my random thought of the day - 7/8/2013

[IH8PunkRok]

Over the years I have watched and listened to many a person say many things with conviction, doubt, fear, and lots of anger. The one thing I have really gathered from all of my observation is something I feel is the answer.

Definition and Interpretation

These are the problems, the very root of every argument ever. Just as strangeduck said earlier, where do we draw the line? Here is a better question, can a line be drawn at all? Or even, should there even be sides?

Pretty much everything in this country is based on rules that define what is right or what is wrong. Very rarely are both extremes given. This begs the question, why? Why are there not concrete sides to each and every issue and distinctions saying which is right or wrong? Simple answer? Ambiguity.

Those that right the law (at least in the past) do not grant themselves the right to determine what is true good or true evil. Therefore, they based ideas off of religion which is the only set code of morality

(*(*(*(*(Super side note. Morality is the code of good and bad within the self, ethics is the code of good and bad for a society)*)*)*)*)

See the problem yet? Not everyone agrees. Therefore a code of morality pressed upon the masses is doomed to fail. People will not agree, not indefinitely.

What is the point of everything im saying? Basically rules and laws are written ambiguously to try and leave it up to interpretation, a case by case basis. Today the most popular thing to do is try and make a blanket set of rules which govern everyones life. This is impossible and it needs to stop. I like the general rule of "you are free to do as you please until it infringes on the rights of others" but I feel the statement needs an ending.

You are free to do as you please until it infringes on the rights of others. If that should happen cease the activity until such a time when others rights will not be infringed upon.

[TeamHT]

I agree with parts of it, but where we draw the line really isn't that difficult. Fear and close minded logic use that argument for gay marriage and ask us what's next, allow pedophiles and even incest? Murder and rape? Taking it to such extremes that literally have no bearing on the issue at hand.

I can see that a question may come up like that sometimes, but I think there is a lot where it is just people only wanting their own freedom. Morality is simply what a society things is right and wrong. So if we change as a society, so does our morality. And if we seek it freedom, equality, and independence our morality may once again become a of pillar of hope.

[Jessica]

And THAT is where you are so wrong. Congress set the law...based off of religious belief. So, how does a country who fought for freedom separated from religious oppression religiously oppress people? Ergo, the original post, and the notion that you are only free if you choose their freedom. Which is a gross hypocrisy. Hopefully you can connect the dots.

And sorry, but to prove my point even more...why cannot siblings get married? What would that be considered? Please don't tell me you don't call that incest...

I m only using an extreeme case to prove a point that from your point of view it is wrong. I agree that brother and sister should not be married because that is the way i was raised. But see, different cultures have different value sets. And we have so many cultures in our country. For instance, a better example would have been polygamy.

I agree that various religions use money and lobbying and whatever means they can to sway the lawmaking in this country. And that obviously several members of our government have their own religious beliefs and own value sets.

The whole point of my side of the debate has nothing to do with gay marriage, I kind of got off on a tagent there, but i was only trying to use it as an example.

I will try to clarify what my point here is. I only wish to discuss what the OP presented. When you make a claim that you are tolerant of other peoples views and beliefs, should you accept that some of those view might be in stark contrast to yours?

It's just a generalization, it could apply to eating pork, women voting, or even if you should have the right to speak your mind in pubic.

Remember, from their point of view they are right, and from yours you are right. So therein lies the difficulty having so many different races/religions/cultures living in one country. How do we define what is acceptable, what is not? We can't make everyone happy, we will always offend people somehow.

That is that gray area i was talking about, people are dynamic and changing, in 100 years what kind of laws will we have, what kind of odd things will be allowed? Humans are in their infancy right now. i see crazy things in our future if we survive.

[TeamHT]

I didn't even read past your first part. You took it to an unrealistic and ridiculous extreme that's not even analogous to try send prove your point. Let that settle, you had to take it so far out of context to prove a point you don't even understand. You keep assuming someone has to be ok with something they're not when that's not the case. Some people don't agree with liquor, good thing we don't outlaw that. Some people are against pornography. I'm sure almost no one here is upset about that.

You can not agree with someone while realizing they have a right to do so. You bring up WBC, but who in here has said they can't do what they do? They believe what they want to believe, and thankfully their overzealous religious fervor is not law. Equality does not require religious approval. I'm glad churches exercise their freedom, and they should continue to do so. But to expect law in this country to be founded on that is wrong, especially when it so blatantly steps on someone's rights send freedoms who, if exercising their right and freedom, do nothing to infringe on the sincere happiness and freedoms of others.

I'm waiting for a logical response. Not rape, murder, and incest. Which you should be ashamed for even using as an example against homosexuality.

[TeamHT]

And I don't understand why you keep going to this mythical "grey area" where I believe I'm right and they believe they're right. Right or wrong in the religious sense has no point here. Which brings us back to square 1...AGAIN. Our country was founded by those escaping religious persecution and wanted time establish a country where you would not be subject to such tyranny again.

So...how exactly is this grey area logical, fair, and an example of separation of church and state?

[IH8PunkRok]

I can see that a question may come up like that sometimes, but I think there is a lot where it is just people only wanting their own freedom. Morality is simply what a society things is right and wrong. So if we change as a society, so does our morality. And if we seek it freedom, equality, and independence our morality may once again become a of pillar of hope.

I want to agree and disagree with you here

morality is influenced by society, not determined. ethics are determined by society

How a person acts alone is defined by morality. How a person acts in public is defined by ethics.

This distinction is extremely important and I only really began to understand it as of late. I have a friend that honestly sees no wrong in many of the very negative and heinous crimes people commit, like murder for example. He would never do it because it is not accepted by society, but he has no personal issue with it.

I honestly think that this is an area which needs to be discussed because a lot of people are projecting their own morality as the way to live in a society, which is wrong. My friend, for example, would be very wrong to go and protest at murder trials saying that the defendant did nothing wrong. His personal beliefs should not be injected into the rules and reguations of a society. It is then that people lose their shit and argue

[Jessica]

Dude, HT. you need to actually read my posts, i am not against homosexuality. where did you get that. I said it several times that i am not against that.

I understand your post clearly, you think i am arguing with you and we are talking about the same thing here.

I agree religion has no place in setting laws, i agree in seperation of church and state, i believe people have a right to live how they want as long as they are harming others.

How are you not seeing that?

I am asking you to think a bit bigger though, you are too focused on one little tiny issue here. I am asking you to discuss what are the things that we can do with enough open mindedness?

[TeamHT]

The word influence I don't think is a strong enough word to recognize it is the society who decide what is right and wrong. Our society has changed many times over our short run in history and what we think is right and wrong now differ from a century ago.

Look at western civilization and how their society regarded morality. Look at any society not influenced by western culture. Look at the Roman empire. We judge them all on our sense of morality which is something our society determines. Doesn't mean it's correct, just that society seeks to find a sense normalcy and in the process creates our unit of measurement aka morality. I don't see homosexuality morally wrong although almost the entirety of western culture through history does. I do however find it naturally and biologically wrong, which doesn't affect my sense of morality which tends to align more with a sense of justice and fairness.

There may be things that we all differ opinion on, but there should be a level of freedom afforded all. Not just the ones who choose the freedom the majority want. At one point in time society viewed slaves as inferior and so it was morally right to own, punish, and do whatever one desired.

Society changed and so did the way we judge right and wrong, morality.

[TeamHT]

Also, when did I ever say someone cannot have a different opinion? I welcome opposing beliefs almost always. But there is a line with someone using their freedom to take over someone else's and I hope one day our country can become great again.

I know religion is a huge taboo subject for people to discuss but I do dream of a day when religion was gone. I wonder how far our society would evolve then. Morally, culturally, scientifically, technologically, and intellectually. If we didn't use fear and religion as a crutch burning and stoning blasphemers and scientists, would we have developed nuclear fusion to the point of building ships able to travel past our galaxy to the next.

Side tracked but oh well.

[big dee]

It makes me sick the lengths some of you guys take to try an sound intelligent .lots of egos being stroked here lol