The End of America, “Gone Without a Whimper”

reply to post by nenothtu


The Celtic peoples had a morality which was completely different than the Roman morality. Whereby Roman morality found it completely fine to abandon unwanted children or the elderly and mentally or physically infirm family members, the Celtic morality obligated the families to take care of these same types of people.

Here we have two different morality structures.

Where did the Celtic morality originate from, if not from within the Celtic peoples, and where did the Roman morality originate from , if not from within the Roman peoples?

Also of note is that in the Celtic society, women were as powerful as men, yet in the Roman society it was immoral for a women to hold political power of any kind.


[edit on 2-6-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by nenothtu

 

You don't need a frame of reference...

You made an assertion that there is an absolute morality outside of a group of people.

Yet you give no supporting statements describing anything about this absolute morality you speak of.

And I won't, until you can answer a very simple question that will give me a frame of reference in which I can school you.

reply to post by nenothtu


Please note the post above your last one...

reply to post by HunkaHunka


I appear to have been laboring under a misapprehension. I thought the discussion at hand involved whether there was an absolute morality, and you want to discuss the ethics of dead cultures.

Another conflation of morality and ethics?

Or a switch of topics, mid-stream?

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Please note the post above your last one...

I noted the post. There is no answer to my question there.

I have a great idea.....get back to the thread topic!!!! I am sick of reading your boring ass debate on morality.....who gives a rats arse.....thank you

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

I appear to have been laboring under a misapprehension. I thought the discussion at hand involved whether there was an absolute morality, and you want to discuss the ethics of dead cultures.

Another conflation of morality and ethics?

Or a switch of topics, mid-stream?

Nope... just a misdirection on your part it looks like...

here is a quote about Morality from wikipedia...

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") has three principal meanings.

In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created and defined by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. An example of the descriptive usage could be "common conceptions of morality have changed significantly over time."

In its second, normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions. In this "prescriptive" sense of morality as opposed to the above described "descriptive" sort of sense, moral value judgments such as "murder is immoral" are made. To deny 'morality' in this sense is a position known as moral skepticism, in which the existence of objective moral "truths" is rejected.[1]

In its third usage, 'morality' is synonymous with ethics. Ethics is the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.[2] Ethics seeks to address questions such as how a moral outcome can be achieved in a specific situation (applied ethics), how moral values should be determined (normative ethics), what morals people actually abide by (descriptive ethics), what the fundamental nature of ethics or morality is, including whether it has any objective justification (meta-ethics), and how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is (moral psychology).[3]

Looks like we are talking about the same thing... ethics == morality.

AND.. they are not absolute...

Can you show me something objective which might oppose this stance?

[edit on 2-6-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by SGTChas

Apathy was introduced FIRST I believe by the false Church doctrine of “We’ll fly away”; this allowed an escapist disconnect from the mechanizations of daily American politics by Christians in America. This complacent attitude was transmitted to their children without the full transmission of their faith; the “Pre, Mid, or Post, it does not matter as we’re out’a here” attitude has done more to destroy political activity for the good of the nation, rather than for a special interest group, than about any other contributing factors as Christians voted as a block for the issues that effected them for the short time they thought they had left on earth, rather than for the long term good of the nation.

I agree with your thoughts on this. But I think the average Christian doesn't necessarily forego any pleasure and luxury on Earth with the overriding notion they're just biding their time.

They at least have a strong notion of good and bad, right and wrong. Can we say that about those who feel they need no morality other than what suits their current needs?

America's strong Puritan roots cut both ways. It instilled a strong Protestant Ethic of hard work, fairness. saving, family raising, self-sufficiency.

As Western culture has tried to distance itself form it's Christian inhibitions and beliefs it hasn't found a replacement other than consumerism, hedonism, and rejection of traditional values.


Mike

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Nice touch with the 'wikipedia' entry. did you make that entry yourself, just for the occasion?

If that post is your answer, then their morality obviously came from your textbooks, and wikipedia.

If you can't answer my question, then neither will I answer yours.

I'm done with this exercise in futility.

Have a nice day.


[edit on 2009/6/2 by nenothtu]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Those who believe that there is “no absolute morality” are capable of absolutely anything; subjective morality as determined by group ‘norms’ is the recipe for not only anarchy, but the impetus for every crime against humanity committed with “the best of intensions”. Hence the Ivy League defense of communism that saps the human spirit and poisons the soul.

Such misguided ideological errors perhaps corrected by submersion in Aristotle’s ‘On Monarchy’, or ‘On Justice’ would provide enlightenment, but at your depth of indoctrination I highly doubt it.

Alot of us common Americans see obvious problems with the direction of America, that much is true,but have we even reached 6%?
Answer= No
If we had, we would see many more by magnitude of 100 than we do here,we dont have 6% of Americans upset even here, on a conspiracy forum.
Please dont get me wrong I personnaly feel were going fascist but the masses just dont really know or care,its yet hopeless imo.
For whatever its worth,I will die a free man.I do have lines and they cant be crossed.

As to the astute suggestion that we return the thread to the original topic, let me note that the voices that decry the use of an article from Pravda do not attempt to refute the facts presented, but rather attack the oracle bearing the revelation in a ‘fire then aim’ typical American reaction to anything Russian. Perhaps reading the article and then spending time in reflection before commenting would be advisable.

reply to post by nickoli


While I agree that there are not as many participants to the thread as would be indicative to the large backlash we all hope for, I believe your supposition that a small percentage of Americans are awake and motivated at the current direction of our government is incorrect. Just today, I was listening in shock as a local Judge was discussing what he saw as a inevitable violent revolution brewing in the USA. The people are waking up in droves and it will take only the right accelerant to cause a large combustion of pent up rage.

[edit on 6/2/2009 by SGTChas]

reply to post by SGTChas


Knee - jerk reactions DO tend to shoot the messenger, and ignore the message at their own peril, don't they?

It's a historical fact, they tend to plug their ears and chant "lalalalala", until something makes their heads explode.

I would say it's a waste, but what are they good for to begin with? It's probably more like a culling of the herd.

reply to post by SGTChas


Another Great thread SgtChas... Who woulda thunk it... Pravda would be giving more "truth" about this country then our own media. This country/perhaps even the world is completely upside down.


--Charles Marcello

reply to post by alienstrangler


You failed to understand my post. I said that everyone is ignorant in one way or another. I was referring to the people that absolutely refuse to see past their own ways of thinking. Nothing can be helped with such people except reality smacking them right in the face. You can keep trying to "educate" them, but you'll just be wasting your time and energy. Trust me, when people don't want to learn or understand something, no amount of teaching, preaching, or any kind of solid proof will never change their thinking. They'll just think there's something wrong with you. The way I approach it, I will only explain it once, if they aren't going to hear any of it, then that's their problem.

reply to post by Stumpy1


True, no 2 people will ever really think 100% alike, let alone 6% out of a population of 300 million. In those cases, the only thing I can come up with, is to get people united under one banner, one idea we ALL can agree on, and that can be something as simple as freedom. We all understand the meaning, and if they can be made to see that their freedoms are being stomped on, whether it be in a political manner, an economical manner etc. then perhaps we might be able to get just enough to rise up.

reply to post by Darth Lumina


I hear ya! I ought to take that advice. It would probably be better for my blood pressure.

reply to post by aravoth


DAMN! Thank you so much for expressing exactly how I've felt about him and his ilk They honestly are so absorbed in their own socialist ideologies and their own egos, they honestly can't see the bigger picture. "Tolerance of sin is still sin" is one phrase I remember being told about. I know I've asked it before in another thread. But if it ever comes to a civil war between the people and the govt. any chance we can just put all these partisan idiots in a boat and send them away to some communist country? They might like it after all. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but right now I'm at the point where I believe the same as Samuel Adams and would simply like these people out period.

reply to post by nenothtu


No kidding! This is obvious on even simpler scenarios such as those of college (academia) v. real life. I spent a good amount of time and money in college to try and pursue my career. While it had its advantages, where did I get the MAJORITY of my REAL learning? By volunteering my working for a local company in my neighborhood, working hands on, on exactly what I wanted to do. In fact, the reason why I currently have the job I have right now, in the field I have right now, probably had MORE to do with the fact I had actual hands on experience, more so than my academic history

(I know, this is a bit off topic, but I wanted to show how even a simple example of a simple scenario in real life can support what you are saying.)