Thread: Same sex marriage

Originally Posted by Maanaam

^ Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Especially the last yes.

......you go, fw!...

Originally Posted by tomcat

......you go, fw!...

You made 5 comments I backed with a "yes" to each, and you somehow can find a reason to ridicule that. I suppose you'd find a way to find fault if I pissed on you if you were on fire and there was no water at hand.

On second thoughts, that might be a bad example.

Originally Posted by tomcat

...utter nonsense...

If you don't agree with my summary of how objective moral truth is converged upon (through reflection, rational discussion and agreement between humans) then how do you think you know what is right and wrong in any situation, given that you are not religious?

If you disagree with my assertion that killing a girl because her rape brings supposed shame on her family (and that it is wrong in absolute non-relativistic terms) then can you describe a situation where killing her for this reason is right?

It is no good avoiding the question and saying 'I am sure an imam could find an explanation'. You know as well as I do that such an explanation would be irrational and based on superstition. If you cannot come up with a rational hypothetical explanation of why this could be a morally defensible action then it is morally wrong in absolute terms.

I am genuinely puzzled as to why someone who is as anti-religious as you is also so opposed to the idea that right and wrong are things that can be determined through rational discussion.

Originally Posted by Looper

moral truth

An oxymoron.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Looper you are a closet homo.

On this thread, we can't take that as a perjorative.

Originally Posted by bsnub

You are a fucking toe tapping cock sucker.

Nor that.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

You use an example that you suppose is radical Islam-centric. Do you know that no Appalachian hillbillies don't have the same "moral" feelings about their sisters' virginity? Or Polynesians? Or Chinese hilltribesmen? You may be surprised.

They would be equally wrong if they hold that killing a girl for her rape bringing shame on them.

It does not matter who holds the belief. It is objectively morally wrong.

Such instances of this type of murder can be counted. There is a real number of women who have been killed for this reason in the year 2017 for example. There is a real number of women who have been subjected to acid attacks for rejecting suitors in 2017.

If you add up the body count for a list of morally unsupportable crimes of religious conviction like these for each religion then you can come up with one objective measure of the moral worthiness of each religion.

There will be other metrics that could be devised along similar lines.

You can measure each metric for each religion and come up with a moral ranking of religions and you can have a line honours winner which would be the religion that presents the greatest measurable danger to human well-being.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

^ Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!

Just how much more f-u-c-k-i-n-g odd are you planning on getting?

Originally Posted by tomcat

...you're not listening...

No, he's not understanding. He's not very bright you know.

Originally Posted by cyrille

Just how much more f-u-c-k-i-n-g odd are you planning on getting?

Not as odd as your perverse take on my posts.

Originally Posted by Looper

They would be equally wrong if they hold that killing a girl for her rape bringing shame on them.

Yes, by your moral standard. When will you understand that your moral standard may not be the moral standard?

Originally Posted by Looper

morally unsupportable crimes

Whose morals?

Originally Posted by Looper

If....you can come up with one objective measure of the moral worthiness of each religion.

Whose moral worthiness? Why do you keep on harping on YOUR morals, when the worthiness of morals in general, and what are they, and by whose definition, is the actual question.

Originally Posted by Looper

You can measure each metric for each religion and come up with a moral ranking of religions

Yes you can. A metric defined by....?

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Whose morals?

Our morals as humans.

Morality is what we agree it is based on a set of rational criteria for judging the moral worthiness of actions (based on measurable net harm/benefit to individuals). This is a huge leap forward from the religious model of accepting right and wrong because a shaman tells you that there is a holy book that says it is right or wrong.

We as humans are the arbiters of what is morally right and wrong.

Who else is going to be the moral arbiter? (there is no-one else there).

If you don't agree that morality is determined by human rational discourse then how do you think it is derived?

How do you think human society should determine what is morally right and wrong in order that we can educate our children in these matters and hold people accountable when they transgress our moral beliefs?

Human discourse is the only method for arriving at these truths. Unless you have a better idea?

If you don't agree with my assertion that killing a girl because her rape has brought 'shame' on your family then either explain to me why it can be morally right to kill her or else accept that moral truth is objectively knowable and can be arrived at through rational discourse.

Originally Posted by Looper

Our morals as humans.

I stopped reading there. Tom accused you of not listening...he was right.
Took a moment, and in fairness continued reading...

Originally Posted by Looper

Morality is what we agree it is based on a set of rational criteria for judging the moral worthiness of actions (based on measurable net harm/benefit to individuals).

Ahhh, maybe we'll get through yet. Think about your words, "what we agree it is". You and I might agree, but that would only be our mutual opinion. Mullah Abdul and Jimbob Hatfield may not agree with us. So who is right? Jimbob or you?

You still haven't responded to my point about "harm". Harm is relative and subjective, so how can it be measured to a metric?

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Mullah Abdul and Jimbob Hatfield may not agree with us.

They will have to put forward their rational arguments (no references to gods) for why it is right to kill a raped girl to recover their honour. Then it may be a democratic process to decide who is correct if agreement cannot be reached.

At the end of the day it is we as humans who decide. There is no other definition of morality except what humans agree it is.

If you don't agree with this then define morality for me.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Harm is relative and subjective, so how can it be measured to a metric?

Some forms of harm may be more difficult to measure than others but many forms of harm are not relative or subjective, they are easily measurable. The honour killing body count is one such example.

We have to go on whatever evidence for harm/benefit we can lay our hands on in measuring up competing claims for moral rightness or wrongness. But evidence based rational argument is the only way to proceed.

Can you give me a scenario where it is morally acceptable to kill a girl whose rape has brought 'shame' on her family?

If you cannot then you are agreeing that killing her for this reason is not morally acceptable under any circumstances and is therefore objectively morally wrong.

Originally Posted by Looper

Our morals as humans.

Morality is what we agree it is based on a set of rational criteria for judging the moral worthiness of actions (based on measurable net harm/benefit to individuals). This is a huge leap forward from the religious model of accepting right and wrong because a shaman tells you that there is a holy book that says it is right or wrong.

We as humans are the arbiters of what is morally right and wrong.

Who else is going to be the moral arbiter? (there is no-one else there).

If you don't agree that morality is determined by human rational discourse then how do you think it is derived?

How do you think human society should determine what is morally right and wrong in order that we can educate our children in these matters and hold people accountable when they transgress our moral beliefs?

Human discourse is the only method for arriving at these truths. Unless you have a better idea?

If you don't agree with my assertion that killing a girl because her rape has brought 'shame' on your family then either explain to me why it can be morally right to kill her or else accept that moral truth is objectively knowable and can be arrived at through rational discourse.

Once again, a broad agreement, because we were both raised and given western moral standards as our yardstick for the measurement of morality.

Take twelve learned Islamic scholars and each will give you a different interpretation of the moral values that you wish to measure.
By western standards, the measurement of morals is complex but fairly easily understood and accepted.

Do you believe it is any better for us western moralist to dictate standards to Islamic strands of their faith, or should we include their moral values in our measurement of what is reasonable or not?

Perhaps you would accept an Islamic moral compass to measure the culpability of western excesses in behavior, as an objective way to decide the net worth of human failings.

(ok I’m playing devils advocate here, but you get my drift?)

Originally Posted by Maanaam

you somehow can find a reason to ridicule that

...disagree: I wholeheartedly support your post...hence the exclamation mark (!)...

Originally Posted by Switch

Do you believe it is any better for us western moralist to dictate standards to Islamic strands of their faith, or should we include their moral values in our measurement of what is reasonable or not?

We need to grow out of this group-identity based nonsense.

We are not dictating moral terms 'from one culture to another', we are conferring as equally worthy humans to reach a concensus on moral behaviour based on evidence of measurable human suffering/flourishing to account the net moral worth of an action.

Anyone from any background is free to offer evidence to the terrestrial human moral council on the moral worth of an action but the evidence has to be grounded in tangible human suffering/flourishing that the action effects.

'I like to throw gay men off tall buildings/murder rape victims.... because:- gay men/rape victims offend my invisible sky fairy' - is not an acceptable rationale from any objective viewpoint. There is no cultural relativity in this assertion. It is objectively true to say that this rationale is nonsense.

Originally Posted by Looper

We need to grow out of this group-identity based nonsense.

We are not dictating moral terms 'from one culture to another', we are conferring as equally worthy humans to reach a concensus on moral behaviour based on evidence of measurable human suffering/flourishing to account the net moral worth of an action.

Anyone from any background is free to offer evidence to the terrestrial human moral council on the moral worth of an action but the evidence has to be grounded in tangible human suffering/flourishing that the action effects.

'I like to throw gay men off tall buildings/murder rape victims.... because:- gay men/rape victims offend my invisible sky fairy' - is not an acceptable rationale from any objective viewpoint. There is no cultural relativity in this assertion. It is objectively true to say that this rationale is nonsense.

I know several gay Muslims who pray 5 times a day and go collectively to Friday prayers, because of their concern for others.
It is not for you or me to suggest that they could possibly be wrong.

Originally Posted by Switch

Perhaps you would accept an Islamic moral compass to measure the culpability of western excesses in behavior, as an objective way to decide the net worth of human failings.

(ok I’m playing devils advocate here, but you get my drift?)

Have you seen the direction a lot of these Islamic moral compasses point in Pattaya?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Have you seen the direction a lot of these Islamic moral compasses point in Pattaya?

Not first hand no, but I suspect they align pretty much the same as Christian advocates of the fleshpots.

The mirky waters of justification.

Originally Posted by Switch

Not first hand no, but I suspect they align pretty much the same as Christian advocates of the fleshpots.

The name of the app is blued. You can check it out yourself.

Originally Posted by good2bhappy

And the Lord God said, it is not good that the man should be alone, I will make him an help meet for him.
(Genesis 2:18)
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
(Genesis 2:24)

That is not really what I said.

^...step by step: liberation moves forward...

“In socialism no type of discrimination between human beings exists,”

From this we can deduce that Cuba never was socialist, and neither were the USSR, China, NoKo or even Venezuela.

In fact the strides being made toward that level of equality suggests that the west is moving toward true socialism, in that respect, faster than any of the 'socialist' outfits ever did.