You Libs keep 'dancing around the issue' (page 2)

jstalin

I'm anti-abortion as well as anti-death penalty. I'm still and Atheist with absolute moral standards. Still no god needed.

kid-A

Geez Rex you have been on fire the last couple of days!

Whoops, my bad, its just your combustible fundy gas shining forth again!!! LOL

zagor

Again I ask, if their is no absolute truth then how can you justify any law?

From purely physical point of view (and I would imagine it could be applied to legal and social as well)existence of a law doesn't have to have anything to do with absolute truth. Law is often a reflection of our understanding of the world around us and its limits and boundaries. For several hundred of years we accepted Newtonian notion of gravity until Einstein came along and changed it all, today we even question his conclusions. Accepted "laws" thus change over time as our awareness, understanding and depth of knowledge increases. Still does that mean that there is an absolute truth about, lets say gravity, possibly but not necessarily.
There could be regions of our universe where those very laws would break down. Are there such places, indeed there are, we call them black holes, i.e. places where both laws of gravity and quantum mechanics break down.
So in terms of social context is there an absolute truth? I shouldn't think so, I'd rather say there are guidelines that delineate what is acceptable and what is not but even those guidelines can break down under certain conditions and circumstances, even bible testifies that. God say do not kill but then sends Jews to kill Cannon’s women, children and men. Even today states would hold the same law but in the case of war soldier are mostly not charged with murder for every person they shot down on a battlefield.
In mathematics we have a whole field devoted to study of chaos but one of the crucial findings is that even in chaos there are some things that follow certain pattern and are therefore predictable. But does that mean there is a law behind it? Possibly but not necessarily, because if there was a law behind it all, it would be ALWAYS predictable and we wouldn’t call a chaos as such. What we get is a degree of certainty, which can and does break under changeable conditions. So considering that a law is at best a localized bubble that behaves in certain way until conditions change.
On the other hand absence of concrete law that applies all the time doesn’t mean that there would not be a possibility of law-making entity. At least to me it would be recognition even of such entity that law would have to be changed or violated in certain conditions in order to achieve an objective. Say, you believe bible, how come Jesus didn’t sink when he walked on sea? apparently existing law had to be ignored, violated, changed or whatever else to achieve his objective. So is there then an absolute truth that should produce an absolute law?
That would be very simplistic way of looking at things, indeed.

MinisterAmos

A conservative accepts the Death Penalty, a liberal does not.
A liberal accepts abortion, a conservative does not.
Who is the more hypocrite?

Ummm....The one who accepts killing the INNOCENT person and not the GUILTY one? Of course I'm just logical like that. Let's bring emotion into the conversation and screw it up entirely.

The irony is that there are lots of folks on death row who did just what liberals accept; that is they killed an innocent person.

stevenyc

OK, strawman to strawman: Would you have aborted Hitler or Stalin?

steve

MidwichCuckoo

Shining One - I understand where you're 'coming from', but this is a psychological issue at the level you are discussing at....

Why is it 'immoral' to execute a murderer but not 'immoral' to abort a baby (a typical liberal belief contradiction)?

Reason - we can 'relate' to the former, but not to the latter.

I have another example if you're interested.

stevenyc

Hey strawman, strawman here: If you met a woman who stated " If a get pregnant, I will abort", would you sterilize her?

steve

Celia

Where are these Pro-Lifers when it comes to sending 18 year olds to Iraq to be blown up ?

the dreamer dreaming

aborting children has no significant impact on society as it exists[especially considering the perps are removing their own DNA from the human race], while keeping alive direct threats does.... while it would be ideal to cure all those who have harmed society and return them to productive membership in the human race, this does not seem very likely in any near future I can imagine.... or dream about (^_^).... while the abortion of a child does have an impact on society on some levels, its impact is far less than that of a murderer or a child rapist who is an identified and direct threat.

I see a certain amount of madness in placing threats to society in a dehumanized and dehumanizing enviornment surrounded by others who are just as much or more of a threat to society...then when they are good and dehumanized, releasing them back into the general population as pronouncing them cured because of magical time served.... as surely we all know [if we have our heads up our collective arse] that they would not want to go back there again, right?!

funkyderek

Shining One:

Again I ask, if their is no absolute truth then how can you justify any law? How can there be any moral law when you refuse to admit there must be a Divine Arbiter to set that moral law? I have just used one of the same examples again to help you recognize (and admit the validity of) the point.

Rex, am I to understand that you believe (for example) that stealing is wrong, not because it harms or violates the rights of another person, but because God said its wrong? Doesn't that kind of thinking lead to a group of people behaving as if (for example) leaving your house on a Saturday is wrong but slaughtering the Moabites is just and proper?

You Libs keep 'dancing around the issue'

Share this