape or child abuse or any other atrocity, is morally wrong unless you had been told so by some third party? You are not capable of any independent judgement yourself?
Question-begging. First off, no one had to tell us. That is the thing with self-evident truths and objective morals. If you have to be told then somewhere you were told something wrong and then you went with it. And the fact that you think we need some independent judgement just shows how confused you are about the topicET_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

VB
And therefore it follows if you do rape me it is not immoral for me to rape you, more like quicksand than solid ground Bob. Morality is a game of tit for tat!
The fact that a significant percentage of pedophiles were sexually abused as kids suggests that this may be the case. Almost sounds like early learning, repetition, reinforcement, indoctrination etc. is responsible for our moral values. I believe that there is something objectively true about morality. I think we can all agree that we have something that we call a sense of morality. When the vast majority of us hold the same moral value (don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t deny homosexuals the pleasure of marriage) we feel entitled to oblige others to abide by these values. And, if these values are subjective, we would expect them to change over time and to vary between societies. For example, in the US most believe that it is morally acceptable to use violence to protect property. In most other countries, that is not acceptable.Ed George_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

I don’t have a problem with Ed being a moral subjectivist, either. Ed’s problem is that he is a pathological liar, cowardly equivocator, bluffing lose and a willfully ignorant, insipid troll. Ed George:
Says the man who has repeatedly called people “ass munching faggots”.
Thank you, Ed, for the perfect example of "argument by way infant belligerence". Did your mother teach you that- when all is lost and your butt is exposed, go full-on Tourette's meltdown syndrome? It is very telling that you forgot to mention why I would have done such a thing. That is if you can demonstrate that I did. Shall we look to see what YOU have said about Barry, Denyse, kairosfocus and others? Do you not realize that we know that you are a regular member of the evoTARD gossip swamp? And that all you do is spew vile hatred towards myself, Barry, Denyse, upright biped, gpuccio, kairosfocus and others. Are you daft? Then you come here in a newly washed sock and act all sanctimonious, like the punk slime that you are, and you really think you are hurting me, somehow? Really? Wow.
Barry, my apologies for the language, but I think it is important to know the person they are agreeing with and supporting.
And Ed's cowardly quote-mines are just the vehicle to get that done, by golly. Ed’s problem is that he is a pathological liar, cowardly equivocator, bluffing loser and a willfully ignorant, insipid troll. Just keep that in mind when considering what Ed has to say about me. That is all that I ask.ET_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

. Grist for the mill, Ed?Upright BiPed_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

“It also grounds “moral obligation” very simply: if you don’t rape me, I won’t rape you” And therefore it follows if you do rape me it is not immoral for me to rape you, more like quicksand than solid ground Bob. Morality is a game of tit for tat! Vividvividbleau_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

Sev
I’m pretty sure that the victim of rape wouldn’t give a fig about whether the “brutalization” she feels is “valid” or “invalid”. She would just want her suffering to stop.
UB
What a stupid thing to say. Go talk to a rape survivor, Seversky. It is rarely the pain, it’s the rape.
How is that in any way a response to what Sev said? I am interested in how “brutalizations” is limited to the perception of physical pain.Ed George_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

.
I’m pretty sure that the victim of rape wouldn’t give a fig about whether the “brutalization” she feels is “valid” or “invalid”. She would just want her suffering to stop.
What a stupid thing to say. Go talk to a rape survivor, Seversky. It is rarely the pain, it’s the rape.
I, like everyone else here, would also want it to stop. Why? I should not have to say this but it is because we can imagine her suffering and know that it is not something we would like to experience nor would we want to see it inflicted on anyone else. It’s called empathy and its derived principle of the Golden Rule which, in my view, is more than sufficient grounds for morality.
In your indignation, you’ve forgotten the actual subject of the comment. The man said his moral landscape is such that moral obligations are set by the consensus of society (you know, the same thing you promote by the compelling and authoritative brand “Consensus Theory”), but that a man living outside that consensus establishes his own obligations, and can do as he wishes – he has “no obligations” unquote.Upright BiPed_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Sev
Finally, why don’t you answer the question I’ve asked many times before: are you really telling me you wouldn’t know that rape or child abuse or any other atrocity, is morally wrong unless you had been told so by some third party? You are not capable of any independent judgement yourself?
This is exactly why UB’s question is not worth responding to. ET
I don’t have a problem with Ed being a moral subjectivist, either. Ed’s problem is that he is a pathological liar, cowardly equivocator, bluffing lose and a willfully ignorant, insipid troll.
Says the man who has repeatedly called people “ass munching faggots”. Barry, my apologies for the language, but I think it is important to know the person they are agreeing with and supporting.Ed George_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

I’ve asked you repeatedly if a woman being raped needed the consensus of a group in order to know for certain that the brutalization she feels is actually valid
I'm pretty sure that the victim of rape wouldn't give a fig about whether the "brutalization" she feels is "valid" or "invalid". She would just want her suffering to stop. I, like everyone else here, would also want it to stop. Why? I should not have to say this but it is because we can imagine her suffering and know that it is not something we would like to experience nor would we want to see it inflicted on anyone else. It's called empathy and its derived principle of the Golden Rule which, in my view, is more than sufficient grounds for morality. It also grounds "moral obligation" very simply: if you don't rape me, I won't rape you. The only obligation which has any practical value is one into which parties enter voluntarily. Finally, why don't you answer the question I've asked many times before: are you really telling me you wouldn't know that rape or child abuse or any other atrocity, is morally wrong unless you had been told so by some third party? You are not capable of any independent judgement yourself?Seversky_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

You need to read more History, dudes. Involuntary sex between powerful and/or rich people (both male and female) and powerless prisoners or children was (and is) a standard piece of MANY cultures throughout history. In fact "marriage" is ABOUT giving a specific woman, and her children, the protection (including VIOLENT protection) of a man. Mao Tse-tung, once he'd come to power, slept with a fresh virgin every night. The virgins were sent to Mao by government officials hoping to keep on the good side of the Emperor. One assumes that the deflowered women (girls?) were then shipped home marked "damaged goods" with little chance of landing a husband. Note that the Dominant Culture of Red China found this a PERFECTLY good way to run society, and any uppity father or boy friend who objected was asking to find himself on the wrong end of a bayonet. Also note that the PERMANENT pairing of a man and a woman within a man-pack was/is the EXCEPTION to what is now called "shaking up". The Irish had MANY different kinds of marriage, including a 1 Year Marriage that could be converted into any of several more permanent forms. And even the Bible mentions a setup where an unrelated man fathers children with a woman, but ALL of her children are the responsibility of her BROTHER to provide for. For as the ancient wisdom teaches us, "It is a WISE monkey who knows his Father." But of course a Mother knows which men are her Brothers, at least as long as Grandma is still alive. So ya gotta READ more. And stop focusing on European Christian schools of Ethics and such. It's a very NARROW and MODERN set of ideas, which may be completely gone within the next century.vmahuna_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

"you are obligated to trust anything I assert, because I’m a paragon of virtue."
Though Bob was being flippant, yet thus thinks the secular leftist to himself, and often announces it to the public, though he certainly has no objective moral basis for doing so. Just ask Hillary
"Basket of deplorables" https://media.giphy.com/media/BvUvNYd1hK6xG/giphy.gif
bornagain77_{November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply