More Ethics!

[Dancing David]

So say someone(Some Poster) starts a thread about morals.

Perhaps a thread about morals on a very touchy subject, like child molestation(not the topic).

This person (SP) then engages in a major name calling debate with some of the people who post to the thread. Some people on the thread agree with the poster(SP) , some disagree with the poster(SP), others agree and then disagree with the poster(SP).

Then SP goes and posts a thread in another forum proving that the people responding to his thread have no morals and that they enjoy sex with thier mothers.

On what grounds is this unethical?

(I have my opinion but will wait and see)

[Yahweh]

I usually like the threads Genghis Pwn starts...

[Dancing David]

It's not GP, and I am being unethical is starting another thread about the ethics of his posting to another forum.

[FireGarden]

Are you talking about entrapment?

As long as people were not coerced into supporting views that are not there own, what is the problem with SP posting at another forum about posters here? This is a public forum anyway.

If SP had a load of friends/sockpuppets that he used to misrepresent the opinions of JREF posters, then that would be unethical. But that's not the original question.

Linking to a public forum has got to be fine.
Surely?


(And is it Rikzilla?)

[Dancing David]

It could be about incest but i won't name the name.

My point is that he started the thread, and then got unhappy when people responded to it as sceptics, then he resorted to vauge threats and name calling.

And now he is using this as some sort of evidence that liberals are soft on incest and that they like sex with thier mothers.

So what are the ethics of starting a thread to just brag about it on another thread? (Somewhat akin to what I am doing, calling attention in yet another thread about it)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David

And now he is using this as some sort of evidence that liberals are soft on incest and that they like sex with thier mothers.



Or, equally factually (if not more so), what liberals have concluded is that there is no logical reason to declare these practices "immoral per se".

Are they using secular humanism or whatever basis they do or do not use to address moral questions, or is the conclusion moral bases do not exist?

[Skeptical Greg]

Maybe if you gave us an actual example of such a thread, we could make a more informed opinion..:D

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk


Or, equally factually (if not more so), what liberals have concluded is that there is no logical reason to declare these practices "immoral per se".

Are they using secular humanism or whatever basis they do or do not use to address moral questions, or is the conclusion moral bases do not exist?

The conclusion that many of us drew was that if
morals are defined as 'not causing harm', then there was no basis for saying that incest caused harm and therefore there was no moral reason for incest to be immorral.

Then many of us also stated that we felt incest was eeww(repugnant in my case).

So where does this say that people approve of incest or having sex with our mothers.

Now if other people would like to define morals as something other than 'do not cause harm' than they are free to do so.

In fact many seem to define morals as , 'not doing things that I find disgusting", and would also include 'others not doing what I find disgusting'.

(And calling us all MFs who enjoy it is unwarranted, only some of us have sex with women that have had children.)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Dancing David
It's not GP, and I am being unethical is starting another thread about the ethics of his posting to another forum.

I don't think so.. I wouldn't have known about the other post if DanishDyno hadn't brought our attention to it.

What I always say about insults, is that they tell you a lot more about the insulter than the insultee..

While I was beginning to have doubts, I now have my icing on the cake regarding Riks credibility and value
( to me ( I'm sure he cares..ho, hum )) as a contributor to any discussion here.

The main regret I have, is that any time I show any conservative leanings, I might be associated with him.

However, I will not let that lead me to proclaim myself a bedwetting, matriarchal, pinko, commie liberal.. :D

The other thing I would like to say, is regarding the particular insult rik chose to emplyoy; Another problem with insulting people you don't know, is that you never can tell when it might actually be a compliment..;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Then SP goes and posts a thread in another forum proving that the people responding to his thread have no morals and that they enjoy sex with thier mothers.

On what grounds is this unethical? Unethical? I'd say, yeah, a little.

A more appropriate term, I think, would be childish. Especially if this hypothetical conversation started out on a relatively benign issue like the morality of homosexuality and SP was the one who drew the moral comparison between that and an issue like the morality of incest.

[Skat Bo]

Possibly SP had an experience of whatever it is he was posting about. Feeling guilty, he started a thread to insult the people who did that - finding what he foud as acceptance (Though it wasn't), he began to feel even more guilty about his actions, and vented his anger at the fact on those who represented what he was feeling inside.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk


Or, equally factually (if not more so), what liberals have concluded is that there is no logical reason to declare these practices "immoral per se".

Are they using secular humanism or whatever basis they do or do not use to address moral questions, or is the conclusion moral bases do not exist?



Prejudice comes in so many shapes and as most times not seen as Prejudice if the words actions are said by them against another yet they are Prejudice if said by others about them.

Also such statements like above are most easily shown to be immature, hateful and illogical.

May I demonstrate.

Hello hammegk my friend.

May I ask that you list the names and address of all liberals that live now and that have ever lived. Then may I ask you present using each liberals full name and location their statements declaring these practices "immoral per se".


Thank you I look forward to this list and your proof.

May you be well and happy.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Also such statements like above are most easily shown to be immature, hateful and illogical.

May I demonstrate.

Hello hammegk my friend.

May I ask that you list the names and address of all liberals that live now and that have ever lived. Then may I ask you present using each liberals full name and location their statements


Thank you I look forward to this list and your proof.

May you be well and happy.
Feel better now?

Make your own lists. Or see if you can refute my statement.

Try reading it with understanding & purpose before you do, rather than complaining about my speech & conduct. Be well & happy yourself, ok?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk

Feel better now?

Make your own lists. Or see if you can refute my statement.

Try reading it with understanding & purpose before you do, rather than complaining about my speech & conduct. Be well & happy yourself, ok?

Greetings hammegk.

Why such anger, I thought it was only under your Franko handle you showed such anger.

From your actions one could jump to the conclusion and say “all” conservatives are as this qoute says Concervtives: Authoritarian personality syndrome: characterzied by exaggerated submission to authority, extreme levels of conformity to conventional standards of behavior, self rightous hostility and punitiveness toward deviants and members of minority groups. Atlemyer limits the syndrome to the political right wing. Right wing authoritarianism is associated wtih hostility toward homosexuals, Aids victims, drug users, the homeless, and environmentalists.

But as you know I do and can not know all Concervtives, what they think and believe as I have pointed out you can not know what all liberals know, think or believe.

Feel better now?

Better then what?


Make your own lists. Or see if you can refute my statement.

I need not make the list, you do you made a statement of fact but present no facts so I again ask.

May I ask that you list the names and address of all liberals that live now and that have ever lived. Then may I ask you present using each liberals full name and location their statements declaring these practices "immoral per se".

The burden if proof is yours. You said Liberals do this or that implying all liberals do this or that I ask simply prove it or your statement is worthless.

There is nothing to refute until you present your facts.

Try reading it with understanding & purpose before you do, rather than complaining about my speech & conduct. Be well & happy yourself, ok?

As you can see my friend I did read it clearly. I again ask you to prove your position.

May I ask that you list the names and address of all liberals that live now and that have ever lived. Then may I ask you present using each liberals full name and location their statements declaring these practices "immoral per se".


And thank your for my wish to be well and happy.

[hammegk]

Pahansiri, please go pound sand.

As you pound, use mindfulness and meditation to examine to your satisfaction "Was Buddha a moral relativist, then? Would he be, now? And I?".

You seem pre-occupied with the irrelevant, my friend.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk
Pahansiri, please go pound sand.

As you pound, use mindfulness and meditation to examine to your satisfaction "Was Buddha a moral relativist, then? Would he be, now? And I?".

You seem pre-occupied with the irrelevant, my friend.


That is really funny hammeGK, and it shows that you are just quoting some empty stuff that someone else said.
The buddha was absolutely a moral ralatavist, he held that only action which lead to peace of mind were the ones that should be persued.

I am sorry that your arthritis is acting up but Mr. P pointed out the fallacy of your statement, you showed you didn't have an argument by just biting him.

As Cleopatra said there is one way to deal with a fussy baby, they are so cute!
Muwah.

Irrelevant in deed , the goal of life is to live a good one, leave your raft behind HammeGK, have you crossed the river and you still carry your raft?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Irrelevant in deed , the goal of life is to live a good one, leave your raft behind HammeGK, have you crossed the river and you still carry your raft?

Touche. My bad. Damn, why don't I just ignore personal attacks rather than responding in kind -- don't count on it.

Anyone care to switch from ad homs to addressing the point I made about "logic" and "morals"? What part of the "logic" underlying every-man-for-himself divisive moral judgements do you see as having a long term benefit for civilization?

Fade has a good example: "Kill some, tiny flags for the rest".

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk
Pahansiri, please go pound sand.

As you pound, use mindfulness and meditation to examine to your satisfaction "Was Buddha a moral relativist, then? Would he be, now? And I?".

You seem pre-occupied with the irrelevant, my friend.

my friend why the need for such anger?

Shall I take it that while you stated "all" liberals are this or that you can not really prove your statement was seek others to just believe you because you said it?

That seems illogical does it not?

You say You seem pre-occupied with the irrelevant, my friend..

How is it irrelevant to ask someone who has made a statement of fact to provide his facts?

Could it be your anger springs from the fact that you were being in your sweeping, prejudice, illogical statement, irrelevant?

Look deeply and ask yourself why you become angry when someone points out a mistake you have made or challenges you.

May you be well and happy I am off to the beach..
:rub:

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk


Touche. My bad. Damn, why don't I just ignore personal attacks rather than responding in kind -- don't count on it.

.

My friend I assume you are suggesting that I made a personal attack on you?

I do not call you a liar and will assume you may have perhaps misread my post to you. May I ask you reread it and post for me in my words where I made a personal attack towards you.

If I did I will be happy to say I am sorry.

Could it be my asking for facts is the real cause of your anger and attacks?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

My friend I assume you are suggesting that I made a personal attack on you?

I do not call you a liar and will assume you may have perhaps misread my post to you. May I ask you reread it and post for me in my words where I made a personal attack towards you.
Phooey. Reread your words under the quote of my words you were discussing. I took offense then, and would do so again.


Could it be my asking for facts is the real cause of your anger and attacks?
I did not take it as a "request for facts". "List all liberals"!

The topic was clear, and my remarks could have reasonably been construed as specific in that posters in the 2 threads in question constitute my sampling of liberals. I.E. make your own "list".

Conversely, perhaps you suggest that moral relativism is a trait you have found in those you don't find "liberal"? I haven't.


Re your next posts's jab, do I seem to you to exhibit "exaggerated submission to authority"? I disagree.
If you wish to attribute the other Conservatives: Authoritarian personality syndrome items listed to me, you should hang out your shingle as a mind-reader & go for the $million.

Do you have anything of substance you'd care to bring up in this thread?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk

Phooey. Reread your words under the quote of my words you were discussing. I took offense then, and would do so again.


I did not take it as a "request for facts". "List all liberals"!

The topic was clear, and my remarks could have reasonably been construed as specific in that posters in the 2 threads in question constitute my sampling of liberals. I.E. make your own "list".

Conversely, perhaps you suggest that moral relativism is a trait you have found in those you don't find "liberal"? I haven't.


Re your next posts's jab, do I seem to you to exhibit "exaggerated submission to authority"? I disagree.
If you wish to attribute the other Conservatives: Authoritarian personality syndrome items listed to me, you should hang out your shingle as a mind-reader & go for the $million.

Do you have anything of substance you'd care to bring up in this thread?


Hello again hammegk


You write:
Phooey. Reread your words under the quote of my words you were discussing. I took offense then, and would do so again.

What I wrote and you refer to:

Prejudice comes in so many shapes and as most times not seen as Prejudice if the words actions are said by them against another yet they are Prejudice if said by others about them.

Also such statements like above are most easily shown to be immature, hateful and illogical.

May I demonstrate.

Hello hammegk my friend.

May I ask that you list the names and address of all liberals that live now and that have ever lived. Then may I ask you present using each liberals full name and location their statements
quote: declaring these practices "immoral per se".


Thank you I look forward to this list and your proof.

May you be well and happy.

My response was to your original post of :
Or, equally factually (if not more so), what liberals have concluded is that there is no logical reason to declare these practices "immoral per se".

Are they using secular humanism or whatever basis they do or do not use to address moral questions, or is the conclusion moral bases do not exist?[quote]

My friend I can not judge what you do and do not personal take “offense” to but there is NO personal attack as you say.

I say clearly what my opinion is as to the STATEMENT, the act not the actor. Remember I said Also such statements like above are most easily shown to be immature, hateful and illogical.

I did not say anything about you I did not attack you but only the statement. I also offered the opportunity to prove your position to which lead you to your anger. I have no control over your anger I can not cause it only you can.

It seems when you are challenged or asked for facts to support your position you become angry again this has nothing to do with the asker it has to do with the person and his anger.

I find it rather silly that you take offense at my asking you to prove your statement and as to my opinion but do not mind branding all liberals this or that or any group or people whom may fall in some form in a group.

Rather silly.



You wrote[quote] I did not take it as a "request for facts". "List all liberals"!


My friend you in another post said to me Try reading it with understanding
I offer to you to do as you say.

It is clear what I asked for: May I ask that you list the names and address of all liberals that live now and that have ever lived. Then may I ask you present using each liberals full name and location their statements
quote: declaring these practices "immoral per se".

As you can I said in a kind and respectful way would you make a list to prove your assertion that ALL liberals do or think this or that.

Again allow me to post YOUR words and statement.

what liberals have concluded is that there is no logical reason to declare these practices "immoral per se".

You did not say some, or half, a third, a quarter no such measure or names etc you said liberals indication all liberals act or think in this one way.

I ask simply for you to prove your position, you become angry and attack me, telling me Pahansiri, please go pound sand.

Again this is hypocrisy on your actions not mine.


The topic was clear, and my remarks could have reasonably been construed as specific in that posters in the 2 threads in question constitute my sampling of liberals. I.E. make your own "list".

I do not find that information in your post or any reference to anyone other then “liberals think this”



Conversely, perhaps you suggest that moral relativism is a trait you have found in those you don't find "liberal"? I haven't.

I have suggested nothing as of yet to that as I am still waiting to see your proof as to your base allegation. We can move on from there when I see your proof.


If I or someone else here said you were wrong because all conservatives were caught in bed with Mrs X and it was this fact that proved you wrong you would want proof.

Why is it you would require facts and become so very angry when challenged?


Sadly I do not expect a response that will be considered real and respectful, factual honest debate so I will excuse myself from this thread.

May you be well and happy.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


Sadly I do not expect a response that will be considered real and respectful, factual honest debate so I will excuse myself from this thread.



Goodbye. You brought nothing, you leave with nothing.

May you feel vindicated.

[Pahansiri]

:Originally posted by Pahansiri


Sadly I do not expect a response that will be considered real and respectful, factual honest debate so I will excuse myself from this thread.


Hammegk “responded”

Goodbye. You brought nothing, you leave with nothing.

May you feel vindicated.

Hmmmm will this qualify me for the million dollars?


No I must assume Mr. Randi will inform me my application was denied what I did was not reading the future but only stating the obvious. Hammegk/Franko is far to predictable to consider this “physic”.

[hammegk]

Having trouble making up your mind? Pounding sand while meditating might help.

[Fade]

Fade has a good example: "Kill some, tiny flags for the rest".

What?

I said "abortions for some, tiny american flags for the rest!"

The point was "don't get an abortion if you happen to think they are immoral."

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk
Having trouble making up your mind? Pounding sand while meditating might help. :rub:

[hammegk]

Should not moral relativists expect a decline in ethics?

You know

eth·ic
A set of principles of right conduct.
A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain” (Gregg Easterbrook).

ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.

How can one be "ethical" if there is no agreed moral basis?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk
Should not moral relativists expect a decline in ethics?

You know


How can one be "ethical" if there is no agreed moral basis?

First off, I don't think that you can prove that moral systems lead to ethics!

If we look at the abuse of church power, this will show that you can state you have ethic based on morals but they don't exist.


How to define morals?

Some thoughts,

A. To not cause harm.
B. To not force choices on others.
C. To not use 'power of position' unwisely.


A. gets right to the issue of abortion. Abortion cause harm to the inborn child, no doubt.
But then we kill animals to eat them, we kill people to prevent greater evil in wars, we kill all sorts of things. So often there is a decision made on which harm is greater.

B gets into what I conssider to be the 'ethics' area. In social work and many professions we can screw up the lives of others by making choices for them, that are against thier choices.

C. Another area of ethics, if your bosss selss Amway, you will feel obliged to buy.

What else should, could we add here?