|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Wolfguard 
Flyswatter of the Apocalypse
Group: Members
Posts: 1696
Joined: May 2000
|
 |
Posted on: Jun. 06 2002,01:26 |
|
   |
| Quote (CatKnight @ 05 June 2002,17:26) | | I am saying it IS immoral, and here is proof. |
Just because you see it as immoral does not make it so.
im sure i could find a study that is inconclusive or reverses the one you are quoting.
Morals are personal and will alway conflict with someone else's.
And CK, you never did answer the ethical delema above...
--------------
Fucknuggets flamed while you wait.
[url=http://www.teamwolfguard.com]TeamWolfguard.com[/url]
"screw the fireball spells...i got a case of WP grenades and a case of teddy bears!"
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 06 2002,01:30 |
|
 |
Just because YOU can't make the distinction between right and wrong, doesn't mean the distinction doesn't exist.
I'm sure I could refute any studies you find to prove me wrong, because they would be wrong. We could go in circles like that for ages, it wouldn't really prove anything.
Morals are NOT personal, if they were, they wouldn't be called morals.
and yes, I did answer the question.
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
Bozeman
Guardian
Group: Members
Posts: 762
Joined: Jun. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 06 2002,05:24 |
|
|
| Quote (CatKnight @ 05 June 2002,21:30) | | Morals are NOT personal, if they were, they wouldn't be called morals. |
The code that you have up there doesn't say whether or not morals are personal. Please, elaborate on why they are not.
--------------
It's the pop-o-matic bubble, motherfucker!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Wolfguard
Flyswatter of the Apocalypse
Group: Members
Posts: 1696
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 06 2002,13:58 |
|
|
| Quote (CatKnight @ 05 June 2002,20:30) | | and yes, I did answer the question. |
| Quote | <im hoping im not going to regret this>
If a woman is pregnant and the birth is going to kill both the mother and the child is it ok for her to have an abortion?
If she gives birth they are both dead.
If she has the abortion she will live and have a chance to continue to cotribute to the world.
Your moral stand point says that abortion is wrong.
but ethicly you know its also wrong to let them both die.
|
No, you did not
--------------
Fucknuggets flamed while you wait.
[url=http://www.teamwolfguard.com]TeamWolfguard.com[/url]
"screw the fireball spells...i got a case of WP grenades and a case of teddy bears!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
kuru
Detonate.net's 9mm wielding geek-hit-Goddess
Group: Members
Posts: 2566
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 06 2002,14:43 |
|
|
CK, that doesn't show a thing about morality, and you've made a big mistake with your assumptions.
1. You assumed that all kids of single parents are doomed to failure.
2. You assume that two parents are 'always better' off than kids raised by single parens.
In all actuality, if a kid's father is a raging abusive alcoholic, and his mother is a supportive and stable person, that kid would be far better off with Mom alone than with both Mom and Dad around.
Your biggest mistake is applying an average as if it means 'true in all cases'.
--------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 06 2002,19:04 |
|
|
you must be out of legitimate arguments if you are critisizing me for minor details like that. so my response is:
who cares
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
kuru
Detonate.net's 9mm wielding geek-hit-Goddess
Group: Members
Posts: 2566
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 06 2002,20:53 |
|
|
Since you keep starting threads in which you criticize people whose morals are not identical to the ones you hold I would say..
Who cares?
CK does.
--------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
joelthegreat
It's peanut butter jelly time!
Group: Members
Posts: 208
Joined: May 2001
|
 |
Posted on: Jun. 06 2002,21:09 |
|
|
Pregnancy out of wedlock, I believe is NOT moraly wrong. There are many circumstances to take into consideration. It could have been a "mistake." (the only 100% way of not having a child is not having sex). That does not make it moraly wrong. For example: the brakes in your car fail, and you run into an old lady. It is moraly wrong to run over old people yes, but it wasn't your fault. It was faulty equipment.
Also, some states don't allow same-sex marraiges, so what if two "women in comfortable shoes" (lesbians) decide they want a child and one gets artificially pregnant...does that make it morally wrong? They are not married?
Anyways, I probably just made an ass out of myself. Oh well.
--------------
All your base are belong to Peanut butter jelly time!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
Darth Liberus
Emperor of Detnet
Group: Members
Posts: 2246
Joined: Jan. 1970
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 06 2002,22:28 |
|
|
one of the biggest problems with all the studies that "prove" that single-parent homes are bad for kids is that they fail to consider other factors besides the # of parents.
for example, I'd be willing to bet that as a group, single-parent families are a lot poorer. I'd also be willing to bet that the mothers, on average, come from a much lower rung on the social ladder than do two-parent homes. And I'd bet that on average, the FATHERS of single-parent kids are a lot shittier than in two-parent homes.
So while some small-minded people decide that it must be single parents that cause all the trouble, IMHO they've got it all wrong.
The same shit that fucks up kids (violence, poverty, etc.) also creates a lot of single parents.
Meanwhile, the best momma I've ever known had her baby at 19. She's still not married. Her child is one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, and well-behaved kids I've ever met. So there is at least one exception to the rule...
--------------
"let's travel around with our laptops, plug in, and destroy the very fabric of modern reality." -a2n3d7y
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
Pravus Angelus
Codito Ergo Sum
Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: May 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 07 2002,04:48 |
|
|
Marriage can be looked at in one of two ways. One, it's an official, legal bonding between two people that affects taxes, various rights and jurisdictions (such as over their children), etc. Two, it's a religious ceremony to honor the commitment between two people.
Typically, marriage is used in the former sense, and sometimes also in the latter sense.
But what is it about not being married that could possibly have anything to do with your ability to raise a child? If you're religious (and obviously, depending on the religion), maybe you feel you have some commitment to not piss off god by having sex prior to paying a church $20,000. But what if you're not?
Coming from a secular perspective, doesn't it seem a little silly to suggest that it's a moral offense to have a child without first agreeing to change your tax status and officially declare somebody else to be your life partner? The important part is for the family unit to be tight, and for the parents to be able to love and support the child. Whether or not the technicality of marriage has occured or not has no impact at all on their ability to raise the child. Other than a religious perspective, how could this possibly be seen as immoral? My aunt and uncle had both of their kids before they were married, they lived together for years (as is common in many countries) -- have they commited some kind of hideous atrocity whose sinister vileness is so satured with immorality that it's actually quite hard to find?
Sure, coming from a religious perspective you can think up lots of reasons why it's immoral (that's the cool thing about religion -- you don't need to justify arbitrary rules, you can just say that's the way god likes stuff done). But from a secular perspective there seem to be far more imporant things to think about before marriage. And you're certainly not hurting anybody (unless I'm missing the link between having a child out of wedlock and an increase in teen suicide....), so I really can't see any justification for judging a person immoral for it.
BTW, a lot of this discussion seems to have focus on single parents vs non-single parents. non-single non married parents exist (though not in the United States as much as some Euro countries), and I don't think there's been a lot of secular reasoning to claim that they're immoral.
--------------
"Lately, the only thing keeping me from being a serial killer is my distaste for manual labor"
--Dilbert
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
