The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
but in that case it has nothing to do with wither my habit was wrong or not in the first place.

do you think that if my habit disgusted a lot of people i should be removed in the first place? or should leave?

point being that the rights of land owners dont have anything to do with anything we've been talking about. land owner rights dont take into consideration what is right and wrong nor what people should or should not do, and that has been the topic of the last few pages.

What is right and wrong is absolutely dependent upon societal norms. Thats how it has worked historically anyway.

personally id be uncomfortable with my professor walking into the classroom nude and expecting us to pay attention to him.

dont mind fools jogging down the street naked though. i ran the bay to breakers once. lots of old naked people running through the streets... didnt bother me too much.

Do you think that your opinion of nudity should be the standard for all people? If some people are horribly offended by nudity, should we do anything to protect their standards?

And children? If we are saying clothes aren't really the point, why should we worry about nudity in front of children. If they aren't taught its wrong, it won't matter, will it?

Putting people in their place= petty, mean jabs. 😕

Who knew.

What is right and wrong is absolutely dependent upon societal norms. Thats how it has worked historically anyway.

No, that is absolutely wrong.

Originally posted by Nephthys

No, that is absolutely wrong.

Then who decides what is right and what is wrong DE?

Originally posted by Nephthys
Putting people in their place= petty, mean jabs. 😕

Who knew.

No, that is absolutely wrong.

Yet when your boyfriend and master Nemesis does it, you give him verbal fellatio. Gotta love it.

Then who decides what is right and what is wrong DE?

Zuul?

(you understand I as being satirical before, right?)

Yet when your boyfriend and master Nemesis does it, you give him verbal fellatio. Gotta love it.

I enjoy you getting your ass handed to you in debates, not small minded taunts. That would just be childish.

Horsehorser

Originally posted by truejedi
Then who decides what is right and what is wrong DE?

He's going to give you a line about moral relativism that he's been rehearsing.

Originally posted by truejedi

What is right and wrong is absolutely dependent upon societal norms. Thats how it has worked historically anyway.

what is right and what is wrong varies from person to person!

but its the person with the bigger stick who enforces their version of it. 🙂

Do you think that your opinion of nudity should be the standard for all people? If some people are horribly offended by nudity, should we do anything to protect their standards?

my opinion on nudity should not be considered a standard anymore than someone elses opinion should be considered a standard for what you should eat with your french fries. offensive concepts vary from person to person so no matter the standard there will be always be offended people.

And children? If we are saying clothes aren't really the point, why should we worry about nudity in front of children. If they aren't taught its wrong, it won't matter, will it?

it doesnt matter. the entire concept of clothing was created for the purpose of protecting us from the elements... it became a stigma for "decency" when only people with wealth could afford clothes.

k. Then we are all agreed. Clothes should be optional everywhere. At least we haven't gotten somewhere tonight. : )

hat is right and what is wrong varies from person to person!

By your logic, the holocaust wasn't wrong, nor was Stalin's regime because it varies from person to person! Back to the drawing board for you.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Except this bullshit has been debunked time and time again, regardless of what the philosophy professor you're sleeping with, says.

By your logic, the holocaust wasn't wrong, nor was Stalin's regime because it varies from person to person! Back to the drawing board for you.

this is a type of circular reasoning.

"A can not be right, because if it is then that would mean that C would be correct as well!"

Marvel, I think you think that moral relativism is everyone just having difference of opinions. For instance, I believe you would think this is a case of moral relativism.

Person A says Guns N Roses are better than Britney Spears or Miley Cyrus.
Person B says the opposite.

I believe you think that because they both have different opinions, then surely neither one of them is wrong and there goes relativism..

When in reality, having an opinion doesn't make something "relative". Nobody gives a shit if you think that Miley Cyrus and Britney Spears are better than Guns N Roses. Objectively speaking, the complete opposite is fact.

is murder always wrong? or does that vary from person to person?

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
this is a type of circular reasoning.

"A can not be right, because if it is then that would mean that C would be correct as well!"

Uh....No...

You said right and wrong varies from person to person. So using your logic, if person A thinks the holocaust was justified, then it can't be objectively or universally wrong, since person A's statement introduces "relativism".

why is the complete opposite fact? who is this according to? why do they matter?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Uh....No...

You said right and wrong varies from person to person. So using your logic, if person A thinks the holocaust was justified, then it can't be objectively or universally wrong, since person A's statement introduces "relativism".

whats wrong with that?

edit- i get the sneaking suspicion that you and i are actually in agreement about something, but it just hasnt come out yet. i think it will relatively soon.

Originally posted by truejedi
is murder always wrong? or does that vary from person to person?

I had an argument with Janus about this a long time ago and I think we would need to clarify "murder". I wouldn't think it was wrong to murder 1 man to save thousands, though technically that's called self defense, whether the threat is immediate or imminent. Murder as revenge could be morally justified, yet illegal.

What do you mean wrong? Morally or criminally?

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
why is the complete opposite fact? who is this according to? why do they matter?

^Yea, this is where the conversation ends. I expected exactly this. The "who are you to..." rebuttal that shuts the conversation down. You want critics? You want anyone with a triple digit IQ? Anyone that can judge musical talent? Lol.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
whats wrong with that?

edit- i get the sneaking suspicion that you and i are actually in agreement about something, but it just hasnt come out yet. i think it will relatively soon.

What's wrong with that? I think you would pass a philosophy with flying colors, and fail a morals and ethics class.

*Who are you to tell me correct morals and ethics*

^Blah blah blah

Human beings are machines and therefore they work better (pleasure vs pain) under certain conditions as opposed to other conditions. The same goes for societies. While ethics are metaphysically relative, a person can make a claim that murder is bad because if murder was allowed, a society could not function. This of course presupposes that we want society to function.

From a material perspective, one can make objective claims about ethics when one takes into context the levels of pleasure vs pain in society. The presupposition is that pleasure is better than pain.

just because you dont like it doesnt mean im wrong beefington.

however, why end the conversation here? if you dislike my rationale, explain your dislike for it. explain why its wrong, at least. do you think that it is wrong in that it simply isnt true, or that it doesnt work?