sleepy jack

This is getting derailed into a discussion about government and rape let's try and move it back to what we really started arguing about (and to be honest, I don't know about you, but I don't want to extend this to two posts responses with paragraphs and paragraphs simply because I want to waste a half hour on an internet forum typing up something that lengthy.) We've gone over the government discussion before and if you want to again I will but not in this thread. As for the rape thing its entirely semantics. If something gives any form of consent I'd consider it sex apparently you don't.

The great irony of your entire argument is several times you've said you're a christian. You can flip the arguments for morality and religion around and you're just as "irrational" as you're claiming me to me. Which I find weird. I base my argument as to why religion is false off of a scientific and historical information. The problem is you can't do that with morality. Religion is traditional; morality is ever-evolving. As for basing it off science...you couldn't get anywhere with it unless you found were able to find several groups of people with the exact same definitions of right and wrong for each test which is unlikely and would be a horrible way of going about things because it would be selective and therefore have no actual bearing on reality. I'd really like you to accurately explain how my approach to morality is "irrational" and turning off the "logic-switch" because I find the idea that you can find a personal code objective for billions of people to be, well, just fucking silly.

Now if you're saying there can be wrong or right morals then who's to decide what's wrong or right? A mythical space god? Ayn Rand? A dead Palestinian? To me, if there was an objective morality (which I don't believe there is) it would have to be incredibly vague in order to be timeless, universal and objective. Moral norms and ethical standards are constantly changing as we progress as a world. I think the ultimate goal of a some sort of perfect (or objective) morality is unattainable because it would require a universal agreement as to what right or wrong is. Which isn't going to happen. The only other route would be some sort of moral arbitrator but we have those now anyway. I don't like Jesus or Muhammad or Moses or Joe Smith. I think they teach some very immoral things and I could go on and on about the problems I have with organized religion and their teachings but I've beat on about it so much and unless you want me to I won't here. I think you're approach towards morality shows that you don't understand the meaning of the word (and before you ask I don't think Karl Marx and Jesus ruined the definition of that word either) or have very much scope. I believe it should not be treated as something concrete but as an on-going human discussion about seeking a balance between protecting the rights of humans but respecting the beliefs of others.

__________________