[narf poit chez BOOM]

*a less-sick Narf charges back into the ring. and first, i'm going to pick on Fyron.*

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
here are the basics of an example: if it directly or indirectly harms another person other than yourself, it is immoral. If it doesn't, it is not immoral. Being "moral" does not specifcally matter, as most actions that are obviously not immoral are not necessarily morally good.

my own belief is that every action is either right or wrong; however, that's my assumption. you are assuming that something cannot harm someone without being wrong. what about surgury, which harms and may KILL the person surgury is being performed upon, but is nessasary, perhaps even for the continued survival of that person. you need some if modifier's.

ere is another one: if it infringes upon the freedoms (freedom to live, freedom to be happy, freedom to better him/herself, etc.) of another individual, it is immoral. If not, it is not immoral. Again, being "moral" is not a big concern, for the same reason as above.

so, then, a twenty-four hour lockdown to search for a murdurous person or people is immoral? i'm not saying it couldn't be argued, just wondering if you've thought of contingency's or principle's to cover them.

Neither of these rely on "feel-right" assumptions.

at the risk of being redundant, they do.

They can be arrived from from the fact that harming others tends to destablize society in general, so it is better to not harm others than to harm them. If society becomes destablized too much, you might end up getting killed. This is not an assumption, but an observation of human societies.

which could easily justify actions i would call wrong if they could be said to stabilize society.

Spoon
And it probably doesn't help matters that creationism is junk science without merit...

creationism is a semi-science, the only science that comes into play is the science that concludes that it might have happened. actual beleif in creationism generally comes from or with beleif in god. do you want to hear my arguement that dinosaur's where, in fact, our pre-mortal spirits figuring out what traites worked best for survival? (i wonder how many people can guess my religeon now...)

Spoon
This seems a better system than The Burning Bush Said So system. Especially when what exactly the Bush said is debatable and subject to interpretation.

so, if a burning bush that isn't consumed told you something that contradicted your own feeling's, would you completly ignore it? or would that depend on how deep your feelings on that matter where?

Jack
Mainstream media has the same basic bias, and a tendancy to edit in favor of the side they favor; you pretty much never see creation/evolution debates in the media because the creationists have been burned that way before, and either require that the debate be live or require a no-editing contract, neither of which the media is willing to grant.

the media is liberal.

With a source that all parties agree is correct that can be shown to speak on the issue, it is usually possible for one side to convice the other that their position is not correct.

interpretation of the bible. something like 2500 christian sects, i've heard.

that's page 1