dontamend.com

[Natoma]

Morals dicatate laws...not the other way around.

Morals dictate laws? Obviously not thank you very much Supreme Court.

And as I said before, your opinion on the matter of homosexuality being wrong or unnatural or whatever is worth a hill of beans. The US government dictates otherwise.

Hey, there are people that have morals today that say that you shouldn't marry outside your religion, or outside your "race". Doesn't mean it's law.

 

[Natoma]

Opinions can be correct or incorrect.

Wrong. Opinions are neither. THEY ARE OPINIONS.

It is my opinion that the sun revolves around the earth. It is my opinion if you travel far enough on the planet you will fall off the edge of the globe and encouter dragons and demons. It is my opinion that I am not genetically related to my mother.

Yea, opinions can't be wrong.

 

[RussSchultz]

Opinions can be correct or incorrect.

Wrong. Opinions are neither. THEY ARE OPINIONS.

It is my opinion that the sun revolves around the earth. It is my opinion if you travel far enough on the planet you will fall off the edge of the globe and encouter dragons and demons. It is my opinion that I am not genetically related to my mother.

Yea, opinions can't be wrong.

None of those things are opinions.

 

[Natoma]

None of those things are opinions.

Who are you to say they aren't my opinion? I mean, opinions are never wrong, so if I say I have an opinion, it cannot be right or wrong, simply my opinion.

It is my opinion that humans can breathe, without any machinery, underwater, just as fish do.

According to Joe, my opinion on the matter is neither right nor wrong. Simply an opinion.

It is my opinion that the sky is always fuschia. It is my opinion that the sun is black. It is my opinion that the moon is a half circle floating in the sky.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Opinions can be correct or incorrect.

Wrong. Opinions are neither. THEY ARE OPINIONS.

It is my opinion that the sun revolves around the earth. It is my opinion if you travel far enough on the planet you will fall off the edge of the globe and encouter dragons and demons. It is my opinion that I am not genetically related to my mother.

Yea, opinions can't be wrong.

Ahem:

Those are not opinions. They are falsehoods. We have positive knowledge that dictates otherwise. Once something is known to that extent it is no longer an opinion. It's either right or wrong.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=opinion

It is my opinion that red is the best color.

Am I right or wrong?

My opinion is that God created the universe.

Am I right or wrong?

Yes, some opinions may ultimately be proved to be right or wrong with the gaining of knowledge. At that point, you either have a fact or a falsehood.

 

[RussSchultz]

Opinions are subjective observations, statements of fact can be proven or disproven.

The things you are calling opinions are erroneous statements of fact.

 

[Natoma]

Really. What about my opinion that the sun is black? It is a fact that the sun, under certain filtering situations, is black. What about my opinion that the moon is a half circle floating in the sky? Is it not a fact that the moon, at times, is a half circle floating in the sky is it not?

Am I right or wrong?

From a certain perspective, you could easily argue that the sun does indeed revolve around the earth, if earth is your stationary point of view and you have nothing else to observe. So is that not an opinion as well?

From a certain perspective, you could argue that red is indeed the best color, but is it the same if you change perspectives?

Am I right or wrong?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Morals dictate laws? Obviously not thank you very much Supreme Court.

Morals dictated the Constitution, whom the Supreme Court answers to, thank-uo-very-much.

Or did the founding fathers create the Constitution in some sort of moral vacuum?

And as I said before, your opinion on the matter of homosexuality being wrong or unnatural or whatever is worth a hill of beans. The US government dictates otherwise.

It's my opinion. I know you think it's worth a hill of beans, because you are the intolerant prick this thread has prven you to be!

Hey, there are people that have morals today that say that you shouldn't marry outside your religion, or outside your "race". Doesn't mean it's law.

??

Of course not. If enough prople share that moral, and if it doesn't conflict with the morals enshrined in the constitution, then it will become law.

I respect the law. Doesn't mean I agree with all of it.

What say you about pedophilia and beastiality?

 

[RussSchultz]

Really. What about my opinion that the sun is black? It is a fact that the sun, under certain filtering situations, is black. What about my opinion that the moon is a half circle floating in the sky? Is it not a fact that the moon, at times, is a half circle floating in the sky is it not?

Am I right or wrong?

From a certain perspective, you could easily argue that the sun does indeed revolve around the earth, if earth is your stationary point of view and you have nothing else to observe. So is that not an opinion as well?

From a certain perspective, you could argue that red is indeed the best color, but is it the same if you change perspectives?

Am I right or wrong?

These are all statements of fact, except "red is the best color". Incorrectness does not change that they are statements of fact, nor does the fact that they become correct under certain perspectives change that they are statements of fact.

"Red is the best color", unless used in a context of something measurable, is an opinion. The rest are simply statements of fact (erroneous or not)

 

[Natoma]

Morals dictate laws? Obviously not thank you very much Supreme Court.

Morals dictated the Constitution, whom the Supreme Court answers to, thank-uo-very-much.

I suppose the Constitution does indeed support homosexuality, thank you very much Supreme Court. See? Looks like your morals are in conflict with the Constitution.

Thanks for pointing that out.

And as I said before, your opinion on the matter of homosexuality being wrong or unnatural or whatever is worth a hill of beans. The US government dictates otherwise.

It's my opinion. I know you think it's worth a hill of beans, because you are the intolerant prick this thread has prven you to be!

I said before that you can have your opinion all you like. That doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion about your opinion now does it.

Hey, there are people that have morals today that say that you shouldn't marry outside your religion, or outside your "race". Doesn't mean it's law.

??

Of course not. If enough prople share that moral, and if it doesn't conflict with the morals enshrined in the constitution, then it will become law.

Ahh but the fact remains that there were times in this country when marrying outside your race, despite the "moral" conflict in the constitution, was illegal thank you very much Anti-Miscgenation laws. But the Supreme Court came through yet again, as it did with Anti-Gay laws on the books, in striking those laws down as unconstitutional.

So no, even if enough people share a particular moral does not make it constitutional according to the letter of the constitution.

What say you about pedophilia and beastiality?

The same as I said before. It is illegal. My opinion on it is moot, just as your opinion on homosexuality is moot, wrt the law of the land.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Really. What about my opinion that the sun is black? It is a fact that the sun, under certain filtering situations, is black.

Um, then it's a fact that the sun, under certain filtering conditions, is black (no visible light passing through the filter.). It can be measured in a factual and objective way. That's not an opinion.

What about my opinion that the moon is a half circle floating in the sky? Is it not a fact that the moon, at times, is a half circle floating in the sky is it not?

Am I right or wrong?

It's a fact that the moon "looks like" a half-circle floating in the sky twice a month. It's also a fact that the moon is (mostly) spherically shaped massive body revolving around the earth.

Ignorance of positively established facts does not an opinion make.

From a certain perspective, you could easily argue that the sun does indeed revolve around the earth, if earth is your stationary point of view and you have nothing else to observe. So is that not an opinion as well?

No, the existence of positively learned FACTS to the contrary means it's not an opinion.

Until the time that we had POSITIVE KNOWLEDGE that the earth revolved around the Sun, that perspective is a valid opinion. Now it's just a falsehood.

 

[Natoma]

These are all statements of fact, except "red is the best color". Incorrectness does not change that they are statements of fact, nor does the fact that they become correct under certain perspectives change that they are statements of fact.

"Red is the best color", unless used in a context of something measurable, is an opinion. The rest are simply statements of fact (erroneous or not)

Actually the moon isn't a half circle floating in the sky. It never is. It is always a full sphere, but the perspective changes due to the fact that light hits it differently at different times of the day.

So no, it is not a statement of fact. But it is easily an opinion.

People long ago believed collection of dots in the sky were the gods, and that's where we get our Zodiac from. Were their opinions correct? What about people who still believe that the dots in the sky are indeed gods, or hold some significance? Those are their opinions. Are they wrong?

 

[Himself]

Really. What about my opinion that the sun is black? It is a fact that the sun, under certain filtering situations, is black.

The sun is just a big ball of gas emiting electromagnetic energy, colour is an interpretation of a band of that energy by eyeballs. So the sun doesn't have any colour at all, if you stare at it long enough though, you'll go blind and everything will turn black. Besides which, from a physics standpoint, the colour black represents the absence of light, so a sun, which so long as it is active and producting electromagnetic energy in the visible spectrum, will never be black and at the same time fit the criteria for a sun.

 

[Natoma]

Until the time that we had POSITIVE KNOWLEDGE that the earth revolved around the Sun, that perspective is a valid opinion. Now it's just a falsehood.

But Joe! Opinions can never ever be wrong!

 

[Natoma]

Really. What about my opinion that the sun is black? It is a fact that the sun, under certain filtering situations, is black.

The sun is just a big ball of gas emiting electromagnetic energy, colour is an interpretation of a band of that energy by eyeballs. So the sun doesn't have any colour at all, if you stare at it long enough though, you'll go blind and everything will turn black. Besides which, from a physics standpoint, the colour black represents the absence of light, so a sun, which so long as it is active and producting electromagnetic energy in the visible spectrum, will never be black and at the same time fit the criteria for a sun.

I know that and you know that. I'm just having fun with these jokers now.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I suppose the Constitution does indeed support homosexuality, thank you very much Supreme Court. See? Looks like your morals are in conflict with the Constitution.

Thanks for pointing that out.

No, the constitution apparently supports the right to certain homosexual activity done in the privacy of the home.

We will not "know" if the Constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) is in conflict with my morals, until such a time that a State decides to ban homosexual unions, and that ban is challenged in court.

My morals tell me that acceptance homosexual unions should be a state level decision to be made. Right now, that is exactly what we have.

I said before that you can have your opinion all you like. That doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion about your opinion now does it.

Of course not. The point is, you are intolerant by virtue of the fact that you won't entertain ANY basis which would support a negative moral view of homosexuality.

I have said repeatedly that I RESPECT your opinion. Or didn't you read that the last 10 times I said it?

Ahh but the fact remains that there were times in this country when marrying outside your race, despite the "moral" conflict in the constitution, was illegal thank you very much Anti-Miscgenation laws.

So what's your point?

The fact remains that people still do have a moral issue with interracial marriages. The fact that a law exists doesn't change one's morality.

But the Supreme Court came through yet again, as it did with Anti-Gay laws on the books, in striking those laws down as unconstitutional.

Which laws? Laws which uphold some "right to privacy?" The Supreme Court upheld a discerned right to privacy. Not the right (or not) of states to legislate for or against homosexuals.

So no, even if enough people share a particular moral does not make it constitutional according to the letter of the constitution.

Um, isn't that exactly what I said? Oh yes, I said: "If enough prople share that moral, and if it doesn't conflict with the morals enshrined in the constitution, then it will become law. "

What say you about pedophilia and beastiality?

The same as I said before. It is illegal. My opinion on it is moot, just as your opinion on homosexuality is moot, wrt the law of the land.

Um, that's nice. However we are asking this question wrt your personal, inherent, moral code. Not wrt to the law of the land.

So what's your answer?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

From a certain perspective, you could argue that red is indeed the best color, but is it the same if you change perspectives?

Correct. Just like from a certain perspective, you could have the opinion that homosexuality is right or wrong.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Until the time that we had POSITIVE KNOWLEDGE that the earth revolved around the Sun, that perspective is a valid opinion. Now it's just a falsehood.

But Joe! Opinions can never ever be wrong!

Correct.

An opinion is made in the absense of positive knowledge. If positive knowledge is known, then what you speak about is not an opinion.

 

[Silent_One]

Joe DeFuria wrote:

My definition of natural just happens to be the one found in the dictionary. So you're right, I don't accept your attempts to redefine what is in the dictionary.

That's great for you! So what happens when the dictonary is revised? I guess the only "correct" definition is that which is in the current dictonary from a specific publisher?

How do you keep your beliefs straight?

Websters dictionary is accepted as defacto english canon. Whenever there is a revision to Websters dictionary, it makes news. Why? Because that is our definitional language repository

Ahem..... Joe's definition is from Webster
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=natural

 

[Natoma]

I suppose the Constitution does indeed support homosexuality, thank you very much Supreme Court. See? Looks like your morals are in conflict with the Constitution.

Thanks for pointing that out.

No, the constitution apparently supports the right to certain homosexual activity done in the privacy of the home.

We will not "know" if the Constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) is in conflict with my morals, until such a time that a State decides to ban homosexual unions, and that ban is challenged in court.

My morals tell me that acceptance homosexual unions should be a state level decision to be made. Right now, that is exactly what we have.

My morals tell me that acceptance of marriage should be a state level decision. Right now, that is not what we have. It is federally accepted.

I said before that you can have your opinion all you like. That doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion about your opinion now does it.

Of course not. The point is, you are intolerant by virtue of the fact that you won't entertain ANY basis which would support a negative moral view of homosexuality.

Oh I entertained it. I considered it. Then I considered you a fool for it. Happy?

I have said repeatedly that I RESPECT your opinion. Or didn't you read that the last 10 times I said it?

I respect your right to have your opinion thank you very much first amendment. I do not respect the content of your opinion.

Ahh but the fact remains that there were times in this country when marrying outside your race, despite the "moral" conflict in the constitution, was illegal thank you very much Anti-Miscgenation laws.

So what's your point?

The fact remains that people still do have a moral issue with interracial marriages. The fact that a law exists doesn't change one's morality.

And yet the percentage of people with this opinion has decreased dramatically since the 50s and 60s.

Does make a case for the laws dictating, or at least strongly affecting the moral fabric of a society no?

But the Supreme Court came through yet again, as it did with Anti-Gay laws on the books, in striking those laws down as unconstitutional.

Which laws? Laws which uphold some "right to privacy?" The Supreme Court upheld a discerned right to privacy. Not the right (or not) of states to legislate for or against homosexuals.

Heh. Just wait. It's coming.

So no, even if enough people share a particular moral does not make it constitutional according to the letter of the constitution.

Um, isn't that exactly what I said? Oh yes, I said: "If enough prople share that moral, and if it doesn't conflict with the morals enshrined in the constitution, then it will become law. "

No. What I stated is not exactly what you stated. You stated that if enough people share a particular moral and it doesn't conflict with the morals enshrined in the constitution, then it will become law.

I stated that this is not the case. The Anti-Miscegenation laws became law, despite the fact that they conflicted with the constitution. They were later repealed, yes, but that doesn't negate the fact that they indeed became law and were indeed law for a good 80 years.

What say you about pedophilia and beastiality?

The same as I said before. It is illegal. My opinion on it is moot, just as your opinion on homosexuality is moot, wrt the law of the land.

Um, that's nice. However we are asking this question wrt your personal, inherent, moral code. Not wrt to the law of the land.

So what's your answer?

As I said, my personal, inherent, moral code has nothing to do with pedophilia and beastiality. It's illegal, so that's enough for me. It doesn't matter whether or not I agree or disagree with those practices.