Lieutenant gets DWI, wife comes to pick him up......drunk.

[Truebeliever]

You are *still* falsely equating morality to legality.

The legality of land mines changed. The morality did not. True morality is fixed and unchanging.

This is also the flaw in your arguments about how society views things. Do you really think pedophilia will be morally acceptable just because society changes it's views in 20 years ?

What about societies that have different views ? Is executing people for being homosexual morally acceptable because it's considered virtuous in the middle east ?

Is it a moral act in one country but immoral in another ? How can that work ?

True morality is independent of time or location.

Morality changed too. No one had a problem with setting the trip wires on a claymore in the 1960s. Minefields were okay too back then. Drunk driving wasn’t seen as that bad a thing in the 1950s but the morality of it changed in the 1980s. And the change in morality put the pressure on to change the law.

 

[fresch]

As far as the United States of America the date is ~ 1776 before that it was England.
If your going back in time then any time, day 1 is open and as such no laws, no morality.
Laws and morality are things man invented; think right now , who is making the laws and morality? People that want control. Now go back to the forming of this country, bill of rights, constitution, the founding rules and regs. for only this country.
Basically it states do what you like so long as you do not interfere with an others rights to do the same.
The rest is people trying to gain control over others.

 

[spat]

Morality changed too. No one had a problem with setting the trip wires on a claymore in the 1960s. Minefields were okay too back then. Drunk driving wasn’t seen as that bad a thing in the 1950s but the morality of it changed in the 1980s. And the change in morality put the pressure on to change the law.

No, still you don't get it.

Morality has nothing to do with "what people had a problem with".

Any more than the shape of the earth changed when the Greeks figured out it was round.

There is an objective morality that is independent of what anyone thinks. It doesn't matter if the entire world thought chattel slavery was OK 2000 years ago, it wasn't.

Either explain why land mines are immoral in a way that *doesn't* involve people's opinions or attitudes, or accept that what you are talking about isn't morality.

Moral relativism of the type you advocate is utterly devoid of meaning. It can make any action moral or immoral.

If the goodness or badness of an action is up for a vote, then there is no such thing.

You're notion of morality if followed to it's logical end would conclude that gang rape is perfectly acceptable, since the majority of the people involved considered it so.

 

[Truebeliever]

No, still you don't get it.

Morality has nothing to do with "what people had a problem with".

Any more than the shape of the earth changed when the Greeks figured out it was round.

There is an objective morality that is independent of what anyone thinks. It doesn't matter if the entire world thought chattel slavery was OK 2000 years ago, it wasn't.

Either explain why land mines are immoral in a way that *doesn't* involve people's opinions or attitudes, or accept that what you are talking about isn't morality.

Moral relativism of the type you advocate is utterly devoid of meaning. It can make any action moral or immoral.

If the goodness or badness of an action is up for a vote, then there is no such thing.

You're notion of morality if followed to it's logical end would conclude that gang rape is perfectly acceptable, since the majority of the people involved considered it so.

Morality changes and what is acceptable changes despite what you think. People change what is acceptable or even what is considered good . Was slavery acceptable in the Bible? Roman times?
How about prostitution? Premarital sex? If you asked someone then if slavery was moral, they would say yes. Even former slaves bought slaves. A Vegan would tell you eating meat is immoral. 20 yeees from now, they might win and it could be the norm to see it that way. Then get laws passed. What is seen as moral changes. Name something you think is moral, and I will bet you it wasn’t always perceived that way even by the church.

And you would need to predict what is acceptable behavior in the future . If you asked

 

[spat]

Morality changes and what is acceptable changes despite what you think. People change what is acceptable or even what is considered good . Was slavery acceptable in the Bible? Roman times?
How about prostitution? Premarital sex? If you asked someone then if slavery was moral, they would say yes. Even former slaves bought slaves. A Vegan would tell you eating meat is immoral. 20 yeees from now, they might win and it could be the norm to see it that way. Then get laws passed. What is seen as moral changes. Name something you think is moral, and I will bet you it wasn’t always perceived that way even by the church.

And you would need to predict what is acceptable behavior in the future . If you asked

What is accepted changes.

What is actually moral does not.

I don't understand why you can't see that what is moral is not the same as what is considered acceptable.

How many people have to consider it acceptable in your world for something to be moral ?

Was mass murder moral in Mexico in the 15th century just because it was endorsed by the government ?

How about farming people for organs, is that moral ? They're doing it today in China. Does that mean it's moral in China but not here ?

How about the gang rape I used as an example in the previous post. How big does that gang have to be in your world before that makes it morally acceptable?

Just because government or society says something is moral doesn't make it so. The most immoral things in history have been committed by governments with the approval of the populace.

 

[Truebeliever]

What is accepted changes.

What is actually moral does not.

I don't understand why you can't see that what is moral is not the same as what is considered acceptable.

How many people have to consider it acceptable in your world for something to be moral ?

Was mass murder moral in Mexico in the 15th century just because it was endorsed by the government ?

How about farming people for organs, is that moral ? They're doing it today in China. Does that mean it's moral in China but not here ?

How about the gang rape I used as an example in the previous post. How big does that gang have to be in your world before that makes it morally acceptable?

Just because government or society says something is moral doesn't make it so. The most immoral things in history have been committed by governments with the approval of the populace.

I more than understand the difference. You can’t understand that the moral change comes first then the law change . The moral high ground might be there but something might be allowed as a “ necessary evil” as slavery was seen and expressed by some of the founding fathers . But in other times and areas, it was not seen that way but rather , it was seen as a consequence much like someone might see homelessness just 50 years ago where vagrancy was actually a criminal offense. To some, arresting someone just for being homeless or being homeless and trying to sleep in a park or something would be amoral .

NYPD officer suspended after refusing to arrest homeless man

Amid growing complaints that the New York Police Department is singling out homeless...

www.sfgate.com

 

[spat]

I more than understand the difference. You can’t understand that the moral change comes first then the law change . The moral high ground might be there but something might be allowed as a “ necessary evil” as slavery was seen and expressed by some of the founding fathers . But in other times and areas, it was not seen that way but rather , it was seen as a consequence much like someone might see homelessness just 50 years ago where vagrancy was actually a criminal offense. To some, arresting someone just for being homeless or being homeless and trying to sleep in a park or something would be amoral .

NYPD officer suspended after refusing to arrest homeless man

Amid growing complaints that the New York Police Department is singling out homeless...

www.sfgate.com

IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW IT'S SEEN.

Just like the shape of the earth doesn't change just because people discover it's round.

Just like astrology, the position of the stars and planets doesn't affect your life, it doesn't matter how many people believed in it, or when they stopped.


There is an objective reality, and it doesn't matter who believes it or not.

Why is this such a hard concept for you to understand?

 

[Truebeliever]

IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW IT'S SEEN.

Just like the shape of the earth doesn't change just because people discover it's round.

Just like astrology, the position of the stars and planets doesn't affect your life, it doesn't matter how many people believed in it, or when they stopped.


There is an objective reality, and it doesn't matter who believes it or not.

Why is this such a hard concept for you to understand?

I understand what you believe, that it doesn’t change. But it does.

 

[Acer-m14]

Really? And what happened if you didn’t pay it? You either had to leave or surrender the weapon .

you got locked in a box .. and your guns were at your home .. most likely .. DUH!!!

there was no gun confiscation back then ..

only when the British Came .. and they lost

 

[spat]

I understand what you believe, that it doesn’t change. But it does.

If your "moral compass" depends on what's popular with the "in crowd" at the moment, then you have no moral compass.

You will commit any atrocity as long as it's popular.

That's not a a moral compass at all.

 

[Truebeliever]

you got locked in a box .. and your guns were at your home .. most likely .. DUH!!!

there was no gun confiscation back then ..

only when the British Came .. and they lost

Yep. But it was a form of a gun permit like most of the country has had. Most of the country can own a gun without a permit but to carry it in public , it’s a “ shall issue “ permit system— similar to…..that peace bond.

 

[spat]

Yep. But it was a form of a gun permit like most of the country has had. Most of the country can own a gun without a permit but to carry it in public , it’s a “ shall issue “ permit system— similar to…..that peace bond.

Prior to sullivan in 1911 there weren't carry licenses.

Concealed carry was illegal in some areas, but it was either illegal, or it wasn't. There was no permission slip.

 

[Truebeliever]

If your "moral compass" depends on what's popular with the "in crowd" at the moment, then you have no moral compass.

You will commit any atrocity as long as it's popular.

That's not a a moral compass at all.

Society’s moral compass changes. People as individuals don’t always . Even the church changes over time. Again, slavery was not condemned in the Bible . The Catholic Church changed over time as well as other Christian and Muslim tenets .
We, people , tend to judge historical figures by the morals of today rather than of that person’s time period. And some condemn them for it. Washington owned slaves as well as Jefferson.
President Truman probably did more for civil rights than any other president considering his times. But is condemned by some because he was once a member of the KKK.
One would have to go in a Time Machine to know what the changes are going to be . Is there a man above the age of 50 who never said something that would be seen as a gay or transphobic slur today? I doubt it.

It’s the same for some of the laws cops enforce. Here are some of the changes in the law that cops enforce that were seen as an infringement back in the day: DWI, seat belt laws, domestic violence arrests ( yes, a man could not his wife 50 years ago) , rape of a spouse, hitting your kids , etc. Society’s outlook on all that had changed just in my lifetime.

 

[spat]

Society’s moral compass changes. People as individuals don’t always . Even the church changes over time. Again, slavery was not condemned in the Bible . The Catholic Church changed over time as well as other Christian and Muslim tenets .
We, people , tend to judge historical figures by the morals of today rather than of that person’s time period. And some condemn them for it. Washington owned slaves as well as Jefferson.
President Truman probably did more for civil rights than any other president considering his times. But is condemned by some because he was once a member of the KKK.
One would have to go in a Time Machine to know what the changes are going to be . Is there a man above the age of 50 who never said something that would be seen as a gay or transphobic slur today? I doubt it.

It’s the same for some of the laws cops enforce. Here are some of the changes in the law that cops enforce that were seen as an infringement back in the day: DWI, seat belt laws, domestic violence arrests ( yes, a man could not his wife 50 years ago) , rape of a spouse, hitting your kids , etc. Society’s outlook on all that had changed just in my lifetime.

And you don't get it. Societies outlook has changed, yes, but that doesn't mean the morality has changed.

If you allow for moral relativism, then there *is* no moral compass.

What "community" should someone be judged by ? You talk about how abhorrent gang banging drug dealers are, but if you judged them by the standards of their community, they are perfectly moral. There are countries today where horribly immoral practices are widely practiced. That doesn't make it moral harvest some lower cast for organs.

Either there are absolutes of morality, or there is *no* morality.

Chattel slavery has always been morally wrong. Jefferson and Washington owned slaves. It was wrong when they did it, just as much as it is wrong today. There are some other forms of slavery that were closer to a "room and board in exchange for labor" relationship, and they are still immoral, but less than what most people picture when they hear slavery (indentured servitude for instance, the morality of which depended greatly on how well the servants were treated).

Now you can *excuse their ignorance* about it due to the time in history they lived, but that doesn't make them right.

Just like you can excuse all the doctors who killed millions of patients due to infection before germ theory was a thing. That doesn't mean they were right to go from one patient to the next with the same saw without so much as wiping off the blood, just that their ignorance was excusable.

If you don't have anything you consider absolutely morally wrong, then you will commit any atrocity as long as you get enough approval. That attitude the root of nearly every mass evil in history.

Imagine what horrors you might find yourself committing if you are still a cop in 20 years and the left gets their way. "Sorry little girl, you're dad's just a "minor attracted person", you're not allowed to run away, we're taking you back."

 

[Truebeliever]

And you don't get it. Societies outlook has changed, yes, but that doesn't mean the morality has changed.

If you allow for moral relativism, then there *is* no moral compass.

What "community" should someone be judged by ? You talk about how abhorrent gang banging drug dealers are, but if you judged them by the standards of their community, they are perfectly moral. There are countries today where horribly immoral practices are widely practiced. That doesn't make it moral harvest some lower cast for organs.

Either there are absolutes of morality, or there is *no* morality.

Chattel slavery has always been morally wrong. Jefferson and Washington owned slaves. It was wrong when they did it, just as much as it is wrong today. There are some other forms of slavery that were closer to a "room and board in exchange for labor" relationship, and they are still immoral, but less than what most people picture when they hear slavery (indentured servitude for instance, the morality of which depended greatly on how well the servants were treated).

Now you can *excuse their ignorance* about it due to the time in history they lived, but that doesn't make them right.

Just like you can excuse all the doctors who killed millions of patients due to infection before germ theory was a thing. That doesn't mean they were right to go from one patient to the next with the same saw without so much as wiping off the blood, just that their ignorance was excusable.

If you don't have anything you consider absolutely morally wrong, then you will commit any atrocity as long as you get enough approval. That attitude the root of nearly every mass evil in history.

Imagine what horrors you might find yourself committing if you are still a cop in 20 years and the left gets their way. "Sorry little girl, you're dad's just a "minor attracted person", you're not allowed to run away, we're taking you back."

You just proved my point. You are judging doctors for not believing in germ theory before it was proven and accepted . They didn’t have a Time Machine to know it. Now if it’s proven that the covid shots cause heart conditions, you would blame the doctors for following the CDC and other “ trusted” medical guidelines because they “ should have” known better despite not having a Time Machine or the raw data.
If transgender transitioning is later proven to be correct would you blame doctors for not doing it too? Thirty years from now, it might become standard medicine. Or just the opposite. We don’t know yet.
You should only judge people by their times. The man who was a trailblazer in civil rights in his day might be called a bigot by today’s standards.

 

[spat]

You just proved my point. You are judging doctors for not believing in germ theory before it was proven and accepted . They didn’t have a Time Machine to know it. Now if it’s proven that the covid shots cause heart conditions, you would blame the doctors for following the CDC and other “ trusted” medical guidelines because they “ should have” known better despite not having a Time Machine or the raw data.
If transgender transitioning is later proven to be correct would you blame doctors for not doing it too? Thirty years from now, it might become standard medicine. Or just the opposite. We don’t know yet.
You should only judge people by their times. The man who was a trailblazer in civil rights in his day might be called a bigot by today’s standards.

I am not judging them. I explicitly said it was excusable.

But what you aren't getting is that *it didn't matter* that they didn't know any better, they were killing people all the same.

They were wrong, whether anyone alive knew it or not. It's not their fault they were wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that they were.

 

[Varmint]

 

[Truebeliever]

I am not judging them. I explicitly said it was excusable.

But what you aren't getting is that *it didn't matter* that they didn't know any better, they were killing people all the same.

They were wrong, whether anyone alive knew it or not. It's not their fault they were wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that they were.

Here’s a harder one. The dropping of the atomic bomb. There are plenty saying it was immoral ( I don’t agree but…) they are being judged by it.

 

[spat]

Here’s a harder one. The dropping of the atomic bomb. There are plenty saying it was immoral ( I don’t agree but…) they are being judged by it.

Yea, lots of people get lots of things wrong. The criticism of the bombs is among them.

Those weren't even very large bombing missions by WWII standards. They did far more damage and killed far more people with the conventional bombing raid on Tokyo not too long before them.

But, again, what is or is not moral has nothing to do with how many people agree or disagree.

It's like math, or science. It's not up for a vote, the right answer is right no matter who says otherwise.

 

[Grimscale]

Yep. But it was a form of a gun permit like most of the country has had. Most of the country can own a gun without a permit but to carry it in public , it’s a “ shall issue “ permit system— similar to…..that peace bond.

Wrong.
you didn't need to get .gov permission to buy the gun in the first place.
It was only after someone claimed you were a threat that you had to pay to retain your rights. This is more akin to the current red-flag laws than it is anything like a permitting system.

 

[Truebeliever]

Wrong.
you didn't need to get .gov permission to buy the gun in the first place.
It was only after someone claimed you were a threat that you had to pay to retain your rights. This is more akin to the current red-flag laws than it is anything like a permitting system.

Again, it is like a permit as it is the most of the country . You can buy a gun but you can’t carry it without a permit. NY is one of the few states that requires a permit to possess. Most of the country you could always buy a gun but needed a permit to carry. A peace bond is a historical reference to that.

 

[spat]

Again, it is like a permit as it is the most of the country . You can buy a gun but you can’t carry it without a permit. NY is one of the few states that requires a permit to possess. Most of the country you could always buy a gun but needed a permit to carry. A peace bond is a historical reference to that.

Most of the country can carry without any permit now.

 

[Acer-m14]

Most of the country can carry without any permit now.

Florida is going to be 26 .. its on the Gov's Desk

the damn RHINOS there removed the open carry .

 

[Truebeliever]

Florida is going to be 26 .. its on the Gov's Desk

the damn RHINOS there removed the open carry .

That’s awesome news.