My Challenge

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:23 pm

Sarell wrote:PS: Ragorn also knows nothing about child development :P

I took nine credits worth of developmental psych in college, my wife worked as a nanny for ten years, and I have a child of my own. So, I guess what I'm trying to say here is, you fail in every possible way imaginable.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:18 pm

Wow. 9 credits?! You are guru!
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:40 pm

Kifle wrote:
Imis9 wrote:I'm more interested in the questions that you think are tough to answer morally.


Who said they'd be tough? You have obviously missed the point of the challenge.


To net you $50 while making you look good. Right? :-D
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'
Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'
Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:19 pm

moritheil wrote:
Kifle wrote:
Imis9 wrote:I'm more interested in the questions that you think are tough to answer morally.


Who said they'd be tough? You have obviously missed the point of the challenge.


To net you $50 while making you look good. Right? :-D


More than that, he wanted 50$ <i>per person</i>!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:56 pm

Corth wrote:Wow. 9 credits?! You are guru!

How many credits did you take in college for some subject that's only peripherally related to your major?

You did go to college, didn't you? Or did you get your license via mail-order?
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:26 pm

Ragorn wrote:
Corth wrote:Wow. 9 credits?! You are guru!

How many credits did you take in college for some subject that's only peripherally related to your major?

You did go to college, didn't you? Or did you get your license via mail-order?


University of Phoenix Online.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:32 pm

Sarell wrote:I'm as bitter as Corth about being tied up at work and missing a whole thread of people teasing each other, so I'm going to try and make up for it with some of my own!

A few posts back Ragorn put out 5 questions then answered his viewpoints on them claiming he 'won' something. I think it was to do with arguing from a consistent moral stance from something Kifle challenged people to do or something equally ambiguous and senseless in constructing an argument.

All it did was make it abundantly clear that you guys have absolutely no experience or education in ethical debate. For a start, look up the two most consistently at locker heads ethical perspectives of 'moral absolutes' and then 'utilitarianism'. Until you can even grasp that there ARE different perspectives in arguing ethics, independent of which you think is right, you're really not going to inform yourselves or anyone else beyond your own fairly worthless opinion.

PS: Ragorn also knows nothing about child development :P


Um, wtf are you talking about Sarell? We understand that there are different angles at arguing ethics, we just don't agree, and, at least I, don't find them very well thought out as they provide for too many contradictions. I've taken three semesters of ethics courses, along with the other BS history of philosophy courses I've had to take that force-feed the ethics, politics, epistemologies, and metaphysics that the major philosophers argued. I don't get it. Basically you're telling us we're idiots because we're arguing our ethics and then telling us there's other ways to argue ethics and that we're retarded because other people have other viewponts?

Also, I was the one that said "I won." Instead of skimming over a thread and acting like you have any clue as to wtf is going on and making innane comments based on your obviously flawed knowledge of the subject, try to actually read and understand what people are saying, what they said, and why they're saying it -- then make your innane comments. You'd look a lot less retarded that way.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:59 pm

Ragorn wrote:
Corth wrote:Wow. 9 credits?! You are guru!

How many credits did you take in college for some subject that's only peripherally related to your major?


Most required classes in college are only peripherally related to one's major. I had to take 12 credits of Spanish for my Penn State philosophy degree. Jodete y aprieta el culo!

My wife is a math teacher. I suppose that makes me an expert in math. :)
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:37 pm

Corth wrote:Most required classes in college are only peripherally related to one's major. I had to take 12 credits of Spanish for my Penn State philosophy degree. Jodete y aprieta el culo!

Oh, sorry. Didn't realize I was getting flamed by a philosophy major. Can anyone really ever "know" anything?
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:45 am

Ragorn wrote:
Corth wrote:Most required classes in college are only peripherally related to one's major. I had to take 12 credits of Spanish for my Penn State philosophy degree. Jodete y aprieta el culo!

Oh, sorry. Didn't realize I was getting flamed by a philosophy major. Can anyone really ever "know" anything?


I can. :P
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Yasden
Sojourner
Posts: 1597
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Lake Stevens, WA, USA

Postby Yasden » Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:02 am

I know that this thread needs more cowbell.
Support Your Addiction! Vote for TorilMUD Today!

Top Mud Sites: http://www.topmudsites.com/cgi-bin/topmuds/rankem.cgi?id=shev

Why Nerox is jealous of me:

Nerox tells you 'man this thing is kicking my ass and i have blisters!'
Nerox tells you 'ok attempting it again put tape on my fingers for easier sliding'
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:39 am

Corth wrote:
Ragorn wrote:
Corth wrote:Wow. 9 credits?! You are guru!

How many credits did you take in college for some subject that's only peripherally related to your major?


Most required classes in college are only peripherally related to one's major. I had to take 12 credits of Spanish for my Penn State philosophy degree. Jodete y aprieta el culo!

My wife is a math teacher. I suppose that makes me an expert in math. :)


Actually, most classes in college are hardly related to your major. I think I'm only required 36 or 42 credits in philosophy and 16 in a foriegn language. The other 82-88 are either electives or gen ed. -- which have virtually nothing to do with my major.

Anyway, Sarell claimed he knew nothing; Ragorn studied the subject for, what, 3 semesters? That's an entire year of studying one subject. I'd say he knows at least a little -- which is more than nothing. Added to his experience through his wife, which could include discussions about the merits of this or that approach to child rearing and it's effects on children, and his first-hand experience with his own child, again, I'd say he knows something of the subject.

Eh, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Rag was overstepping the boundry of his actual knowledge of the subject in relation to Sarell's comment. Decir no sabe ni jota no es intelligente. Also, jodete is no spanish word I've ever heard of... what does it mean?
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:50 am

Kifle

Oh my, after 12 credits of spanish in college I apparently still know very little. :)

actually what I did was google for spanish insults. The sentence was cuban slang.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:06 am

Corth wrote:Kifle

Oh my, after 12 credits of spanish in college I apparently still know very little. :)

actually what I did was google for spanish insults. The sentence was cuban slang.


Lol, same. I've taken 16, but I can't speak spanish worth a shit, really. All I got out of what you said was you tighten my ass... which was kinda weird. Now I'm really curious as to what that first word means :)
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Sarell
Sojourner
Posts: 1681
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: brisbane, australia

Postby Sarell » Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:17 pm

Ragorn wrote:
Sarell wrote:PS: Ragorn also knows nothing about child development :P

I took nine credits worth of developmental psych in college, my wife worked as a nanny for ten years, and I have a child of my own. So, I guess what I'm trying to say here is, you fail in every possible way imaginable.


Ragorn wrote:4. Two children, curious about their bodies, experiment sexually. At what age is this behavior considered morally inappropriate? Five? Eight? Fifteen?

4. Seven, because seven is widely considered to be the age when children become self-aware, are familiar with cause and effect, and are aware that their actions carry consequences.


If you know anything about child development or ethics then these statement aren't only wrong they are also irresponsible to be posting with any authoritative claim. Children develop different ranges at different ages. Most children are aware of cause effect and consequence outside their bodies at a toddler range. To claim '7' is THE specific age that is 'widely considered' is absurd and clearly indicates any knowledge of this subject you have is limited. Kohlberg (1985:488) in (Berk, L. (2003). Child Development. Boston: A&B) identified six stages of moral reasoning and development and found 36 year olds who weren't at stage 4! Children become empathetically aware of their surrounds and effects on others, usually around 4-8.

In relation to how this affects the ethics of your situation, it is different for different cultures. A couple of underage kids seeing what parts of each other are different is pretty normal. A couple of teenagers going a bit further is as well. It isn't 'unethical' in just about any sense of ethical debate, possibly from some moral absolute perspective, which I suggested you guys look up what is, however it would likely be individual specific. It might be considered naughty or wrong by some people or cultures.

Now you were using your example as consistently applying an ethical standpoint? SO as well as being wrong on your point anyway, in 1 you claim weigh up consequences, a utilitarian perspective, in 2 you declare a moral absolute. Two classical opposing standpoints of ethics I suggested you guys look up.

Kifle wrote:Um, wtf are you talking about Sarell? We understand that there are different angles at arguing ethics, we just don't agree, and, at least I, don't find them very well thought out as they provide for too many contradictions.


Different perspectives are thought out differently, and hence contradict, that's what makes them different. For example, an absolute perspective on killing, killing is wrong, never do it. A utilitarian perspective, shoot down a crazed gunman before they kill a bunch of innocent people is fine, the greater good. Obviously ethical debates are usually about something a little less clear cut, a dilemma (meaning two problems) that needs to be balanced. You through out some challenge that claimed to prove ethics is subjective, which it is, as is morality, however the challenge didn't really address it. Two people could both argue everything from a nihilist perspective, claiming that nothing exists and it doesn't matter anyway for each question. They would win your challenge, even though you are correct in what you are trying to prove.

PS: I read the thread, it just sucked :P I definitely mustn't be playing enough, I've joined the general discussion forum! :P
Arishae group-says 'mah sunray brings all the boys to the yard'
Shadow Scream
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:39 pm

Sarell wrote:If you know anything about child development or ethics then these statement aren't only wrong they are also irresponsible to be posting with any authoritative claim. Children develop different ranges at different ages. Most children are aware of cause effect and consequence outside their bodies at a toddler range. To claim '7' is THE specific age that is 'widely considered' is absurd and clearly indicates any knowledge of this subject you have is limited. Kohlberg (1985:488) in (Berk, L. (2003). Child Development. Boston: A&B) identified six stages of moral reasoning and development and found 36 year olds who weren't at stage 4! Children become empathetically aware of their surrounds and effects on others, usually around 4-8.

In relation to how this affects the ethics of your situation, it is different for different cultures. A couple of underage kids seeing what parts of each other are different is pretty normal. A couple of teenagers going a bit further is as well. It isn't 'unethical' in just about any sense of ethical debate, possibly from some moral absolute perspective, which I suggested you guys look up what is, however it would likely be individual specific. It might be considered naughty or wrong by some people or cultures.

Now you were using your example as consistently applying an ethical standpoint? SO as well as being wrong on your point anyway, in 1 you claim weigh up consequences, a utilitarian perspective, in 2 you declare a moral absolute. Two classical opposing standpoints of ethics I suggested you guys look up.

Totally awesome.

The "seven as the age of reason" theory is drawn straight from Catholic doctorine. In the Catholic Church, seven is the age at which a child is required to being practicing Catholic rituals, because they believe that seven years old is the age that children are deemed to be "morally responsible." Seemed perfect to throw it into this thread and see what people would say.

And you responded by jerking yourself off in front of us with big words and references, so thanks for keeping the thread entertaining.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:16 pm

Ragorn wrote:
Sarell wrote:If you know anything about child development or ethics then these statement aren't only wrong they are also irresponsible to be posting with any authoritative claim. Children develop different ranges at different ages. Most children are aware of cause effect and consequence outside their bodies at a toddler range. To claim '7' is THE specific age that is 'widely considered' is absurd and clearly indicates any knowledge of this subject you have is limited. Kohlberg (1985:488) in (Berk, L. (2003). Child Development. Boston: A&B) identified six stages of moral reasoning and development and found 36 year olds who weren't at stage 4! Children become empathetically aware of their surrounds and effects on others, usually around 4-8.

In relation to how this affects the ethics of your situation, it is different for different cultures. A couple of underage kids seeing what parts of each other are different is pretty normal. A couple of teenagers going a bit further is as well. It isn't 'unethical' in just about any sense of ethical debate, possibly from some moral absolute perspective, which I suggested you guys look up what is, however it would likely be individual specific. It might be considered naughty or wrong by some people or cultures.

Now you were using your example as consistently applying an ethical standpoint? SO as well as being wrong on your point anyway, in 1 you claim weigh up consequences, a utilitarian perspective, in 2 you declare a moral absolute. Two classical opposing standpoints of ethics I suggested you guys look up.

Totally awesome.

The "seven as the age of reason" theory is drawn straight from Catholic doctorine. In the Catholic Church, seven is the age at which a child is required to being practicing Catholic rituals, because they believe that seven years old is the age that children are deemed to be "morally responsible." Seemed perfect to throw it into this thread and see what people would say.

And you responded by jerking yourself off in front of us with big words and references, so thanks for keeping the thread entertaining.


Translation: "He provided facts and information, let's lynch him!"

Working on a Republican membership or something, Rags?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:36 pm

May I suggest that you find an impartial judge? Kifle, I'm sure you know someone else well versed in logic/morality/philosophy that doesn't have $100 to lose depending on the outcome.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:56 pm

Ragorn wrote:This is an ethical argument, not a semantic one.


Interesting that you would say something like that.

You appear to have only stated what you believe is wrong or immoral, or where you believe that morality does not apply. You also stated that you believe that there is nothing inherantly immoral about abortion. Or that marrying cousins have no moral implications.

Those are in fact, not ethical arguments, but unsupported statements of your own beliefs. You shouldn't be surprised that people are arguing the semantics of what you say.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:59 pm

Sarvis wrote:Translation: "He provided facts and information, let's lynch him!"

Working on a Republican membership or something, Rags?


I think he's a Democrat working on maintaing the current course of his party.

But on the childhood development topic, I will actually add something useful (unlike the post in the quote above) and say that there are many competing schools of thought in child development, which have varying degrees of popularity in different parts of the world.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Re: My Challenge

Postby Disoputlip » Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:56 pm

Kifle wrote:...we can wager our presidential votes. If I lose this bet, I will vote republican. If I win, the participants must vote democrat...


Giving general moral guidelines to someone that willingly "trade" votes in a democratic election seems like a challenge.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: My Challenge

Postby Kifle » Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:56 am

Disoputlip wrote:
Kifle wrote:...we can wager our presidential votes. If I lose this bet, I will vote republican. If I win, the participants must vote democrat...


Giving general moral guidelines to someone that willingly "trade" votes in a democratic election seems like a challenge.


Good job at missing the entire point in order to toss out a very weak and unwitty reply. Kudos.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Sarell
Sojourner
Posts: 1681
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: brisbane, australia

Postby Sarell » Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:20 am

Ragorn wrote:Totally awesome.

The "seven as the age of reason" theory is drawn straight from Catholic doctorine. In the Catholic Church, seven is the age at which a child is required to being practicing Catholic rituals, because they believe that seven years old is the age that children are deemed to be "morally responsible." Seemed perfect to throw it into this thread and see what people would say.

And you responded by jerking yourself off in front of us with big words and references, so thanks for keeping the thread entertaining.


I'm sorry. I didn't realise that you weren't only drawing on your knowledge of child development, from your university studies, but also on the insights provided by the catholic church. Phooey to me.

In regard to the thread topic. It's still an absolute perspective. Many of which do come from religious perspectives. These types of attitudes could be used in defeating Kifle's challenge however. If you absolutely believe that anyone who uses big words is a wanker, both participants could just declare 'who cares wanker!' in response to every-thing that is asked of you.
Arishae group-says 'mah sunray brings all the boys to the yard'
Shadow Scream
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:02 pm

Sarell wrote:For a start, look up the two most consistently at locker heads ethical perspectives of 'moral absolutes' and then 'utilitarianism'.


Locker head sounds like a cool twist on the old favorite 'meat head.'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:16 pm

Sarell wrote:These types of attitudes could be used in defeating Kifle's challenge however.


Not really. Even if you got two very devout people of the same religion they'd likely vary on some interpretation of some obscure line of their particular holy book. It might just be more difficult for Kifle to win, but he still could.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:18 pm

In regard to Kifle's 50 questions challenge, I suggest that anyone foolhardy enough to take it up simply stick to the principle of self-interest. It should make your answers easier to defend.

Read a bit about psychological egoism and hedonism. Hedonism is a pretty simple way to stay consistant - just pursue your own pleasure, and where that's impossible, avoid anything that involves your own suffering.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Zoldren
Sojourner
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 6:01 am
Location: mt. vernon, il
Contact:

Postby Zoldren » Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:16 pm

I bet if Kifle posted the questions here, and people responded here, he'd still have a good chance of winning, as long as people where honest...
Sundara
Sojourner
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2001 6:01 am
Contact:

Postby Sundara » Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:57 pm

Kifle wrote:I'm pretty sure I think I win...



I think I can I think I can I think I can.....chooochooo!


lol! Sorry kif, had to do it.
When poverty comes knocking on your door, love escapes through the window.

-German Proverb-
Sundara
Sojourner
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2001 6:01 am
Contact:

Postby Sundara » Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:09 pm

Corth wrote:I had to take 12 credits of Spanish for my Penn State philosophy degree. Jodete y aprieta el culo!


LOL!
When poverty comes knocking on your door, love escapes through the window.



-German Proverb-
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:22 pm

Sundara wrote:
Kifle wrote:I'm pretty sure I think I win...



I think I can I think I can I think I can.....chooochooo!


lol! Sorry kif, had to do it.


Do you want to be deported, foofie? Lol :)
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Dalar
Sojourner
Posts: 4905
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Dalar » Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:37 pm

Dalar wrote:Image
It will be fixed in Toril 2.0.
Aremat group-says 'tanks i highly suggest investing 20 silver in training weapons from cm to cut down on the losing scales to shield'
Sundara
Sojourner
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2001 6:01 am
Contact:

Postby Sundara » Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:57 pm

Kifle wrote:
Sundara wrote:
Kifle wrote:I'm pretty sure I think I win...



I think I can I think I can I think I can.....chooochooo!


lol! Sorry kif, had to do it.


Do you want to be deported, foofie? Lol :)


*raises fist at you* jodete y aprieta el culo, kiffer! lol!


p.s. BTW Kif, "I was...born..in the USA!" I hope that song sticks in your head. lol
When poverty comes knocking on your door, love escapes through the window.



-German Proverb-
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:10 am

Sundara wrote:
Kifle wrote:
Sundara wrote:
Kifle wrote:I'm pretty sure I think I win...



I think I can I think I can I think I can.....chooochooo!


lol! Sorry kif, had to do it.


Do you want to be deported, foofie? Lol :)


*raises fist at you* jodete y aprieta el culo, kiffer! lol!


p.s. BTW Kif, "I was...born..in the USA!" I hope that song sticks in your head. lol


Mexican Americaaaans. They like educatioooon. They like to go to night-school, take Spanish, and get a B! I hope that song gets stuck in your head now! :)
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:17 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Imis9 wrote:Let's use Sarvis' example of rape not being evil since he said it. A vast majority would define it as evil. Yes, it is subjective based on people's beliefs, but that doesn't change the fact that people believe it is evil. In what way would rape not be evil?

Personally, I believe that to argue that rape is not evil is idiotic to even attempt as it is one of those arguments that is impossible to win.


So when a caveman bonks some girl over the head and drags her back to the cave, is that evil?


See, the problem is that morality is something defined and created by humans as they viewed the world and attempted to deal with it. These morals come out of philisophy, religion, history and survival.

What objectivists miss is that for a long time <i>none of that existed</i>. How can something be intrinsically evil if our only means of deciding so comes out of the development of our minds?

You can see this shift even looking at "recent" history. These days one of the biggest "evils" is an adult being attracted to a "child." (Child being defined as anyone between 0 and 18,) A couple hundred years ago men were SUPPOSED to marry girls who were 14-15. We regard this as evil NOW because advances in psychology and biology tell us that sex is generally bad for someone so young.

Back to rape. It's no secret that women having rights is a very recent thing. PRevious to that women didn't have rights, and in some cases could even be traded as property, with marriage being a basic exchange of property (woman for dowry and/or political alliance.) So when the man sleeps with his new property, it is basically rape with the woman having little to no choice in the matter. Yet then it was not considered evil, was it? It was just how things were done.

We know better now, and rape is a horrible, terrible thing to do to someone to the best of our current knowledge. However it doesn't quite cut it as an objective evil.



first off, the cavemen thing. cavemen knocking cavewomen over the head, sound more like cartoon or hollywood.

next, i believe it's a stretch to say that people who got marry were rape during their honeymoon night. (i'm not saying that a husband can't rape his wife.) i think that's egocentrism? not sure if that's a real word or not, but you claim that people of a different time period were rape because they didn't chose their spouse. so you really need to define rape more clearly. i'm sure they if someone defile someone's wife back in the old day, it was punishable by law.

now if the king took someone's wife. impregnant her and then kill off the husband to hid what he did, he's probably not going to be punished. society isn't condoling what he did, it's just that he has all the power. or society did not know of what transpire. david and bathseba (in the bible)

in america hollywood has made love the central theme for being together. they want individual to choose for themselve who they want to spend the rest of their life, until they want to get a divorce.

other cultures, the family chose for their children. are your parents a better judge of your character and your potential spouse character better than your? regardless, if wife isn't really to consummate the marriage that night and the husband forces himself on her, i would seriously doubt that her parents would blame her for it. i would hope that they would resolve those issue before it got to that point.
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:31 am

Ragorn wrote:Here, I'll try five.

1. A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. She is single and sustains herself on a low paying job. She has no health insurance. What are the moral implications of having an abortion?

2. A burglar breaks into your house and begins to pilfer your belongings. You have a shotgun next to your bed. Under which of the following conditions is it morally acceptable to shoot him: After he commits a violent act toward you, after he threatens a violent act toward you, after he steals your property, after he demonstrates intent to steal your property, after he enters your home? Alternately: It is never acceptable, it is never acceptable to own a deadly weapon.

3. A man and a woman of legal age get married and bear a child. Years later, it is discovered that thanks to a long-lost family member, they are actually first cousins. How does morality impact their decision to stay married or get divorced.

4. Two children, curious about their bodies, experiment sexually. At what age is this behavior considered morally inappropriate? Five? Eight? Fifteen?

5. Through a long series of events, you find that you are developing feelings for your best friend's wife. She has expressed unhappiness in her marriage, and is contemplating leaving her husband. She comes to you seeking advice. What is your moral responsibility, if any?


---------------------------------
my response and how i think jesus would like me to handle it.


#1. Me: legally, she can have the abortion. i would not object to that decision. however, i would encourage her to put the child up for adoption. if she wants to keep the child and can work through the trauma of what happened to her, i can support that as well. ultimately it's her choice with no wrong answers. the wrong was caused by the rapist.
Jesus: first, i think he would take care of the hurt, the woman. then, he would try to save the life of the baby. the baby's afterlife isn't in question.


#2. M: i think legally, you can shoot the robber. the ideal situation would be, that you have some firearm training. i can't imagine myself having a gun without some basic training. this from someone who has never held a firearm, except a paintball gun. however, can't you say "freeze" and call the police? now if he's going to attack you because he doesn't want to pay for his crime, i would try to shoot him and hope i hit his legs or something.
J: he had no prosession or property. he say (matt 25:34-36)

i dont have time to answer the rest of the question now. will finish later

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests