Abuse

Some of the News, every Once in a While

Moderator: GreenCrayon

Re: Abuse

Postby ChooChooTrain » Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:55 pm

Edminster wrote:
ChooChooTrain wrote:You don't interact with people whose moral framework you find dubious? What about if they interact with you?

I definitely worded this poorly. By interact, I meant 'beyond that which is regarded unavoidable in day-to-day living'. If I discover that somebody is (for example) a thief, I do my damnedest to not hang out with them. This does not preclude my answering questions that they have for me, nor does it mean that I avoid them at all costs. It is not my place to pass judgement on those who disagree with me, rather it is my burden to try and understand why they act as they do.

For example, if I discover through this attempt at understanding that the 'thief' simply suffers from kleptomania, I am more inclined to be forgiving. After all, it is a compulsion that does not really undermine my 'moral' underpinnings. However, if the compulsion was to harm others, I would bring this to the attention of the proper authorities. Again, no judgement of the person, just of the behaviour.

ChooChooTrain wrote:If someone raped you, would you judge their moral framework? Would you then be willing to say that yours is better?

No, I did not judge their moral framework, as it is not my place to judge. I also would not admit that my framework is better, as I only know it to be effective for me.

Also, you seem to be of the opinion that 'morals' can never be acted against, and that having a moral that instructs you to not do something means that you will always avoid the action regardless of the circumstances. In other words, it seems like you are arguing that morals are what amounts to a Programming Language for humanity. Am I wrong in this interpretation of your words?

You are wrong, though I expect much of the miss-communication is my fault. I've already talked several times about the idea that people know what is right and instead choose wrong. I definitely do not think that people are bound to follow their morality. In the question about someone raping you, I meant if they raped you and considered it to be a morally okay act. Obviously they could know that rape is wrong and choose to do it anyway. The question of absolute versus relative morality arises when two people disagree about what is moral. A good example of this dilemma would be the 9/11 attacks or suicide bombings in general. The attackers consider what they're doing to be exceptionally moral. In fact, they consider it the best action one can take. By your standards of morality, it is not okay to harm others. There are two separate moralities in clear contradiction of each other. Theirs compels them to harm "infidels," while yours compels you to harm no one. Are you willing to say that yours is better? Or are they both just fine in that they are "effective?" To admit that they are both fine is to admit that the bomber's act is not morally wrong. I've already explained the implications of saying that your morality is better. You've got two choices Ed. Either there are no moral right and wrong, or there is an absolute moral standard by which right and wrong are judged.
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
ChooChooTrain
Ludicrous Rationale
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:38 pm
Location: Virginia Tech

Re: Abuse

Postby cheez.wiz » Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:26 am

ChooChooTrain wrote: I've already explained the implications of saying that your morality is better. You've got two choices Ed. Either there are no moral right and wrong, or there is an absolute moral standard by which right and wrong are judged.

Snipped for viewer's pleasure. Nice fallacy there pal. A false dilemma, to be more precise.

Just because a lot of people think, or feel that we shouldn't harm others doesn't mean it's an absolute moral standard. It just mean that many people think they shouldn't be harmed if the situation was reversed. So we can think that there are no right or wrong at all, we can think that some things are just plain right or wrong regardless of the circumstances, or we can look at the concensus and try to act around what seems accepted by the majority, wich doesn't make it universally and absolutely right.
bird bird bird, bird is a word, b-b-b-b-bird oh yeah bird is a word, bird bird bird
cheez.wiz
Human-based Product
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:12 am
Location: My cat's name is mitten.

Re: Abuse

Postby Lethal Interjection » Sat Mar 21, 2009 6:05 am

Edminster wrote:... and many 'Christians' practise mock-cannibalism whenever they celebrate the Eucharist. Really, it's not such a big deal.


No disrespect, but that is an ignorant view of the Eucharist. Saying that would be like saying that a Hindu who eats a hamburger is a cannibal.
Granted I'm not a transubstantiation guy (that's a big word for the bread becomes Jesus's flesh and so on). I believe it is a symbol. So maybe I'm not the best to object, as my view doesn't even approach what you said, but still I have qualms about likening the two.
User avatar
Lethal Interjection
Death by Elocution
 
Posts: 8059
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: Behind your ear. It's magic!

Re: Abuse

Postby Edminster » Sat Mar 21, 2009 6:13 am

Lethal Interjection wrote:No disrespect, but that is an ignorant view of the Eucharist. Saying that would be like saying that a Hindu who eats a hamburger is a cannibal.
Granted I'm not a transubstantiation guy (that's a big word for the bread becomes Jesus's flesh and so on). I believe it is a symbol. So maybe I'm not the best to object, as my view doesn't even approach what you said, but still I have qualms about likening the two.

To be fair, I'm just going by my experience as a Catholic and what I was taught in Sunday school, combined with a heavy dose of venom towards the teacher who called me an 'aberration'. I've not got a lot of love towards my old parish, is what I'm saying. However, I do recognise that there are those who see it as symbolic rather than miraculous, which is why I said 'many' and not 'all'.
ol qwerty bastard wrote:bitcoin is backed by math, and math is intrinsically perfect and logically consistent always

gödel stop spreading fud
User avatar
Edminster
Tested positive for Space-AIDS
 
Posts: 8849
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: Internet

Re: Abuse

Postby Lethal Interjection » Sat Mar 21, 2009 6:20 am

Edminster wrote:
Lethal Interjection wrote:No disrespect, but that is an ignorant view of the Eucharist. Saying that would be like saying that a Hindu who eats a hamburger is a cannibal.
Granted I'm not a transubstantiation guy (that's a big word for the bread becomes Jesus's flesh and so on). I believe it is a symbol. So maybe I'm not the best to object, as my view doesn't even approach what you said, but still I have qualms about likening the two.

To be fair, I'm just going by my experience as a Catholic and what I was taught in Sunday school, combined with a heavy dose of venom towards the teacher who called me an 'aberration'. I've not got a lot of love towards my old parish, is what I'm saying. However, I do recognise that there are those who see it as symbolic rather than miraculous, which is why I said 'many' and not 'all'.


I'm not offended or anything. If I am it is simply intellectually. Like the Hinduism example, calling the Eucharist 'mock' cannibalism makes a huge jump, and ignores the context of the religion.
User avatar
Lethal Interjection
Death by Elocution
 
Posts: 8059
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: Behind your ear. It's magic!

Re: Abuse

Postby LordRetard » Sat Mar 21, 2009 6:44 am

I'll weigh in on this with my bizarre opinions:

Morals are totally relative. It's all taught. Even if morals are handed down by God (I don't take a stand on this either way, really), and passed on through people, it's still passed from generation to generation and has more to do with historical factors, and that the "correct" morals are those that survive. Why is murder wrong? It causes more people to die, less chance of propogating. I consider it a simple matter.

Of course, you're also taught to believe that morals ARE absolute, because if everyone believed that morals were relative then humanity might be forced to extinction... It's actually a very well-developed system, but once again it survives simply because it works so well. I find it strange when I believe that one thing is true and that it is important to teach something totally different. :lol:
User avatar
LordRetard
The Most Retardedest
 
Posts: 9999
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:44 pm
Location: My Parents' Basement

Re: Abuse

Postby Lethal Interjection » Sat Mar 21, 2009 7:10 am

Call it a biological/evolutionary imperative or divine ordination (or even some type of basic social contract), but I do think there are certain immoral actions that are universal. Murder would be obvious, and incest (at least in close relation) are two I can think of. Now there are some stipulations from culture to culture where killing another man/woman would be acceptable, and that varies, but in a more general sense I think it is unacceptable.
But I'm hardly an authority, I just seem to remember having discussions about such at some point in my schooling.
User avatar
Lethal Interjection
Death by Elocution
 
Posts: 8059
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: Behind your ear. It's magic!

Re: Abuse

Postby astasia » Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:10 pm

Just as an aside, I was teaching my kids yesterday about the difference between moral relativity and moral absolutism.

While I was trying to explain the difference (or, more accurately, elicit from them the differences) between the two, I opted to mention religion, specifically Christianity. Fundamentalist Christians and those who interpret the Bible literally are examples of moral absolutists.

But, the point, before I get too far off track, is that maybe one's opinion on whether or not morality is relative or absolute is related to their religious beliefs, and therefore, something one can't really argue or convince others of. And, in that case, maybe it is impossible to determine whether or not abuse is something that is innate or developed or always wrong or sometimes acceptable.

As another side note - I spent my night last night hanging out with a guy who I tried to convince that he was abused as a child (which he was!). After arguing this point for a half-hour, he lets me know that it is his birthday.
If we weren't such good friends, I'd wish you were dead.
User avatar
astasia
Is Totally a People
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:19 am
Location: all the boys.

Re: Abuse

Postby Lethal Interjection » Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:44 pm

astasia wrote:But, the point, before I get too far off track, is that maybe one's opinion on whether or not morality is relative or absolute is related to their religious beliefs, and therefore, something one can't really argue or convince others of. And, in that case, maybe it is impossible to determine whether or not abuse is something that is innate or developed or always wrong or sometimes acceptable.


I figured the same. Try as I might, I just can't see it the other way. And I'm usually decent at being able to think about it from all the angles.
User avatar
Lethal Interjection
Death by Elocution
 
Posts: 8059
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: Behind your ear. It's magic!

Re: Abuse

Postby cheez.wiz » Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:18 pm

Lethal Interjection wrote:I do think there are certain immoral actions that are universal. Murder would be obvious,

Are wars immoral, then? After all they're large scale murders.

Edit : unacceptable became immoral, so that we actually argue the same thing.
bird bird bird, bird is a word, b-b-b-b-bird oh yeah bird is a word, bird bird bird
cheez.wiz
Human-based Product
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:12 am
Location: My cat's name is mitten.

Re: Abuse

Postby ChooChooTrain » Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:25 pm

LordRetard wrote:Of course, you're also taught to believe that morals ARE absolute, because if everyone believed that morals were relative then humanity might be forced to extinction

If this is true, then judging from my experience, we're getting pretty close. Moral absolutists seem to be a tiny minority. Look at this discussion. I'm the only true absolutist. Lethal is pseudo-absolutist. The rest of you are all moral relativists. (I'm not trying to scare you into changing your mind. In fact, I think you're probably wrong on this point.)
astasia wrote:Just as an aside, I was teaching my kids yesterday about the difference between moral relativity and moral absolutism.

Do you mean your offspring, or your students? I think I remember you saying you were a teacher of some sort, and I know I remember you saying you were a lesbian, so it seems most likely that you mean students. If this is the case, then I want to know more. How old are they? What subject were you teaching them? How the crap did you get onto this topic?
astasia wrote:But, the point, before I get too far off track, is that maybe one's opinion on whether or not morality is relative or absolute is related to their religious beliefs, and therefore, something one can't really argue or convince others of. And, in that case, maybe it is impossible to determine whether or not abuse is something that is innate or developed or always wrong or sometimes acceptable.

I'm starting to think you might be right. The moral law seems like an obvious truth to me, and seeing it reaffirms my Christian faith. If there is an absolute law, then there must be a law giver. So, if you are determined to deny the existence of God, then suggesting the existence of a moral law would feel pretty offensive. I guess the alternative is to say, "We humans give the laws." If this is the case, then the laws are arbitrary and meaningless, but they can make human life more pleasant, which would be the decider of what a right or wrong law is. This sounds ludicrous to me, but I guess it's far easier for you to believe than the existence of God.
astasia wrote:As another side note - I spent my night last night hanging out with a guy who I tried to convince that he was abused as a child (which he was!). After arguing this point for a half-hour, he lets me know that it is his birthday.

That sounds horrible. I pity you.
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
ChooChooTrain
Ludicrous Rationale
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:38 pm
Location: Virginia Tech

Re: Abuse

Postby astasia » Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:50 pm

ChooChooTrain wrote:
LordRetard wrote:Of course, you're also taught to believe that morals ARE absolute, because if everyone believed that morals were relative then humanity might be forced to extinction

If this is true, then judging from my experience, we're getting pretty close. Moral absolutists seem to be a tiny minority. Look at this discussion. I'm the only true absolutist. Lethal is pseudo-absolutist. The rest of you are all moral relativists. (I'm not trying to scare you into changing your mind. In fact, I think you're probably wrong on this point.)
astasia wrote:Just as an aside, I was teaching my kids yesterday about the difference between moral relativity and moral absolutism.

Do you mean your offspring, or your students? I think I remember you saying you were a teacher of some sort, and I know I remember you saying you were a lesbian, so it seems most likely that you mean students. If this is the case, then I want to know more. How old are they? What subject were you teaching them? How the crap did you get onto this topic?
astasia wrote:But, the point, before I get too far off track, is that maybe one's opinion on whether or not morality is relative or absolute is related to their religious beliefs, and therefore, something one can't really argue or convince others of. And, in that case, maybe it is impossible to determine whether or not abuse is something that is innate or developed or always wrong or sometimes acceptable.

I'm starting to think you might be right. The moral law seems like an obvious truth to me, and seeing it reaffirms my Christian faith. If there is an absolute law, then there must be a law giver. So, if you are determined to deny the existence of God, then suggesting the existence of a moral law would feel pretty offensive. I guess the alternative is to say, "We humans give the laws." If this is the case, then the laws are arbitrary and meaningless, but they can make human life more pleasant, which would be the decider of what a right or wrong law is. This sounds ludicrous to me, but I guess it's far easier for you to believe than the existence of God.
astasia wrote:As another side note - I spent my night last night hanging out with a guy who I tried to convince that he was abused as a child (which he was!). After arguing this point for a half-hour, he lets me know that it is his birthday.

That sounds horrible. I pity you.


By my kids I do mean my students. They're seventh graders (12 and 13 year olds) and we are currently doing Greek philosophy (Sophists were moral relativists and Socrates was a moral absolutist).

However, as a lesbian, I also want to get pregnant and have children one day with my girlfriend (which, by the way, they've had success with mice taking two eggs and managing to hit them together hard enough to somehow make it into it's own new embryo.)
If we weren't such good friends, I'd wish you were dead.
User avatar
astasia
Is Totally a People
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:19 am
Location: all the boys.

Re: Abuse

Postby Oldrac the Chitinous » Sat Mar 21, 2009 4:12 pm

ChooChooTrain wrote:I'm starting to think you might be right. The moral law seems like an obvious truth to me, and seeing it reaffirms my Christian faith. If there is an absolute law, then there must be a law giver. So, if you are determined to deny the existence of God, then suggesting the existence of a moral law would feel pretty offensive. I guess the alternative is to say, "We humans give the laws." If this is the case, then the laws are arbitrary and meaningless, but they can make human life more pleasant, which would be the decider of what a right or wrong law is. This sounds ludicrous to me, but I guess it's far easier for you to believe than the existence of God.

Ouch, man. "Arbitrary and meaningless?" Even if making human life more pleasant (I think it might be more accurate to say "not an interminable, friendless, barbaric hell of an existence," but let's not argue semantics) is the only effect of morality, isn't that worthwhile? It seems to me that you're implying - which may or may not be your intention; I don't know what stripe of Christianity you identify with - that humans by themselves are worth nothing. Which is something that I can't accept.

I have to say that I'm a little uneasy having this discussion in this particular thread, which is a little ironic (I hope none of you are English teachers) given that I'm the one that started us off on this tangent. Here we are, faced with a very specific instance of cruelty (Human blood sports! Honestly!), and we've abstracted it out to the point of talking about the nature of the entire universe. I know that threads drift, and I know that there's not really a whole lot a little internet forum is going to be able to do to fix things, but I can't help feeling like we've abandoned the victims here.

ChooChooTrain wrote:
astasia wrote:As another side note - I spent my night last night hanging out with a guy who I tried to convince that he was abused as a child (which he was!). After arguing this point for a half-hour, he lets me know that it is his birthday.

That sounds horrible. I pity you.

I pity the other dude! That's got to be an uncomfortable experience for all parties involved.

astasia wrote:However, as a lesbian, I also want to get pregnant and have children one day with my girlfriend (which, by the way, they've had success with mice taking two eggs and managing to hit them together hard enough to somehow make it into it's own new embryo.)


Physicists, take note: this is what happens when you let biologists play with your supercolliders!
Police said they spent some time working out if they could charge the man with being armed with a weapon, as technically he was armed with part of a fish.
User avatar
Oldrac the Chitinous
Chicken O' the Sea
 
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:41 pm
Location: The Perfect Stillness of the Deep

Re: Abuse

Postby astasia » Sat Mar 21, 2009 5:20 pm

Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:
ChooChooTrain wrote:
astasia wrote:As another side note - I spent my night last night hanging out with a guy who I tried to convince that he was abused as a child (which he was!). After arguing this point for a half-hour, he lets me know that it is his birthday.

That sounds horrible. I pity you.

I pity the other dude! That's got to be an uncomfortable experience for all parties involved.

astasia wrote:However, as a lesbian, I also want to get pregnant and have children one day with my girlfriend (which, by the way, they've had success with mice taking two eggs and managing to hit them together hard enough to somehow make it into it's own new embryo.)


Physicists, take note: this is what happens when you let biologists play with your supercolliders!


1) Who arranges to hang out with someone for a few drinks on their birthday - and doesn't tell the other person it is their birthday?! He deserved it. (Not really. I felt horrible. But, he was the one who told me the "funny" story about how people would get "toughened up" in his family!)

2) Thank you, biologists. Is the last thing we need new ways to increase our overpopulation? Yes. Do I want my girlfriend to knock me up (with the help of a guy in a lab coat), anyhow? Hells yes.
If we weren't such good friends, I'd wish you were dead.
User avatar
astasia
Is Totally a People
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:19 am
Location: all the boys.

Re: Abuse

Postby ChooChooTrain » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:00 pm

I'm really very skeptical about this eggs fertilizing eggs business. It sounds too ridiculous to be true. Plus, it would make my testicles unnecessary. That's no good.
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
ChooChooTrain
Ludicrous Rationale
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:38 pm
Location: Virginia Tech

PreviousNext

Return to Random News Network

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests