The Founders? Agreed.No. That is a great example of moral relativity.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Founders? Agreed.No. That is a great example of moral relativity.
But who decides what the moral law is?The moral law is what we ought to do, not what we do do.Our country is totally FUCKED UP! And there's no such thing as objective moral law, who gets to decide, you?Moral law like objective truth is discovered. This idea has been around for hundreds of years. Our country was founded on it.You mentioned God's moral Law, I replied with what god's moral standards actually are. You just want to live in a fantasy world.In that it does not address the subject at all. You are arguing a different point.How so?
For any given thing there will be an absolute highest standard... even moral laws.
No, he’s right, since nobody who supports the 2nd wants to ever do any about gun control, it can be said that school shooting are the price 2nd supporters are willing to pay.Easy access? No. Liberty and freedom? Yes. Gun accidents and violence are a cost of liberty and freedom just as automobile accidents and deaths are a cost of transportation.Don't forget the subjective morality that considers the slaughter of other people's school kids to be a reasonable price to pay for easy access to handguns and military style semi-automatics.Part of the reason our country is "totally FUCKED UP" is subjective morality believing retards such as yourself that indoctrinate kids into that way of thinking.
And since no one who supports 2nd Amendment rights condones murder of any kind, your argument is disingenuous.
Not true, plenty of animals are only raised by their mothers while the father goes looking for other mates. And I’m not just talking about black folks, I’m talking about real animals, deer, bears...Statistics says otherwise, Taz.There's no exceptions in nature, everything is a standard. Anyways, exception to what, nature's laws? Or nature itself?No. That would be two exceptions of nature.Two of nature's standards are homosexuality and transgendering, and have useful outcome, to use your phrase. So why are you against them?Standards are not subjective. They exist for a reason. Standards are absolute, not relative. When society normalizes its deviance from those standards, predictable surprises will occur. That is how you can know that an absolute standard does exist. Outcomes.Morality is subjective, as you might think something like gay sex is immoral, but others don't see it that way, and nature has too many examples of homosexuality and transgendering to mention. But I'm sure that you still think that you're on the moral high ground on this matter.
I'm not against them. I don't believe we should define the rule for the exception.
So does nature which has selected male and female pairs for procreation. As a rule, children are best served by having male and female role models in their lives.
No. Outcomes change the norms.No. Outcomes determine how valid were the community norms. The community decides the norms.No. Virtue is decided by outcomes.
First of all we aren't plenty of animals. We are human beings. Secondly it is true that as a rule, children are best served by having male and female role models in their lives.Not true, plenty of animals aren’t only raised by their mothers while the father goes looking for other mates. And I’m not just talking about black folks, I’m talking about real animals, deer, bears...Statistics says otherwise, Taz.There's no exceptions in nature, everything is a standard. Anyways, exception to what, nature's laws? Or nature itself?No. That would be two exceptions of nature.Two of nature's standards are homosexuality and transgendering, and have useful outcome, to use your phrase. So why are you against them?Standards are not subjective. They exist for a reason. Standards are absolute, not relative. When society normalizes its deviance from those standards, predictable surprises will occur. That is how you can know that an absolute standard does exist. Outcomes.
I'm not against them. I don't believe we should define the rule for the exception.
So does nature which has selected male and female pairs for procreation. As a rule, children are best served by having male and female role models in their lives.
First of all there is no such thing as easy access. You literally have to go through a background check where many people fail to obtain access to guns. Secondly no one who supports 2nd Amendment rights condones murder of any kind, so your easy access argument is disingenuous when you imply that they have no morals because they allow easy access.Yes.Easy access? No.
Nature calls it that single parents are the norm. Very rarely do mates stay together for life. We're probably part of the exceptions.First of all we aren't plenty of animals. We are human beings. Secondly it is true that as a rule, children are best served by having male and female role models in their lives.Not true, plenty of animals aren’t only raised by their mothers while the father goes looking for other mates. And I’m not just talking about black folks, I’m talking about real animals, deer, bears...Statistics says otherwise, Taz.There's no exceptions in nature, everything is a standard. Anyways, exception to what, nature's laws? Or nature itself?No. That would be two exceptions of nature.Two of nature's standards are homosexuality and transgendering, and have useful outcome, to use your phrase. So why are you against them?
I'm not against them. I don't believe we should define the rule for the exception.
So does nature which has selected male and female pairs for procreation. As a rule, children are best served by having male and female role models in their lives.
No. The Founders did not agree that slavery was moral. Quite the opposite actually. Is there anything that you have ever been right about?The Founders? Agreed.No. That is a great example of moral relativity.
You can't cross species to justify what a specific species does. Only a moron would argue that as rule it is not in the best interest of a child to have a male and a female role model FOR HUMAN BEINGS.Nature calls it that single parents are the norm. Very rarely do mates stay together for life. We're probably part of the exceptions.First of all we aren't plenty of animals. We are human beings. Secondly it is true that as a rule, children are best served by having male and female role models in their lives.Not true, plenty of animals aren’t only raised by their mothers while the father goes looking for other mates. And I’m not just talking about black folks, I’m talking about real animals, deer, bears...Statistics says otherwise, Taz.There's no exceptions in nature, everything is a standard. Anyways, exception to what, nature's laws? Or nature itself?No. That would be two exceptions of nature.
I'm not against them. I don't believe we should define the rule for the exception.
So does nature which has selected male and female pairs for procreation. As a rule, children are best served by having male and female role models in their lives.
That's why people as property was codified in the Constitution, because they wanted to end it. Very moral. They traded the idea of people as assets to get votes. How moral can one be?Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.
Can you show me where slavery was codified in the Constitution?That's why people as property was codified in the Constitution, because they wanted to end it.Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.
You're talking about the importation of slaves, Shirley, not the trade in them.And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
You'd have to read the whole post to understand the point I made.You're talking about the importation of slaves, Shirley, not the trade in them.And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
See that word 'owner', which codifies people as property?Can you show me where slavery was codified in the Constitution?
I understand revisionism when I see it. And deflecting to importation to avoid sale and barter.You'd have to read the whole post to understand the point I made.
There is no revisionism other than yours.I understand revisionism when I see it. And deflecting to importation to avoid sale and barter.You'd have to read the whole post to understand the point I made.
Right. No mention of slavery which was intentional.See that word 'owner', which codifies people as property?Can you show me where slavery was codified in the Constitution?
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, which requires a "person held to service or labour" who flees to another state to be returned to the owner in the state from which that person escaped.