It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Delusions of the far left and moral relativism....

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 10:04 PM

originally posted by: onequestion

From this conversation we can conclude that an Objective Moral Truth is that willful harm to another is bad or immoral.

What about competition?? Not everyone can be the winner.

What about someone who's doing something wrong that doesn't threaten you??? Are you not allowed to stop them if you can??? Is it not a moral obligation to stop them, even harming them in the process if needs be sometimes??? You can't have people just acting like idiots all the time because you don't want to harm anyone.

Also, negligent Homicide is immoral and relative depending upon the degree of negligence. Accidental homicide isn't immoral at all. It's just an accident. Morally speaking the person who did it had no intention to harm anyone at all, or might actually have loved the other person dearly and would have given their own life for them if they could. Sometimes things happen for reasons out of our control completely.

posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 10:05 PM
a reply to: mOjOm

Ok, Ok. I knew you were going to do that because I left out a word.


adjective: indiscriminate

done at random or without careful judgment.

I have to go sleep now busy day tomorrow.

edit on 6/5/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 10:10 PM
a reply to: onequestion

You know what, onequestion, I can see we are not communicating. *scratches head* I will both recap, expand a bit and move on.

I think a man can be a hero and masculine without worrying about transgendered people not being ostracized (there aren't that many of them - this is a cultural trend and emphasis on it will pass at some point - it will become no big deal), or being feminized, or worrying about women coming fully into equal partnership with men or being self-sufficient without men, or worrying about defining how women and men are the same or different - PEOPLE are different. Period.

Let's look at some science regarding the brain and male/female traits on that: Link - Science Magazine - The Brains of Men and Women Aren't Really That Different, study finds...

To accommodate this overlap, the researchers created a continuum of “femaleness” to “maleness,” for the entire brain. The male end zone contained features more typical of males, and the female end zone contained the version of the same structures more often seen in females. Then, the team scored every individual region-by-region to find out where they fell on that male-to-female continuum.

The majority of the brains were a mosaic of male and female structures, the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Depending on whether the researchers looked at gray matter, white matter, or the diffusion tensor imaging data, between 23% and 53% of brains contained a mix of regions that fell on the male-end and female-end of the spectrum. Very few of the brains—between 0% and 8%—contained all male or all female structures. “There is no one type of male brain or female brain,” Joel says.

So how to explain the idea that males and females seem to behave differently? That too may be a myth, Joel says. Her team analyzed two large datasets that evaluated highly gender stereotypical behaviors, such as playing video games, scrapbooking, or taking a bath. Individuals were just as variable for these measures: Only 0.1% of subjects displayed only stereotypically-male or only stereotypically-female behaviors.

So maybe we aren't so different overall? Maybe that's ok? Maybe some men have more feminine traits than other men and that's okay too? They have the right and freedom to be themselves?

Sure, there are obvious differences in primary sexual traits between men and women, but as far as being HUMAN we are more Venn Diagram than starkly different groups. 0-8% of us humans are all "male trait brains" or "female trait brains" exclusively. About the same as there are transgenders or homosexuals?

I think the noble qualities of the Hero are needed in the world. I don't think it's possible to erase the Hero Archetype from the collective unconscious. Certainly no current political group can do that. You have every right to be as male as you want to and they certainly can't take that away from you.

Moral relativism is a whole other ballgame which I'm not addressing here, at least at this time.


posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 10:24 PM
a reply to: AboveBoard

Ok, now this is a post I can respond too.

Let me ask you a question...

Do you think energy has something to do with gender roles?

Do you think physical ability has been one of the major defining variables of determining gender roles?

Do you think giving birth and carrying a baby has anything to do with the way women think and act?

Do you think having a period is something that changes the way women think and act and may be another variable in gender role?

Sure, there are obvious differences in primary sexual traits between men and women, but as far as being HUMAN we are more Venn Diagram than starkly different groups. 0-8% of us humans are all "male trait brains" or "female trait brains" exclusively.

I can agree with that. But don't you think our primary sexual traits and physical abilities are the biggest factors in how we determine gender roles?

Also... I think many women regardless of how they are raised are attracted to more masculine men and many women regardless of how they are raised are attracted to more feminine men.

What is it about that that makes that true? Is it how they are raised? Their genetics?

Regardless of all the answers to these questions I still believe that these issues are hijacked and used to control narratives and for operation culture creation. I still think that the far left is an extremist group hell bent on controlling thoughts and are language police.

Not using transgender pronouns could get you fined

Employers and landlords who intentionally and consistently ignore using pronouns such as “ze/hir” to refer to transgender workers and tenants who request them — may be subject to fines as high as $250,000.

Really? The government needs to get involved in how we talk to each other now? Your going to tell me there isn't an agenda at play?

1984 right here.

posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 10:28 PM

originally posted by: onequestion

Ok, Ok. I knew you were going to do that because I left out a word.


I'm not sure if that would make anything more or less moral.

Is it more or less moral of me to choose someone to die by my own judgement or carefully weighing some facts about them or letting the randomness of a bunch of dice do it???

On one hand there may be many details and reasons for picking one person over another based on those facts. On the other hand letting random chance choose removes me from being responsible based off my judging of another.

Also, at what point does morality enter into it??? Let's say someone is going to die and you must choose who it is.

Is it immoral if you roll the dice making it random or pick them by judging them???

What if it's random but you don't want to choose anybody but have to???

What if you do it by judging them but choose the worst person out of the group saving the others???

How about if you do it by judging them but choose the nicest person instead???

What about if it's random and it happens to choose the worst person???

What about if it's random and chooses the nicest person???

Are all of these the same on the morality scale??? Are any of them Objectively and Absolute in being Right or Wrong???

Are you excused for the choice whether or not it's random because you don't want to choose anyone but have to anyway???

posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 10:32 PM
I'm confused, have you not been criticizing the protestors at Trump rallies for kicking ass and for being on the left at the same time?

I understand that they are not your heroes but it still doesn't jive with what you propose in the OP.
edit on 5-6-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 10:39 PM
a reply to: onequestion
I think it's wrong to indoctrinate a child into a religion, or political belief, but I don't mistake my opinion as objective truth.

I once knew a satanist who said "everything is permitted, your will is the whole of the law", and believed if you could harm someone, it was their own fault due to survival of the fittest. I disagree fully, so it is subjective to each of us.

As to AboveBoard's notion of heroes, they are spot on. Heroes are an invention of humankind (hence why they exist in every culture and mythology) and represent an ideal rather than reality. We invent what we desire, what we lack. Heroes in reality are not noble or altruistic, but rather, severely flawed. Are heroes subjective?

Think about it.

Was Gandhi a hero, or did he force underage girls to sleep naked in his bed? Was Nelson Mandela a rights activist, or was he a terrorist bomber? Was Ronald Reagan a conservative hero, or did he ban open carry of firearms? Was Thomas Jefferson an American hero, or did he own and rape underage slaves? Was Mohammed a humble man, or did he spread faith by the sword? Was Christianity a religion of peace, or did it slaughter millions in its forcible conversion of Europe? Was Julius Caesar a heroic leader, or an opportunistic mass-murderer for anyone who dared want freedom from authority? Ad nauseum. It depends on who you ask, as heroism - like morality - is subjective.

"Never meet your heroes."

posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 10:43 PM
I'd like to address your questions in your OP One Question.

Where do we draw the line with social constructs and morality?

Even though you may have your own personal moral code, draw the line anywhere, morality is a social construct. Personally I'd stick with what already works, if it ain't broke, then don't fix it.

If something is rude, why is it rude and does that exist objectively or is it an intangible social construct?

In the subjective world of social behavior, rudeness has an objective existence.

Is male and female an idea and how much of a roll does biology play and where do we draw the line with reality and delusion?

Biology is everything concerning the designation of male and female. For me DNA is the bottom line.

Is respect an idea, a social construct or a morally objective idea that universally applies to everyone within the same sphere of understanding?

Respect is a universal survival instinct interpreted as a social construct. IMO this one is close to being morally objective.

Do these issues and other issues like it exist cross culturally or are they issues that only exist within certain cultures?

Both is true.

How do we begin to define reality and delusion without moral objectivity?

Our perception of reality as a human being is a subjective delusion, but one that is useful in our ability to navigate and survive the real objective reality.

Let's go with this, "Species specific subjective relativistic morality is an objective truth."

Let's use this as an example. A cockroach, a species that has both sex organs, rises up through the ranks of his species to become a hero by killing the evil genocidal exterminator.
edit on 5-6-2016 by MichiganSwampBuck because: typo

posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 10:54 PM
I'm sure there's some fluff-head moral relativists, but from what I can tell seeing things from many points of view, and the inevitable moral relativism which comes forth, is just a product of high awareness in general. I get that people who take it on while operating at a low level tend to be highly selfish, and just use it as some sort of escaping from responsibility, but that's just not the case for many people who would identify as a moral relativist.

In my mind, when I'm in situations, I generally take in everyone's view in the room best I can, then I take in similar situations throughout my past, and imagine various scenarios of how things could play out. I tend not to see any one solution for most situations, especially when we're dealing with complex human beings in the equation. I have some things that really get to me, and I'm hardening up to a kind of right path as I age, but experience kicks me in the ass and forces me to break through the ground, or soar on through the skies.

I get that people can naturally have a mindset, and it can be difficult to understand people who genuinely see things from many angles. Heck, my dad is zanier than I am and it drives me up the walls most of the time. Try to get a straight yes, no, right or wrong out of him and you'll be frustrated, but he's one of the nicest guys I've ever met.

I think it needs to be separated, the use of lazy thinking applied to what should be higher thought processes. When you have someone who can feel or think their way through many perspectives, you get someone who can't easily judge situations and come to a definitive answer for how things should be. Everything requires context. You hear words like, "it seems", "it appears", "perhaps", or "well that depends".

I'm not much impressed with people who make gut decisions and are self-assured while usually making an ass of their selves. Not that I don't make an ass of my self as well, but it's usually a well thought out flatulence.
edit on 5-6-2016 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 11:20 PM
a reply to: onequestion

You do understand that nobody can make you be a girl if you don't want to be a girl?

Take some responsibility for your life and quit whining about how other people are making you do things you don't want to do

posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 01:01 AM
As you can tell by the responses you are getting, the morality of the moral relativists is one of feelings. They do not like what you say and the only course of action seems to be to question your motives, and other trifles. Their solipsistic and self-serving principles can be condensed to this one: They don't feel feel that way, therefor you shouldn't either.

posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 01:08 AM

posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 01:57 AM

edit on 6/6/2016 by IridiumFlareMadness because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 02:00 AM
a reply to: onequestion

one man sits at a computer all day and crunches numbers, another works in a mine all day, blasting rocks...
are they the same? are they considered equal? you could search the world over for a women that is exactly like me and never find her, and you could search the world over for a man exactly like you, and never find him!!
we are all different from each other! are we all equal?
when we focus on differences we find reasons to treat others differently than we would like to be treated ourselves, historically, it has been used to justify some really cruel treatment of others.
we have much more in common with each other than we have differences.

and, I can think if quite a few shows on tv that have heros as main characters in them, or are you just griping because there happens to be some shows with heroines, just like throughout history there have been heroines! just like in people's everyday lives they might have heros or heroines stepping up to the plate on their behalf.

ya know why there was once a female judge in ancient isreal? it was because the men weren't worthy to step up to the plate! now, I wonder, really, just why women today aren't the dainty little flowers looking to the men for their support, if it's not just that they found the men unwilling or unable to step up to the plate! no faith in their wives or girlfriends, so insecure in their relationships that they had to have laws throughout the ages to keep their women under their thumbs! and, so whiny now that the women aren't so legally bound to them till death do they part and having the legal power to control their own destinies for a change.

posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 02:00 AM

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: onequestion

You must be triggered since you're trying to suppress my free speech.

There's a lot of hatred and bigotry on ATS, get over people speaking against it, snowflake.

Where? Are you delusional? You have no idea what hate or bigotry is if you think it exists on this site.

posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 02:15 AM
a reply to: onequestion

Now here is exactly where the waters get murky with the far left.

Not so.

What do you mean by equal?

Same rights, equal access, equal treatment.

My position on this it that men and women are vastly different in both mentality and physicality.

Yes but there's always exceptions and roles don't need to be rigid based on these differences.

I love the divinely feminine qualities that women poses and women who are one of the boys are in no way attractive to me. Do I have a problem with it? Nope, but do I want a boyish woman as a wife? Nope.

Lucky for you there are plenty of women who fit your taste, that doesn't mean that all women should or are obligated to.

I am an alpha male, I am very masculine and I need a feminine woman in order to balance me out.

You don't come across as alpha. Alpha males are confident and not threatened by the roles of other people. My boyfriend is an alpha and always looked to as a leader, both by his family and in his profession, by being confident in every situation he is in... not by trying to control and mold those around him so that he's comfortable enough to lead, he's also more than capable of not having to lead which is good because I'm an alpha female and so is his daughter.

But clearly.... clear as day.. men and women are not the same.

I don't see anyone claiming otherwise.

posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 02:41 AM

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
As you can tell by the responses you are getting, the morality of the moral relativists is one of feelings. They do not like what you say and the only course of action seems to be to question your motives, and other trifles. Their solipsistic and self-serving principles can be condensed to this one: They don't feel feel that way, therefor you shouldn't either.

That sounds like you're reacting to words, Les.

You do not like what people say, and you question their motives, and other trifles.

Does that make you a moral relativist, then?

posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 02:55 AM
That video was so stupid I couldn't believe it.

It shows two extremely ridiculous positions on morality,
with very ridiculous arguments or assertions from the "relativist".
What a bunch of silly hogwash.

But then, it sounds like this is a reaction to some sort of silly hogwash going on in the popular media in the US, that I have been (thankfully) ignorant of.

I do not believe in a universal static moral law, and that robot guy did not speak for me. What a load of rubbish.

And I cannot believe all those stars.

posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 03:22 AM
a reply to: onequestion

Totally agree with you here S+F

Australia is the land of Political Correctness - you cannot question anything without having all these -IST words yelled at you. RACIST! SEXIST!

We have a controversial program called Safe Schools. Sounds like an anti-bullying class yeah? No it's a pro-homosexual and pro-transgender class taught to primary school children. If a child goes to the teacher and says "I'm transgender" the school with help them transition without the childs' parents permission.

And if your school has the Safe Schools program you cannot object or pull your child out of class,

Personally I believe that an adult can be whomever they want - you're gay? fantastic. Transgender? excellent. Like to crossdress and dance around. Peachy go right ahead. But in regards to Safe Schools I think 1. there isn't a real need for it. Of the population about 0.1% are gay a further 0.03% are transgender - why is it shoved down our throats so much. 2. children are VERY IMPRESSIONABLE and it only takes one nutty teacher to suggest "well maybe you're trans" to start the cogs turning in a young, otherwise non-trans mind.

I think there has been a clear agenda to break down the family unit, to make homosexuality and transgenderism the norm.

Maybe it has something to do with the Middle East. ISIL said they'd release a Human Tide into Europe and they have. Millions upon millions of Muslims now in Europe. The Saudis refused to take on any immigrants but they offered to build 200 new mosques in Germany to accomodate those Muslims. Western birth rates are declining while the Islamic population is the youngest on average in the world - it being the norm to have 5 children. It's only a matter of time that the West falls to Islam with Australia set to become an Islamic State by 2050

posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 05:14 AM
a reply to: onequestion

It seems the concept of moral relativism is either widely misunderstood or oversimplified by many on this website.
edit on 6/6/2016 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in