Knight's DISGUSTING POTD 2-7-2007

[Nathon Detroit]

I asked Real Sorcerer....

Therefore murdering little girls for sexual pleasure CAN BE valid (i.e., can be valid from the perspective of the murderer). Agree or Disagree?

I have a feeling I'm going to regret saying this, but yes.

:vomit:

Moral relativism strikes again!

If your worldview leads you to believe that it can be morally valid to rape and murder a little girl for no other motivation than sexual pleasure you have become a flaming idiot, a mental midget, a gross disgusting pervert that should be mocked and ridiculed.

context

 

[drbrumley]

Oh man. Thats terrible.

 

[ebenz47037]

Yep. I can't believe how some people will try to excuse anything.

 

[Nineveh]

Eegads! RS! Shame on you! Get a moral wouldja?

 

[Real Sorceror]

Yep. I can't believe how some people will try to excuse anything.

Actaully ebenz, I'm not excusing the guy's behavior at all. I'd like murderers and rapists executed, same as you do. I simply believe that something is "good" or "evil" because we define it as such, not because of some inherent quality.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Actaully ebenz, I'm not excusing the guy's behavior at all. I'd like murderers and rapists executed, same as you do. I simply believe that something is "good" or "evil" because we define it as such, not because of some inherent quality.

If that is true.... the man's behavior (murdering the little girl for sexual pleasure) is no more wrong or right than your behavior.

Why should he be executed for doing something that is right in his eyes?

 

[Real Sorceror]

If that is true.... the man's behavior (murdering the little girl for sexual pleasure) is no more wrong or right than your behavior.

In complete relativity, yes, but nobody actually thinks like that. No one views anything without some moral slant.

Why should he be executed for doing something that is right in his eyes?

Because society demands it. People want justice. We have constructed a legal system in which murderers are executed, and the man has broken the law.

 

[ShadowMaid]

I'm confused as to how, in Real Sorcerors world, someone commits murder. And if there is such a thing as murder, where does the moral standing come from?

 

[Poly]

In complete relativity, yes, but nobody actually thinks like that. No one views anything without some moral slant.

Who cares what anybody "actually thinks about this" or what their "moral slant" is?!!

Because society demands it. People want justice. We have constructed a legal system in which murderers are executed, and the man has broken the law.

Woo frickity hoo for them! What does it matter? The people could be wrong, their moral slant could be wrong, and our legal system could be wrong for condemning them for such things. Maybe the man hasn't broken any law at all!! In fact, since we really can't know, the man, in raping and killing a girl for his pleasure, could really, in fact, being doing a very nice and precious, sweet and wonderful thing, right? According to you, you must agree that this could be true, otherwise you'd have to deny everything you've stated and take back everything you've said in backing your belief.

 

[Real Sorceror]

I'm confused as to how, in Real Sorcerors world, someone commits murder. And if there is such a thing as murder, where does the moral standing come from?

History. The masses and/or the leaders have been defining what is right and wrong since the dawn of man, with each new generation continuing or altering the previous moral code.
People define what an "innocent person" is, and they define the punishment for killing an innocent person.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Who cares what anybody "actually thinks about this" or what their "moral slant" is?!!

I assume that people care.

Woo frickity hoo for them! What does it matter? The people could be wrong, their moral slant could be wrong, and our legal system could be wrong for condemning them for such things.

Correct. Society makes wrong decisions all the time. Remember that whole slavery thing?

Maybe the man hasn't broken any law at all!!

Oh? If society defines the laws, and this man has chosen to live in that society, then he has, by definition, broken the law.

In fact, since we really can't know, the man, in raping and killing a girl for his pleasure, could really, in fact, being doing a very nice and precious, sweet and wonderful thing, right?

That would depend on how society chooses to define "nice", "preciuos", and "wonderful".

According to you, you must agree that this could be true, otherwise you'd have to deny everything you've stated and take back everything you've said in backing your belief.

Yes and no. In that place and time, he has broken the law and done something evil, from the perspective of society. If the place, time, or circumstances where changed, there might be situations where he has not done anything "wrong".

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No one views anything without some moral slant.

What makes one "moral slant" more right than another?

 

[Real Sorceror]

What makes one "moral slant" more right than another?

Depends on whos in charge.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Depends on whos in charge.

How so?

 

[Real Sorceror]

How so?

The people in charge generally make the rules.

 

[Turbo]

Society makes wrong decisions all the time. Remember that whole slavery thing?

By what standard have you determined that society was wrong about "that whole slavery thing"? Your own? The consensus of a society in a different place, time, and circumstance?

If the place, time, or circumstances where changed, there might be situations where he has not done anything "wrong".

Yet "society" was wrong about "that whole slavery thing" in spite of being in a place, time, and circumstance in which society deemed slavery to be okay? How do you figure?

 

[Turbo]

Might makes right?

Might makes right?

The people in charge generally make the rules.

Being in charge makes one morally right? Or at least more morally right than others? Can someone in charge actually be wicked even if in his eyes he is right?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Real Sorcerer you should think long and hard about Turbo's following question....

By what standard have you determined that society was wrong about "that whole slavery thing"? Your own? The consensus of a society in a different place, time, and circumstance?

Keep in mind there was a time when "those in charge" deemed that owning blacks as slaves was morally right.

 

[Real Sorceror]

By what standard have you determined that society was wrong about "that whole slavery thing"? Your own? The consensus of a society in a different place, time, and circumstance?

Both. I was raised in a society that is strongly anti-slavery, and I have developed personal morals agianst slavery.

Yet "society" was wrong about "that whole slavery thing" in spite of being in a place, time, and circumstance in which society deemed slavery to be okay? How do you figure?

I'm using hindsight. Had I been raised in the South when slavery was acceptable, I more than likely would be fine with it. My perspective would be different.

Being in charge makes one morally right?

Hell no.

Or at least more morally right than others? Can someone in charge actually be wicked even if in his eyes he is right?

All I'm saying is that a societies rules are often heavily influenced by the morals of the ruler. Whether the ruler is moral or not is a different matter.

 

[GuySmiley]

Come on RS, what a letdown. Even for a pagan this is just too low. For some reason I am actually suprised at this coming from RS. I know he's banned, but I just had to say it. Wow . . .