Bush Has Shown Us A Perfect Example Of A Moral Absolutist - What Are You?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Ahhh, the famous moral absolutism vs. moral relativism debate. Some people believe that morals are and should be 'absolute', one moral law, and others realize that they are relative, that individuals/societies should have the right to contrive their own moralities, myself included.

Moral absolutism is what Bush has been exercising when he feels that we need to liberate Iraq, or what someone uses when they say that another culture does things in a 'wrong' or 'sick' way. Bush uses his beliefs that our culture is correct to force his beliefs upon others. Does this sound like you? Do you feel it's right to force your beliefs upon others as well?

Moral Absolutism

Moral relativists say that there is no such thing as right or wrong per se, but more of what the culture/society says or feels about certain actions/beliefs. Moral relativism is much more of a 'freedom' belief in that it understands that others have different beliefs and ways of doing certain things.

Moral Relativism

To sum it up, this is where I believe our freedom is fleeting, and religion hinders us as a civilization, this is where a great amount of today's problems come from. People should have the freedom to choose how best to live their lives without outsiders controlling them.

Unless your actions hinder or harm another, it should be legal. Do you feel it's right to force your beliefs upon others who do not harm or hinder? Are you a Moral Absolutist or a Moral Relativist?

Unless the we have the freedom to run our own lives, I don't care what anyone else says, this is NOT the free country it claims to be.

[edit on 9/16/2008 by bigbert81]




posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Bush is a moral relativist. How can a moral person hire an amoral character such as Carl Rove to be a key political advisor? It's as if the Pope were to hire Satan as the PR person for the Vatican. Bush's moral stance is only for public consumption. It has no substance. If I should give him the benefit of the doubt and concede that he really believes that he acts from a moral imperative, then I can only conclude that he is not smart enough to notice the contradictions.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   
SOunds like you would make a good libertarian Bert, if you aren't one already.

I would agree with you, that the right or wrong of one's actions shoudl be defined as to how they help or hurt other people, instead of according to a concrete law.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Ameneter
 


Bush BSing people for his own personal agendas?!? Not possible!!!

And moral relativists ARE moral.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


There is only one moral absolute, which is MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, or DO WHAT THOU WILT.
This is always practiced, and very generally recognized, unlike DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE OTHERS DO UNTO YOU, which is a trick and a trap and self-contradictory and a disease...and which is seldom practiced, and if practiced little-noticed or recognized...Can a moral absolute be a secret?... Well, that's another question...



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
I'd have to say I find the idea of morality relative anyway. To me morality has always been a concern over the greater good or greater evil rather than simply right or wrong. And society is generally recognized as the greater good. But since society is an amoral body, the ideas of right and wrong don't apply. Withing the structure of society is about yours and mine.

But on a personal level, I'm something of an absolutist. I believe its unquestionably wrong to infringe on the right to live and be left alone which is a sword that cuts both ways.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


Whoa, bigbert. Slow down the steamroller.



Some people believe that morals are and should be 'absolute', one moral law, and others realize that they are relative

(Emphasis mine)

In your first paragraph you've already established that your opinion, that of moral relativists, is obviously right while the opinions of moral absolutists are ridiculous and incorrect. Well if that's not absolutism then I don't know what is.



Moral absolutism is what Bush has been exercising when he feels that we need to liberate Iraq


I disagree. What President Bush was execrising was bad judgement. The fact is that we have no idea of the real reason he decided to invade Iraq; we only know what he has told us, which was that the US needed to preclude Iraq from using weapons of mass destruction on innocent people. Even from a relativist standpoint, does the President not have an obligation to his electorate to protect them and uphold national security?


Does this sound like you? Do you feel it's right to force your beliefs upon others as well?


Moral absolutism is the belief that right and wrong are cross-cultural. It only occurs in the mind and is therefore not an act of force or an act at all. The act of forcing one's belief on another is simply bullying and has nothing to do with the relativist vs. absolutist debate.



Unless your actions hinder or harm another, it should be legal. Do you feel it's right to force your beliefs upon others who do not harm or hinder?


This much I agree with. However, you're asking the wrong question. The question should be, "What harms others?" Is the definition of what harms others relative or absolute? I believe it is absolute. Like it or not there are things which are always wrong. Rape. Murder. Subjugatioin. These things have absolutely no place in society. Yet there are groups of people that believe that they do.

Take for example Subjugation. There are groups of people on every populated continent who believe that women have no purpose in this life but to procreate and be the property of a man. Would you say that this treatment of women is alright because these groups believe it is alright? Or is it wrong because subjugation is universally wrong? These groups do not believe that they are harming a woman by treating her as property. Instead, they believe they are protecting her from a harsh world which she lacks the mental capacity and physical fortitude to deal with. Are they wrong even though they are acting in the best interest of women by their own standards? I, the moral absolutist, would answer in the affirmative.

But while I hold this opinion, I do not force it on others. So you see, the use of force has nothing to do with absolutism vs. relativism, but it has everything to do with the character of a person.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by sc2099
 




In your first paragraph you've already established that your opinion, that of moral relativists, is obviously right while the opinions of moral absolutists are ridiculous and incorrect. Well if that's not absolutism then I don't know what is.


I'm arguing differing viewpoints. When I say 'others realize that they are relative', that is because morals ARE relative. It's a fact. If I said 2+2=5 was incorrect, does that make me a absolutist as well?



What President Bush was execrising was bad judgement. The fact is that we have no idea of the real reason he decided to invade Iraq; we only know what he has told us, which was that the US needed to preclude Iraq from using weapons of mass destruction on innocent people.


The REAL reasons for going into Iraq are irrelevant in this thread. The point was the EXAMPLE he is making by what he tells us, NOT the underlying issues.



Even from a relativist standpoint, does the President not have an obligation to his electorate to protect them and uphold national security?


Fear is the greatest impediment to the achievement of peace

The reason this war was illegal in the first place, is because it's a PREEMPTIVE war. The lawmakers of the UN understood that when you give countries reasons to invade other countries based purely off of speculation, that there is nothing to stop any country from invading any other country.



The act of forcing one's belief on another is simply bullying and has nothing to do with the relativist vs. absolutist debate.


Wrong, because when I throw this other quote from you into the mix,



Like it or not there are things which are always wrong. Rape. Murder. Subjugatioin. These things have absolutely no place in society.


this is the type of belief you hold causes others who share them to act into forcing other people into following them, hence the absolutism:


I believe it is absolute




Take for example Subjugation. There are groups of people on every populated continent who believe that women have no purpose in this life but to procreate and be the property of a man. Would you say that this treatment of women is alright because these groups believe it is alright? Or is it wrong because subjugation is universally wrong? These groups do not believe that they are harming a woman by treating her as property. Instead, they believe they are protecting her from a harsh world which she lacks the mental capacity and physical fortitude to deal with. Are they wrong even though they are acting in the best interest of women by their own standards? I, the moral absolutist, would answer in the affirmative.


It depends upon the culture and it's beliefs. Universally wrong? No. According to your culture and mine it is, but that again is a cultural thing. Morals are formed through the growth and adaptation of societies, and some cultures/societies have achieved their current places in the world by creating differing standards than you or I am used to.



So you see, the use of force has nothing to do with absolutism vs. relativism


But it does, because of the examples you've shown above. You believe other cultures to be in the wrong, so you act upon it. Your absolutist values would compel/encourage you to.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Bush is a 'moral opportunist'. He masks agendas that have nothing to do with moral issues in a claok of morality in order to sell them to the public. Take Iraq. He used the evolving rationales of a) defeating the terrosits responsible for 9/11; b) WMD; and, c) Saddam is a bad man to rationalize the war that significantly contributed to the economic unraveling of the country. And most people know the Iraq adventure was about oil and greed and little else. He swore an oath to 'uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States' and then went on a mission to undermine, circumvent and trample the Constution. He has broklen laws, lied and illegally fired people not willing to do his bidding. There has been, IMO, very little that can be reasonably considered 'moral' about this man and his activities as President. What he has engaged in has little difference to a pedofile becoming a scout leader or priest in order to gain the trust of his victims.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
Ahhh, the famous moral absolutism vs. moral relativism debate. Some people believe that morals are and should be 'absolute', one moral law, and others realize that they are relative, that individuals/societies should have the right to contrive their own moralities, myself included.


Are you really a moral relativist? Let's test that theory. Here is my question. It is a simple YES/NO question, with no explanation necessary.

Is it EVER acceptable for a society to legally practice the ritualistic rape of children? Yes or no?



Moral absolutism is what Bush has been exercising when he feels that we need to liberate Iraq, ...


This is true, and undeniable. However, Jesus also practiced moral absolutism. I'll leave it up to the reader to discern the lesson that should be garnered from those two examples.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 





When I say 'others realize that they are relative', that is because morals ARE relative. It's a fact.




It's a fact, is it? I wasn't aware that opinions could simultaneously be facts. Perhaps you are correct that the morals of individual people and cultures are relative. However, morality as a whole is not and morality as a whole is what we are discussing.


If I said 2+2=5 was incorrect, does that make me a absolutist as well?

I would say no, since 2 + 2 = anything other than 4 being incorrect is a fact, and not an opinion. It is not open for debate, unlike your opinions on morality.



Fear is the greatest impediment to the achievement of peace

The reason this war was illegal in the first place, is because it's a PREEMPTIVE war. The lawmakers of the UN understood that when you give countries reasons to invade other countries based purely off of speculation, that there is nothing to stop any country from invading any other country.


None of this has any relevance to a moral absolutism vs. relativism debate. The legality of the war and your opinion on the effect of fear on peace are not moral issues. Also, it is not an answer to my question which was "Even from a relativist standpoint, does the President not have an obligation to his electorate to protect them and uphold national security?" to which a yes or no would have sufficed.




this is the type of belief you hold causes others who share them to act into forcing other people into following them


You are incorrect. The belief that some actions are morally wrong keeps individuals from committing those actions themselves. Society itself has its own morals, as you have pointed out, and if it abides by these morals there is no force being used. It voted laws into existence to uphold its own morality. It can't force something onto itself.



It depends upon the culture and it's beliefs. Universally wrong? No


At least you toe the line properly, no matter how repugnant it is. I am led to believe by your answer that rights are just as relative as morality. Women only have rights when we say they do, they're not inherent. Hell, humans only have rights if we agree to it. This is absolute nonsense. Human rights are inherent and no culture, no matter how backward or medieval has the prerogative to stomp all over them. No one has the right to rape or murder another person, no matter how much they believe that they do.



According to your culture and mine it is, but that again is a cultural thing.


But you said that the only things which are truly wrong are things that impede the rights of others. That's one of your cultural mores, but you say it as an absolute. If you and millions of your friends got together and voted to make this the law of the land, would you not be forcing others to live by your standards? After all, peoples' rights are only relative anyway.

Since you didn't answer before I will ask again, what harms others, and is this standard absolute or relative? Some people in the world truly believe that it harms people to allow them to think and act freely and they work to protect us all from ever having to do it. Are they morally sound because this is the culture they were raised in?

Even more concretely, is President Bush really wrong for invading Iraq when the eletist culture in which he was reared led him to believe he could do anything he wanted without consequence? How is this any different from the hypothetical chauvanist culture that you gave the go-ahead to treat women like footstools because you have no right to tell them any differently?

That's the problem with moral relativism. If everything really is relative, your opinions really don't carry any weight, do they? After all, you're nothing more than the sum of your cultural parts and just don't know any better.

If someone harms you, but their culture has no qualms with it, then it's still ok with you? If you say so...



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by sc2099
 




It's a fact, is it? I wasn't aware that opinions could simultaneously be facts. Perhaps you are correct that the morals of individual people and cultures are relative. However, morality as a whole is not and morality as a whole is what we are discussing.




It would seem to me that you are arguing 2 separate points here in this quote. Firstly, you claim that morals ARE relative, then you claim that morals are NOT relative. WTF?! Please elaborate...



I would say no, since 2 + 2 = anything other than 4 being incorrect is a fact, and not an opinion. It is not open for debate, unlike your opinions on morality.


The fact that Muslim extremists have a different set of morals should be enough to prove that morals ARE relative, NOT absolute just waiting to be discovered.



Also, it is not an answer to my question which was "Even from a relativist standpoint, does the President not have an obligation to his electorate to protect them and uphold national security?" to which a yes or no would have sufficed.




You......must be joking, right? Your attempts at talking down to me in order to raise yourself up are laughable...


I'll tell you what, when you can figure out what's wrong with your joke-of-a-situational question, I'LL answer the question you've set in an absurd scenario.



You are incorrect. The belief that some actions are morally wrong keeps individuals from committing those actions themselves.


I never disputed actions being held back due to morals. So, please tell me what I'm 'incorrect' about.



It can't force something onto itself.


I'm referring to absolutists who force their beliefs upon people who don't share their 'absolute' values.



I am led to believe by your answer that rights are just as relative as morality.


You are correct. Rights are relative as well. Some countries are communist, some are not.



Women only have rights when we say they do, they're not inherent. Hell, humans only have rights if we agree to it. This is absolute nonsense. Human rights are inherent and no culture, no matter how backward or medieval has the prerogative to stomp all over them.


Welcome to the REAL world. Can you tell me why people with more power and smarts do NOT have the 'prerogative' to stomp on another's rights?



No one has the right to rape or murder another person, no matter how much they believe that they do.


According to whom? It might sound cold, but it's true, based upon your society/culture.



But you said that the only things which are truly wrong are things that impede the rights of others. That's one of your cultural mores, but you say it as an absolute.


Please don't put words in my mouth. Please, show me the quote where I say that is 'absolute'.



If you and millions of your friends got together and voted to make this the law of the land, would you not be forcing others to live by your standards? After all, peoples' rights are only relative anyway.


Ugggh...

I get so darned tired of, every time I debate someone, they are digging for hypocritical accusations. This is a most basic form of debate, and one to which I would prefer to not have to deal with. So, in that case, I'll let you figure out how you decided to take my views out of context from my OP to come to this.



Even more concretely, is President Bush really wrong for invading Iraq when the eletist culture in which he was reared led him to believe he could do anything he wanted without consequence? How is this any different from the hypothetical chauvanist culture that you gave the go-ahead to treat women like footstools because you have no right to tell them any differently?

That's the problem with moral relativism. If everything really is relative, your opinions really don't carry any weight, do they? After all, you're nothing more than the sum of your cultural parts and just don't know any better.


It all depends upon the culture/society we are raised into. My opinions and actions carry weight in my culture, but not in every culture, I'm not that daft. Morals are instilled into us, it doesn't mean that we 'don't know any better' or are immoral. It just depends on where you're at whether it is or not.



If someone harms you, but their culture has no qualms with it, then it's still ok with you? If you say so...


Ok, now you're just being ridiculous.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 




Is it EVER acceptable for a society to legally practice the ritualistic rape of children? Yes or no?


According to the society/culture I've grown up in, I find it disgusting and reprehensible, but, as cold as it sounds, if that is their culture...

If you were one of them, would you think this question mirrored? How do you know that YOUR morals are right and theirs is wrong?



This is true, and undeniable. However, Jesus also practiced moral absolutism. I'll leave it up to the reader to discern the lesson that should be garnered from those two examples.


Your logic above is twisted. Read the definition of moral absolutism in Wikipedia, and now look again at the quote.

Perhaps we should leave Jesus out of REAL debates?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 




Is it EVER acceptable for a society to legally practice the ritualistic rape of children? Yes or no?


According to the society/culture I've grown up in, I find it disgusting and reprehensible, but, as cold as it sounds, if that is their culture...

If you were one of them, would you think this question mirrored? How do you know that YOUR morals are right and theirs is wrong?



This is true, and undeniable. However, Jesus also practiced moral absolutism. I'll leave it up to the reader to discern the lesson that should be garnered from those two examples.


Your logic above is twisted. Read the definition of moral absolutism in Wikipedia, and now look again at the quote.

Perhaps we should leave Jesus out of REAL debates?


Ok, just so we are absolutely clear.....

You believe that if a culture condones the ritualistic raping of children, that is nothing wrong with that act within that culture? Is that a true or false statement? No explanations, no "while I find.... yada, yada, yada". You either agree with that statement, or you find it false. Which are you?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
...Your logic above is twisted. Read the definition of moral absolutism in Wikipedia, and now look again at the quote.

Perhaps we should leave Jesus out of REAL debates?


Let's use something just a LITTLE more authoritative than Wikipedia. I know, how about merriam-webster.com. They've only been publishing dictionaries for a couple of hundred years now.

Moral: 1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment e: capable of right and wrong action

absolutism: 2: advocacy of a rule by absolute standards or principles 3: an absolute standard or principle

Lots of definitions for absolute: : free or relatively free from mixture : pure 4: having no restriction, exception, or qualification 5: positive , unquestionable 6 a: independent of arbitrary standards of measurement

Do you care to try again?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   


It would seem to me that you are arguing 2 separate points here in this quote. Firstly, you claim that morals ARE relative, then you claim that morals are NOT relative. WTF?! Please elaborate...
reply to post by bigbert81
 


No problem. I said that while morals are relative morality is not. To clarify, I mean that moral standards obviously vary between cultures, countries, locales, and groups. However, morality (what is wrong and what is right) is universal.



The fact that Muslim extremists have a different set of morals should be enough to prove that morals ARE relative, NOT absolute just waiting to be discovered.


I believe it proves that they are out of touch with true morality, which applies to every person whether or not they choose to let their personal morals reflect it. I maintain that some things are always wrong whether a person believes it or not.



You......must be joking, right? Your attempts at talking down to me in order to raise yourself up are laughable...


That's cool. You don't have to answer if you don't want to.



I never disputed actions being held back due to morals. So, please tell me what I'm 'incorrect' about.


What you're incorrect about is that a person who subscribes to an absolute morality is not necessarily a person will attempt to apply that morality to anyone but himself.



You are correct. Rights are relative as well.


If rights are relative, then why is it wrong for anyone to force their beliefs on others as you stated in your OP? You said "People should have the freedom to choose how best to live their lives without outsiders controlling them." Did you mean only some people, or did you mean everyone?



Can you tell me why people with more power and smarts do NOT have the 'prerogative' to stomp on another's rights?


Sure, because human rights are inherent and universal. You could even say they are absolute
. They belong to everyone from birth and thus do not have to be granted. Just being alive gives people the right not to be trampled on. And because human rights are universal it follows that morality is as well.

Can you tell me how your above statement does not directly contradict your whole schtick on freedom from oppressive moral absolutists? According to what you have said, moral absolutists have every right to force their ideals upon others simply because they have the ability. Are you sure you still think they are wrong?



Please don't put words in my mouth.


I'm not. You said it right here in the OP:



Unless your actions hinder or harm another, it should be legal


You are correct that you did not explicitly say that this premise is absolute. I assumed that since you did not qualify the statement further that you meant for it to apply to everyone. My apologies if I was wrong.



I get so darned tired of, every time I debate someone, they are digging for hypocritical accusations. This is a most basic form of debate, and one to which I would prefer to not have to deal with.


I am truly sorry to hear that. If there were rules to this discussion outside the T&C, why didn't you state them in the OP? Or better yet, take it to the debate forum? If poking holes in an opponent's argument is so basic a tactic, it should be very easy for you to defeat.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by sc2099
 




No problem. I said that while morals are relative morality is not. To clarify, I mean that moral standards obviously vary between cultures, countries, locales, and groups. However, morality (what is wrong and what is right) is universal.


You are still not making any sense. Are you saying that there is 'right' and 'wrong' in every culture? Or that everyone shares the same morality? What exactly are you trying to say, because right now it sounds like a bunch of smoke and mirrors.



I believe it proves that they are out of touch with true morality, which applies to every person whether or not they choose to let their personal morals reflect it. I maintain that some things are always wrong whether a person believes it or not.


Thank you for strengthening my point on the issue. My point is, how the hell do you know that YOUR morality is right? Answer me this, and we might save ourselves a whole lot of back and forth time.



That's cool. You don't have to answer if you don't want to.


Sad.

So sad. You just don't get it, do you?...




What you're incorrect about is that a person who subscribes to an absolute morality is not necessarily a person will attempt to apply that morality to anyone but himself.


Oh-hoh really?

Hmmm, let's see here...

You state the above quote, yet I said this:


Your absolutist values would compel/encourage you to.


Hmmm...perhaps you should read my posts again?



If rights are relative, then why is it wrong for anyone to force their beliefs on others as you stated in your OP?


Because it shows a blatant misunderstanding of how morals are achieved. 2+2=5, remember?



Sure, because human rights are inherent and universal. You could even say they are absolute
. They belong to everyone from birth and thus do not have to be granted. Just being alive gives people the right not to be trampled on. And because human rights are universal it follows that morality is as well.


Huh. And why does just being born grant people any rights at all? It's easy to look at it sitting in your comfy computer chair typing away on your new computer, isn't it? Wake up.



Can you tell me how your above statement does not directly contradict your whole schtick on freedom from oppressive moral absolutists? According to what you have said, moral absolutists have every right to force their ideals upon others simply because they have the ability. Are you sure you still think they are wrong?


I'm going off of my own philosophical beliefs, and in being fair to everyone, I am looking at a perspective if we all were free with the same resources to be had and used. And as far as absolutist's 'rights', well, I guess that would be relative as well.



I'm not. You said it right here in the OP:


Good lord. Go back and read the posts.



I am truly sorry to hear that. If there were rules to this discussion outside the T&C, why didn't you state them in the OP? Or better yet, take it to the debate forum? If poking holes in an opponent's argument is so basic a tactic, it should be very easy for you to defeat.


Good grief. You know as well as I do that there are no such rules, so playing it off like you are is a joke. What you did is the lowest form of debate. If you are going to debate at all, have a debate about the issues, don't try and pick out how things could, possibly be, just maybe, but what if, hypocritical. Could I poke holes in it? Yes, absolutely; but I would much prefer to discuss the issues than defending stretched accusations.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by sc2099
 


"Even from a relativist standpoint, does the President not have an obligation to his electorate to protect them (innocent people) and uphold national security?"

Does this include disregarding vital reports from intelligence gatherers working within his administration? Or, failing to comply within the boundaries of our Constitution? Or, hiding from the masses when de-regulation, corruption and criminal accounting practices result in a blood-bath of total and complete financial failure, while common stocks are round filed, homes are 40% over actual value, and devistated citizens are sucked dry by variable rates grabbing them by the ankles and shaking every last cent from their dream-shattered numb , yet still breathing cadavers as sub-prime loan institutions get bailed out by the billions just so the bond holders get theirs, not to mention the S & L's that Maggog, temporary, and the other siblings manipulate, create, pilpher, then escape with the loot all in the name of protectiing, but only the illgained wealth hoarded, the treasures of a nation milked until the stream no longer flows, rather than the multitude of citizens increasingly living on the streets, destitute, as intended. MSM just a key-bob button, along with healthcare button, Pharma button, Military button, and the "up yours Congress" button just a pocket pull away from dictatorial power tripping twitchy button trigger, with a condescending garnish laying in wait, as a tongue that when unholstered, senslessly utters things that can only be described as outrageous riddles so removed from cogitativeness, they are seemingly contrary to absolution of sacrifice for the good of the populous, inferring that thought can only be interpreted by the following definition:

THOUGHT. The operation of the mind. No one can be punished for his mere thoughts however wicked they may be. Human laws cannot reach them, first, because they are unknown; and, secondly, unless made manifest by some action, they are not injurious to any one; but when they manifest themselves, then the act, which is the consequence, may be punished. (Source: www.dict.org)

This definition however is obviously self-contrary.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:40 AM
link   
I had a nice reply all typed out but I changed my mind. There are lots of very serious, important things going on and it is absolutely silly to argue about a difference of philosophical opinions right now. There's been so much conflict and bickering lately that I can't stand it. I'm not going to go back and forth over something so pointless.

Best to everyone.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by sc2099
 


Ahhh, that's nice to hear.

I'm glad you spent your time trying to save face with this last post you must've absolutely felt necessary to get out. Thanks for the quick jab and run, it's nice to see ATS growing with more and more people like you coming about.



[edit on 9/22/2008 by bigbert81]





new topics
 
0

log in

join