IF you were never going to get caught, would you do IT?

innocence in the example I gave is a tautology though.

how do we know the girl is innocent? because that is how she is defined. Again, though, I would congradulate you for finding a moral system that doesn't recognize innocence in any form either.

thats like meta philosophy

Originally posted by inimalist
innocence in the example I gave is a tautology though.

how do we know the girl is innocent? because that is how she is defined. Again, though, I would congradulate you for finding a moral system that doesn't recognize innocence in any form either.

thats like meta philosophy

Catholicism says we are all born into sin....... 'congradulate me' ;-)

Innocence 'in any form' points of reference matey, points of reference. Girls are never innocent....

if you honestly believe that I deny that you have ever meaningfully considered the human condition

Originally posted by inimalist
if you honestly believe that I deny that you have ever meaningfully considered the human condition

Explain to me the human condition when our nations are torturing people and they make our rules.

see, if you were amoral, the torture of others wouldn't bother you

Originally posted by inimalist
see, if you were amoral, the torture of others wouldn't bother you

You infer it bothers me, I made a statement highlighting the hypocrisy of morality.

Originally posted by ThAnus_ofTITass
Explain to me the human condition when our nations are torturing people and they make our rules.

This implies that torture is "wrong" across the board, when that level of wrongness is fluctuating.

Originally posted by Robtard
This implies that torture is "wrong" across the board, when that level of wrongness is fluctuating.

Not really, it implies the people who create the rules do not follow the morality they ask the rest of us to, in a given, fluid situation.

Originally posted by ThAnus_ofTITass
Not really, it implies the people who create the rules do not follow the morality they ask the rest of us to, in a given, fluid situation.

Like Ted Haggard and other preachers who have gay-sex.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Like Ted Haggard and other preachers who have gay-sex.

Exactly!

Originally posted by ThAnus_ofTITass
Not really, it implies the people who create the rules do not follow the morality they ask the rest of us to, in a given, fluid situation.

Again, it implies that torture is held as "wrong" no matter the condition, when some of the very people who'll condemn a government/nation for using torture, would gladly in turn accept the torturing of people in certain scenarios.

If anything is fluid, it's what people consider to be wrong.

But yes, people/leaders do that too, as you said, in the general sense of things.

Originally posted by Robtard
Again, it implies that torture is held as "wrong" no matter the condition, when some of the very people who'll condemn a government/nation for using torture, would gladly in turn accept the torturing pf people in certain scenarios.

If anything is fluid, it's what people consider to be wrong.

It's held wrong within there morality - exactly. I would not condemn anyone for using torture 😖hifty: Of course what people consider wrong is fluid and that's the point, morality is merely an example of socialisation. Do what though wilt and that shall be the whole of the law. ;-)

Did you pick that name just to be offensive/funny, or does it hold some meaning?

Just curious.

Originally posted by Robtard
Again, it implies that torture is held as "wrong" no matter the condition, when some of the very people who'll condemn a government/nation for using torture, would gladly in turn accept the torturing of people in certain scenarios.

If anything is fluid, it's what people consider to be wrong.

But yes, people/leaders do that too, as you said, in the general sense of things.

Like what scenarios? People tend to be either totally for, or against torture.

It's not like killing or abortion, where people will make all kinds of "if's" and other conditions.

A lot of comic fans are very protective of Thanos, where in reality he is an extremely generic character.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Like what scenarios? People tend to be either totally for, or against torture.

It's not like killing or abortion, where people will make all kinds of "if's" and other conditionals.

When it comes to terrorism for instance.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Like what scenarios? People tend to be either totally for, or against torture.

It's not like killing or abortion, where people will make all kinds of "if's" and other conditions.

EG Take your average San Francisco liberal who holds the "torture is wrong, it doesn't work; what 'we' did in Guantanamo is an atrocity." point of view.

Now put them in a situation where someone they love (or them) is in immediate danger of dying and the torture of a [suspected] terrorist is the best chance of gleaning information that could/would save the lives at risk; they'll accept it as a necessary evil.

Originally posted by Robtard
EG Take your average San Francisco liberal who holds the "torture is wrong, it doesn't work; what 'we' did in Guantanamo is an atrocity." point of view.

Now put them in a situation where someone they love (or them) is in immediate danger of dying and the torture of a [suspected] terrorist is the best chance of gleaning information that could/would save the lives at risk; they'll accept it as a necessary evil.

Exactly.

Originally posted by ThAnus_ofTITass
A lot of comic fans are very protective of Thanos, where in reality he is an extremely generic character.

funny, I was thinking the same about you

Originally posted by inimalist
funny, I was thinking the same about you

You were thinking? Well done.