Pro-Life Women Shift to Majority?

[Fred]

'never did address my example where I proved that murder and rape are indeed the wrong sorts of behavior'

Umm, you never PROVED this. As before, if there was a viking deity, all parties involved go to Valhalla, so rather than the wrong thing to do, it seems more like it was the RIGHT thing to do.

Just b/c I dont like murder and rape, b/c I think its bad for society, doesn't mean that I accept it as an axiom.

 

[Sabastian]

The Sokal hoax is one of my favorite papers, and I have parts of it posted in my office. However, by no means does it attack moral relativism (read his book, he says as much), feminism and other postmodernist views. It does however challenge the BOUNDARIES to which they are applicable. The second they are applied to the physical universe, the position becomes untenable (eg notions like human beings 'create' their own physical reality independant of physical law). It also pokes fun at the silly vocabulary and fuzzy logic that seems to have pervaded fields of philosophy and social theory.

Doesn't it give you good reason to doubt the interpretation that your truth is not my truth? Or that you are living in a seperate world of your own creation? He attacks specifically epistemic relativism and this is his original motivation for the article.

 

[Sabastian]

'never did address my example where I proved that murder and rape are indeed the wrong sorts of behavior'

Umm, you never PROVED this. As before, if there was a viking deity, all parties involved go to Valhalla, so rather than the wrong thing to do, it seems more like it was the RIGHT thing to do.

Just b/c I dont like murder and rape, b/c I think its bad for society, doesn't mean that I accept it as an axiom.

You are saying that Valhalla is an equivalent then? Which is a better reason based on what we know? Cultural relativism is total bull.

 

[Fred]

I live in your world, and you live in mine. The PHYSICAL one. You may have a different reality than mine (for instance different sensory perceptions) but fundamentally if you jump off a building you will fall to your death, and an experiment in both our worlds will confirm this.

Who said the physical world had to have physical (and therefore testable) morals? Complete strawman.

Read the book, he makes this point abundantly clear. Neither MFA or I, believe in alternate realities.

 

[Sabastian]

I live in your world, and you live in mine. The PHYSICAL one. You may have a different reality than mine (for instance different sensory perceptions) but fundamentally if you jump off a building you will fall to your death, and an experiment in both our worlds will confirm this.

Who said the physical world had to have physical (and therefore testable) morals? Complete strawman.

Read the book, he makes this point abundantly clear. Neither MFA or I, believe in alternate realities.

Now you are making my argument. Based on correlations between my world and your world it would be hazardous to jump off buildings and may cause you pain or even death. Therefore we could conclude that it is bad to jump off buildings. An experiment in both our worlds that makes such a conclusion would be also an indication that we are indeed in the same world and live under the same fundamental truths and therefore the truth would not be relative to the individual.

 

[Gubbi]

Don't mix physical and meta-physical for Jeff's sake.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[Sabastian]

Don't mix physical and meta-physical for Jeff's sake.

Cheers
Gubbi

What exactly is the implication of meta-physical? Supernatural etc? Or are you implying that jumping off tall buildings is not something that would be harmful?

EDIT: I suppose that you may have been making referance to Valhalla.

 

[MfA]

A small thought experiment ... what fundamental difference is there between esthetics and morals which makes your "reasoning" apply only to the second?

Human nature connects to two. How come everyone would choose ice cream over.... wood chips?

Human nature also does not dictate a complete set for either. Why does not everyone "like chocolate ice cream over vanilla"?

To believe your reasoning dictates a true and complete set of morals you should also believe it dictates a true and complete set of esthetical values. So if you were consistent then to you a matter of taste should no longer be a matter of taste

You still have not explained too me how your truth is different then mine. Must be living in another universe then I live in. You ignored all the problems with relativism over all and too attempt to disprove my arguments you try to go and use taste as some sort of proof that we are living in a world were there is no truth but your own.

If there can be no truth to taste then there can be no truth to morals.

You never did address my example where I proved that murder and rape are indeed the wrong sorts of behavior.

That is a lie.

Why can almost all people agree on certain aspects of morality?
It is part of human nature.

Why cant almost all people agree on all aspects of morality?
Not all aspects of morality are part of human nature.

I don't need to worry if you like chocolate ice cream over vanilla, that is irrelevant.

Au contraire, to you one taste should be the true taste ... after all the truth of a physical reality automatically means all has to be right or wrong.

All I have to do is make you declare that yes there are shared truths and moral relativism is dead in the water.

Poppycock.

Isn't it absolutely wrong for an adult to abuse an immature child? Or is that some sort of thing I imagined was wrong in my universe and not a part of yours?

Another in the murder is bad series, Ill just go on repeatedly showing that quite contrary to what I am accused of I do address things. Yes I think it is wrong too, and think most humans in this universe would agree (cant vouch for aliens though).

My turn ... sex outside of a monogamous relationship, right or wrong? Or is that last question irrelevant outside of a cultural/religious context?

 

[Gubbi]

Don't mix physical and meta-physical for Jeff's sake.

Cheers
Gubbi

What exactly is the implication of meta-physical? Supernatural etc? Or are you implying that jumping off tall buildings is not something that would be harmful?

EDIT: I suppose that you may have been making referance to Valhalla.

Probably poor wording from me.

You argued:

Based on correlations between my world and your world it would be hazardous to jump off buildings and may cause you pain or even death. Therefore we could conclude that it is bad to jump off buildings. An experiment in both our worlds that makes such a conclusion would be also an indication that we are indeed in the same world and live under the same fundamental truths and therefore the truth would not be relative to the individual.

You state that since the physical experience of jumping off a building is the same for you and Fred (physical laws of nature and their effects being observable, objective phenomenons) then all laws (truths) are shared among you and Fred (the context still being your objection to moral relativity).

To which I'll argue, that "moral" is an abstract construct (meta-physical), entirely subjective and hence unique to any one individual.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[V3]

To which I'll argue, that "moral" is an abstract construct (meta-physical), entirely subjective and hence unique to any one individual.

So you are saying the moral of jumping off tall building is subjective ?

That explain fools that suicided off high rise building.

 

[Sabastian]

Human nature also does not dictate a complete set for either. Why does not everyone "like chocolate ice cream over vanilla"?

To believe your reasoning dictates a true and complete set of morals you should also believe it dictates a true and complete set of esthetical values. So if you were consistent then to you a matter of taste should no longer be a matter of taste

Since when is murder a matter of taste? Objectively speaking people like ice cream over wood chips, how is that for taste. Or do you make equivalence between ice cream and wood chips? Human nature does not have to dictate a complete set it only needs one truth to dismiss relativism to the dust bin.

If there can be no truth to taste then there can be no truth to morals.

See above. Human nature says humans love sugar but not wood chips or is that simply a matter of taste?

You never did address my example where I proved that murder and rape are indeed the wrong sorts of behavior.

That is a lie.

What is? The fact that you never addressed the post or that I was wrong in my proof? There is no one that would ever not protest this behavior. Relative my ass.

Argh, I give up! You guys are right somehow. However now that you have convinced me that there is nothing that is absolutely right or wrong I have come to the conclusion that sense moral relativist are convinced that I can do no absolute wrong I would like to begin killing any whom hold that belief exclusively. Fred, Marco if you would please state your real names and addresses so that I may visit you and we could entertain the idea that I can do no wrong. When I come to visit you I will bring an extremely long sharp chefs knife with which I will use to implement my new found moral relativism. I expect that there would be little in the way of protest from my moral relativist acquaintances as that would suggest that indeed I was doing something wrong. First I would incapacitate you in some manner so that you are not dead and in pain but not able move or act against me. Then if your wife or girlfriend is present I would make a visit with her and in front of you rape her then merely cut her throat. Then while she is dieing in front of you with your last breath pending I would dismember you until you succumb to death. After I do that then I will start a campaign that any whom are moral relativist should have similar visits. Would it be absolutely wrong to kill only moral relativist or should I take a wider mark? Would this be acceptable? Wouldn't the protest from each and everyone of the intended victims be an indication that indeed I am doing something wrong or no?

[action]Shivers[/action] I am sorry for writing that above I never would do such a thing as I believe doing something like that is absolutely wrong no matter whom is the intended victim. So if something similar to that should ever come to be I want you to know I would discourage that absolutely with no exceptions. It was a hypothetical situation to prove my point.

Why can almost all people agree on certain aspects of morality?
It is part of human nature.

Why cant almost all people agree on all aspects of morality?
Not all aspects of morality are part of human nature.

Cultural relativism says that all morals are socially contrived therefore it is unreasonable to criticize another culture. Moral relativism is a derivative of that and it says that since all morals are culturally derived it should be up to the individual to make decisions of morality. Because all morals are a social construct we conclude that morals are all intrinsically flawed in that they are mere social constructs and no human nature is applied to such an equation. If you prove that there is some constant found in human nature as you (and I would agree.) did with regards to sexual and physical abuse of children then that implicitly states that not all morals are a social construct and something found in our nature that is absolutely connected to our biology that is an effect of evolution is indeed connected in some way with the nature of the universe derived entirely from the beginning of Universe. Relativism says there are no absolutes but you clearly indicated that there is in human nature, one could conclude that you do not really believe in the cannons of moral relativism.

Au contraire, to you one taste should be the true taste ... after all the truth of a physical reality automatically means all has to be right or wrong.

lol, you are missing the point. We love sugar, what could be more tasteful then that.

All I have to do is make you declare that yes there are shared truths and moral relativism is dead in the water.

Poppycock.

No it is not. If you live in the same world as me then you are subject to the same truths. You are forced to argue for a different reality were your truth is not the same as mine. Again if all morals are socially contrived then how could there be one trait found in human nature that would reject anything.

Isn't it absolutely wrong for an adult to abuse an immature child? Or is that some sort of thing I imagined was wrong in my universe and not a part of yours?

Another in the murder is bad series, Ill just go on repeatedly showing that quite contrary to what I am accused of I do address things. Yes I think it is wrong too, and think most humans in this universe would agree (cant vouch for aliens though).

My turn ... sex outside of a monogamous relationship, right or wrong? Or is that last question irrelevant outside of a cultural/religious context?

Well, monogamous relationships are a product of the natural family involving mother, father children. Woman and men were and still are quite emotionally attached with the people whom they mate with. Further the arrangement of the natural family is directly linked to our biology via reproduction. One of the defining characteristics of life is that it reproduces. I do not need a religious or cultural context to give you reasoning behind monogamous relationships, it is virtually the favored familial model in all cultures and it is a derivative of human biology.

Why do you think it is wrong to sexually abuse children?

If there is an instance were someone likes little boys and thinks that they ought to be used for personal sexual gratification do you think that we as individuals should dismiss that moral?

You never did say that it would be wrong for society to dismiss such a moral and you snipped it out.

Yeah, but mine is still better than yours

How is your morality better then mine. As compared to what standard? Yours? Again if you are a moral relativist then by the nature of moral relativism yours could never be better only equivalent in that your truth is different then mine and so therefore my truth no better then yours.

It is contrary to human nature in general

Yeah I agree and you are not a moral relativist.

BECAUSE, now stop asking why

Sound more like some sort of moral authoritarian here.

On some actions we can disagree obviously, given the original topic of the thread.

Sure we can disagree but if we agree that human nature is the cause for any human behavior then indeed moral relativism is a myth.

<Must fight urge to make movie quote.>

I would have loved for you to make that famous quote as the man on the stand in that film was being questioned about the truth of a man whom was murdered. He believed that the murder was justifiable. Thankfully he was found guilty. So if morals are left to the individual on all matters then how are we to have any sort of justice? Since the man whom likes to bugger little boys most definitely knows that he has done something wrong should not society hold this moral up in the court of law? If in truth there is no right and wrong then it would be unjust to find him guilty of doing something wrong. Same would apply to murder.

There is no reason to being, there is no reason to morality ... there is no reason to anything. Let go of reason, you want to know the truth? There is no truth.

There is truth and we are surrounded by it and it just so happens it is not a different reality or world but the same one and we are subject to the same absolute truths, otherwise we would not be here. If you truly believe that there is no reason to anything then go bugger some children, rape some woman, murder your mother for not killing you in her womb and so on. To argue there is no reason for anything is a sociopaths argument and rational to do whatever they like. Are any of the above reasons outside of your own truth as you put it then you abandon the principles of moral relativism.

 

[MfA]

Since when is murder a matter of taste?

Since we cannot agree what constitutes a human being.

Human nature does not have to dictate a complete set it only needs one truth to dismiss relativism to the dust bin.

This was not how I defined moral relativism, IMO relativism is a weaker word than absolutism and can acknowledge common ground. Hell, never let it be said I cant compromise though ...

I like the term moral anti-realist better anyway.

Morals cannot be absolute without everything to which morals apply being absolutely right or wrong though ... so it is quite undeniable that to disprove moral absolutism you need only show one fundamentally unstable moral view across culture and time.

Well, monogamous relationships are a product of the natural family involving mother, father children.

Natural?

Woman and men were and still are quite emotionally attached with the people whom they mate with.

Mating != sex.

Further the arrangement of the natural family is directly linked to our biology via reproduction. One of the defining characteristics of life is that it reproduces. I do not need a religious or cultural context to give you reasoning behind monogamous relationships, it is virtually the favored familial model in all cultures and it is a derivative of human biology.

This is all quite besides the point, you did not answer the question.

Why do you think it is wrong to sexually abuse children?

I do not need reason, I have none in this case beyond simple empathy.

If there is an instance were someone likes little boys and thinks that they ought to be used for personal sexual gratification do you think that we as individuals should dismiss that moral?

You never did say that it would be wrong for society to dismiss such a moral and you snipped it out.

Well Id still say it was wrong, but depending on how stable the society was it might say something on how fundamental this particular moral is.

Yeah, but mine is still better than yours

How is your morality better then mine. As compared to what standard?

By simple virtue of being mine.

Again if you are a moral relativist then by the nature of moral relativism yours could never be better only equivalent in that your truth is different then mine and so therefore my truth no better then yours.

Only to an objective observer, in the end though there can be no objectivism where morals are concerned.

Sure we can disagree but if we agree that human nature is the cause for any human behavior then indeed moral relativism is a myth.

Free will too.

So if morals are left to the individual on all matters then how are we to have any sort of justice?

Like it always happens in practice, by us using persuasion and force to impose our justice on others.

Since the man whom likes to bugger little boys most definitely knows that he has done something wrong should not society hold this moral up in the court of law?

Some do, some dont. The mind is a fragile thing.

If you truly believe that there is no reason to anything then go bugger some children, rape some woman, murder your mother for not killing you in her womb and so on. To argue there is no reason for anything is a sociopaths argument and rational to do whatever they like.

The host of honourable men who have refused to elevate natural imperatives to fundamental reason are not done justice by calling them sociopaths.

 

[notAFanB]

Now you are making my argument. Based on correlations between my world and your world it would be hazardous to jump off buildings and may cause you pain or even death. Therefore we could conclude that it is bad to jump off buildings. An experiment in both our worlds that makes such a conclusion would be also an indication that we are indeed in the same world and live under the same fundamental truths and therefore the truth would not be relative to the individual.

please do not introduce undistributed middle like that. it fudges the issues and I have a hard time follwing your arguements.

If you truly believe that there is no reason to anything then go bugger some children, rape some woman, murder your mother for not killing you in her womb and so on. To argue there is no reason for anything is a sociopaths argument and rational to do whatever they like.

er no thanks, maybe on my break.

 

[Sabastian]

Since when is murder a matter of taste?

Since we cannot agree what constitutes a human being.

Since you refuse to acknowledge that a developing human inside a woman is human. Your denial does not negate the fact that even a human zygote is still only a human in development.

Human nature does not have to dictate a complete set it only needs one truth to dismiss relativism to the dust bin.

This was not how I defined moral relativism, IMO relativism is a weaker word than absolutism and can acknowledge common ground. Hell, never let it be said I cant compromise though ...

I do not really give a dam about how you define relativism. I presented its exactness in my last post and you basically ignored it in favor for your own in which case you are not a relativist. Here it is again.

Cultural relativism says that all morals are socially contrived therefore it is unreasonable to criticize another culture. Moral relativism is a derivative of that and it says that since all morals are culturally derived it should be up to the individual to make decisions of morality. Because all morals are a social construct we conclude that morals are all intrinsically flawed in that they are mere social constructs and no human nature is applied to such an equation.

This is definitive. In other words you are not a moral relativist if you do not believe that all morals are socially contrived. Do I have to post a link or what.

I like the term moral anti-realist better anyway.

Ahh that surely makes sense.

realism
n 1: art and literature that represents events and social conditions as they actually are (without idealization) 2: the attribute of accepting the facts of life and favoring practicality and literal truth 3: the state of being actual or real: "the reality of his situation slowly dawned on him" [syn: reality, realness] [ant: unreality] 4: the philosophical doctrine that physical object continue to exist when not perceived [syn: naive realism] 5: an artistic movement in 19th century France; artists and writers strove for detailed realistic and factual description [syn: naturalism] 6: the philosophical doctrine that abstract concepts exist independent of their names [syn: Platonism]

Morals cannot be absolute without everything to which morals apply being absolutely right or wrong though ... so it is quite undeniable that to disprove moral absolutism you need only show one fundamentally unstable moral view across culture and time.

Instability means nothing. I believe that society may have wrong moralities. But you insist that morality is some sort of intuitive magic in that you somehow know that you are doing wrong but you do not seem to have a inkling as to why it is absolutely wrong to sexually abuse children.

Well, monogamous relationships are a product of the natural family involving mother, father children.

Natural?

I always have to laugh when I see how unaware people are to human kinds own nature. Yes I mean absolutely natural family. Do you have a father? Do you have a mother? You are from a naturally forming family and so is everyone hence my usage of the label of natural family. What other sorts of human families reproduce?

Woman and men were and still are quite emotionally attached with the people whom they mate with.

Mating != sex.

heh, Sex = reproductive activity. Even if you do not manage to create life you are only triggering your hardwired reproductive biology.

Further the arrangement of the natural family is directly linked to our biology via reproduction. One of the defining characteristics of life is that it reproduces. I do not need a religious or cultural context to give you reasoning behind monogamous relationships, it is virtually the favored familial model in all cultures and it is a derivative of human biology.

This is all quite besides the point, you did not answer the question.

No I do not think that there is anything wrong with a monogamous relationship. I think they are good.

Why do you think it is wrong to sexually abuse children?

I do not need reason, I have none in this case beyond simple empathy.

You do not need one because you do not have one or you simply would like to refrain from making a reference to human nature as you did before? I do not have a problem saying that children are not mature enough for sex, how about you?

If there is an instance were someone likes little boys and thinks that they ought to be used for personal sexual gratification do you think that we as individuals should dismiss that moral?

You never did say that it would be wrong for society to dismiss such a moral and you snipped it out.

Well Id still say it was wrong, but depending on how stable the society was it might say something on how fundamental this particular moral is.

Should they have laws to ban such a sexuality or not? Should they continue to let the abuse go on? If it was a stabile society would that make it acceptable then?

Yeah, but mine is still better than yours

How is your morality better then mine. As compared to what standard?

By simple virtue of being mine.

This is not a rational or anything at all. It is a dogmatic insistence that you are correct. Just as dogmatic as your insistence that there is no truth in morality, absolutely so. Your convictions of insisting that yours are somehow better without any qualification for them are petty.

Again if you are a moral relativist then by the nature of moral relativism yours could never be better only equivalent in that your truth is different then mine and so therefore my truth no better then yours.

Only to an objective observer, in the end though there can be no objectivism where morals are concerned.

How do you feel about cause and effect?

Sure we can disagree but if we agree that human nature is the cause for any human behavior then indeed moral relativism is a myth.

Free will too.

Then you believe in destiny obviously were there is no free will or choice.

So if morals are left to the individual on all matters then how are we to have any sort of justice?

Like it always happens in practice, by us using persuasion and force to impose our justice on others.

Like stifling a debate by insisting there is no truth, but then always still making some sort of supposed objective judgment based on of all things, intuition. I think that the last sort of judge I would want to sit in front of would never consider objective evidence to determine the truth of the matter. There is a taste of that Nazi with that might makes right in your using force rather then rational and truth. As for persuasion by asserting that there is no truth nothing can be resolved and thus anyone that disputes anothers view as being objectionable is stonewalled as soon as it becomes a matter of opinion. You are not able to persuade anyone if in reality truth is relative.

Since the man whom likes to bugger little boys most definitely knows that he has done something wrong should not society hold this moral up in the court of law?

Some do, some dont. The mind is a fragile thing.

We can easily provide a rational or even [horror]logic[/horror] to the equation. Unless the man was a complete moral idiot he would not know he was doing something wrong. Or he lives in a society that thinks it is acceptable and therefore not reprehensible, right? We can use logic and rationality to determine that indeed that societies morals are an inferior sort.

If you truly believe that there is no reason to anything then go bugger some children, rape some woman, murder your mother for not killing you in her womb and so on. To argue there is no reason for anything is a sociopaths argument and rational to do whatever they like.

The host of honourable men who have refused to elevate natural imperatives to fundamental reason are not done justice by calling them sociopaths.

Again, the logic of relativism is one of a sociopath. That does not mean that you are a sociopath if you think you are a relativist. It would logically be the rational of choice for a sociopath.

But I want to get back to my post that you all but ignored.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=141093&highlight=#141093

With regards to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics what problems do you have with it given the Copenhagens seemingly unqualified determinations? With particular emphasis on these.

Copenhagen interpretation leads to observations that clearly imply three unsurmountable difficulties,
a) negation of causality
b) negation of realism and
c) involvement of infinite and imaginary velocities or masses.

Also what do you think of this?

On the myth that quantum rules are applicable to macroscopic objects

http://www.thinhtran.com/heisenberg.html

Conclusion
The Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle rocked the world of science when it was first announced in 1927. It was promoted by best selling science trade books in the 1970's and 1980's as conclusive evidence that the line between science and mysticism had become fuzzy. But as you can see from this article, the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is simply a natural consequence of the resolution limits of classical space and time. In fact, operationally it is no different than an engineering measurement problem. I hope I have been successful in bringing this celebrated principle back to common sense. Your criticism will be helpful and is deeply appreciated.

Would you deny this mans opinion?

Scientific research is a human activity, too human maybe. All this justifies subjecting it to careful and reasoned analysis from a historical, sociological and philosophical viewpoint. But it does not warrant sloppy thinking or radical relativism.

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/10/12/2

 

[V3]

Since you refuse to acknowledge that a developing human inside a woman is human. Your denial does not negate the fact that even a human zygote is still only a human in development.

Human is always in development, from zygote till the day you die. A zygote is no less of human being than a foetus, baby, child, teenage, adult and grandma&pa.

 

[MfA]

Since you refuse to acknowledge that a developing human inside a woman is human.

Another lie

I presented its exactness in my last post and you basically ignored it in favor for your own

That is as much my perogative as it is yours.

Cultural relativism says that all morals are socially contrived therefore it is unreasonable to criticize another culture. Moral relativism is a derivative of that and it says that since all morals are culturally derived it should be up to the individual to make decisions of morality. Because all morals are a social construct we conclude that morals are all intrinsically flawed in that they are mere social constructs and no human nature is applied to such an equation.

That is a straw man.

This is definitive. In other words you are not a moral relativist if you do not believe that all morals are socially contrived. Do I have to post a link or what.

Well sure, any site which doesnt try to distract from the shaky foundations of moral absolutism and their own morals by attacking straw men versions of moral relativism would be fine.

I believe that society may have wrong moralities.

Even if your true morality exists then if the true morality is unknowable, and morals can only be selected from within a certain range, it's existence is of little help to you.

They might be wrong, but that doesnt mean anyone can proove them wrong ... in fact the chance of anyone ever being totally right is nihil.

But you insist that morality is some sort of intuitive magic in that you somehow know that you are doing wrong but you do not seem to have a inkling as to why it is absolutely wrong to sexually abuse children.

You juxtapose these two things, while they are in complete accordance with eachother ... strange.

I always have to laugh when I see how unaware people are to human kinds own nature. Yes I mean absolutely natural family. Do you have a father? Do you have a mother? You are from a naturally forming family and so is everyone hence my usage of the label of natural family. What other sorts of human families reproduce?

Lots of cultures care raise children in much larger group, seems to be morally justifieable.

This is all quite besides the point, you did not answer the question.

No I do not think that there is anything wrong with a monogamous relationship. I think they are good.

A valid answer to an unasked question, and you accuse me of not answering? Hah.

I do not need reason, I have none in this case beyond simple empathy.

You do not need one because you do not have one or you simply would like to refrain from making a reference to human nature as you did before?

The former, what shaped my feelings does not give me a personal reason to have them ... my feelings simply are, I need no reason to them.

I do not have a problem saying that children are not mature enough for sex, how about you?

Then the problem becomes what constitutes a child.

Should they have laws to ban such a sexuality or not?

I think they should.

Should they continue to let the abuse go on?

I think they should not

If it was a stabile society would that make it acceptable then?

Not to me.

It would be a nail in the coffin for moral absolutism though.

By simple virtue of being mine.

This is not a rational or anything at all.

It is how I feel.

It is a dogmatic insistence that you are correct.

Correctness in matters as ethereal as philosophy is so relative ... I dont think Im 100% correct, although I do think most of your arguements are fallacious, I just like my theories better than yours (ask me why! .

Your convictions of insisting that yours are somehow better without any qualification for them are petty.

The only difference between you and me is that I acknowledge that some things have no reason to them. I am a-rational, you are irrational.

Only to an objective observer, in the end though there can be no objectivism where morals are concerned.

How do you feel about cause and effect?

I think it holds in general, but I am not entirely convinced time travel is impossible.

Sure we can disagree but if we agree that human nature is the cause for any human behavior then indeed moral relativism is a myth.

Free will too.

Then you believe in destiny obviously were there is no free will or choice.

Well as I said before my bet is on the universe being deterministic, but I dont like to dwell on that ... Id rather pretend we do have free will.

So with my mental block back in place ... I believe human nature is not applicable to every part of human behaviour, there are situations where human nature is in internal conflict or even irrelevant and where we have freedom.

Like stifling a debate by insisting there is no truth, but then always still making some sort of supposed objective judgment based on of all things, intuition.

I said objectivity was impossible in morality, so while it might supposedly be objective it wasnt me doing the supposing.

I think that the last sort of judge I would want to sit in front of would never consider objective evidence to determine the truth of the matter.

For better or for worse making moral judgements is not a judges main task.

There is a taste of that Nazi with that might makes right in your using force rather then rational and truth.

They lost, they were wrong.

As for persuasion by asserting that there is no truth nothing can be resolved and thus anyone that disputes anothers view as being objectionable is stonewalled as soon as it becomes a matter of opinion.

Inability to compromise on moral views is universal ... professed belief in moral absolutism/relativism is quite irrelevant (although recognition of this fact is of course just one more nail in the moral absolutist coffin).

You are not able to persuade anyone if in reality truth is relative.

That is why we need democracy.

Conclusion
The Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle rocked the world of science when it was first announced in 1927. It was promoted by best selling science trade books in the 1970's and 1980's as conclusive evidence that the line between science and mysticism had become fuzzy. But as you can see from this article, the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is simply a natural consequence of the resolution limits of classical space and time. In fact, operationally it is no different than an engineering measurement problem. I hope I have been successful in bringing this celebrated principle back to common sense. Your criticism will be helpful and is deeply appreciated.

Would you deny this mans opinion?

I really dont know enough about it to lean one way or the other.

What was important to me that he is a scientist, he recognises that in general all measurements are imprecise ... and as such that as in all sciences there can be no fundamental truths in physics, even if they exist in reality. It can only be narrowed down to a range of possibilities.

 

[Sabastian]

Correctness in matters as ethereal as philosophy is so relative ... I dont think Im 100% correct, although I do think most of your arguements are fallacious, I just like my theories better than yours (ask me why! .

Whatever! its all relative anyhow!! Your truth could never be better then mine! bla bla bla.... the truth is there is no truth so yours could be no better. Wait a minute, mine is definitly better then yours. Stop making "straman" arguments. Obviously the developing human is human and they have rights just like you and me even though there is no right or wrong I am right. bla bla bla.

How is it to argue with the same sort of logic?

 

[Sabastian]

They lost, they were wrong.

They were wrong? How could that be if there is no right or wrong? bla bla bla there is no right or wrong in morality its all relative man! Might is right is absolutely justifiable if it is all relative right? Oh, excuse me there I must have backslided for a second. There is no truth in morality. bla bla bla. Somehow, my morality is better then yours and that is absolutely justified on my sense of intuition. bla bla bla. If morals are not socially contrived then were do they come from? Must be magical intuition, logic and rationality could never be applied to morals, somehow there is no cause and effect in human behavior. Bullshit.

 

[MfA]

Showing reason cannot be applied when argueing about morals merely prooves my point.

 

[Sabastian]

Showing reason cannot be applied when argueing about morals merely prooves my point.

Reason and logic absolutely cannot be applied to morals blablabla there are no absolutes in morality.. It is all relative stop making strawman arguments! You have no point because there is no truth bla bla bla. Abortion is wrong and that is my truth.