Mass Shooting in Atlanta

#2,079
#2,079
luthervol said:
What should?
Click to expand...
Not incredibly sure. But unlike some people I dont believe in taking away peoples rights while I try to come up with a better option.

I would prefer a fight to the death, no guns but would be open to other approved melee weapons, after a test on the US Consitution from Scotus, and a round of policy question/answers from the legislative branch. No help, no party, no substitutes. Maybe air it all ON demand to pay down the debt. Maybe a drunk debate or debate with some 5th grade midschoolers in civics class to level the playing field.

Removes anyone who only wants to serve themself, as well as those unfamiliar with US politics and Consitution. Reduces the chances of the not-able of body or mind from buying their way in.
 
#2,082
#2,082
luthervol said:
Certainly. It has to be viewed within the context of present time.
Click to expand...
Still not sure as to what you mean.

Let me try it this way since the idea was brought up earlier.
Do you believe slavery is wrong because people should not be owned by other people? Because thats what you believe.
Or
Slavery is wrong because at some point society decided that it was and whatever society believes in the present is moral?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#2,083
#2,083
BeecherVol said:
Still not sure as to what you mean.

Let me try it this way since the idea was brought up earlier.
Do you believe slavery is wrong because people should not be owned by other people? Because thats what you believe.
Or
Slavery is wrong because at some point society decided that it was and whatever society believes in the present is moral?
Click to expand...
I believe it is wrong because people should not be owned by other people. Luckily, the vast majority of the world's population also feels the same way. Had I lived 3000 years ago, I'm not sure how I would have felt. Maybe it depends on which side of the equation I found myself. My morals have always tended to fall on the progressive side (or whatever you call it) so I would like to think I would have been one of the earlier ones claiming it was immoral. If 80% of society views something as immoral and 20% find it moral, the 20% deal with it, hide the act, try to convert some of the 80%. The reverse is also obviously true. As morality changes over time, you do your part to help morality change in the way you see best.
 
#2,084
#2,084
luthervol said:
I believe it is wrong because people should not be owned by other people. Luckily, the vast majority of the world's population also feels the same way. Had I lived 3000 years ago, I'm not sure how I would have felt. Maybe it depends on which side of the equation I found myself. My morals have always tended to fall on the progressive side (or whatever you call it) so I would like to think I would have been one of the earlier ones claiming it was immoral. If 80% of society views something as immoral and 20% find it moral, the 20% deal with it, hide the act, try to convert some of the 80%. The reverse is also obviously true. As morality changes over time, you do your part to help morality change in the way you see best.
Click to expand...

If you feel like one person owning another person is wrong, there's no reason why you should have felt different about that in the past.
How it was viewed in the past doesn't equate to it being right because it was excepted by society.

I dont believe in a changing of morality from a personal sense. Probably because mine is not rooted in what everybody else just accepts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#2,085
#2,085
BeecherVol said:
If you feel like one person owning another person is wrong, there's no reason why you should have felt different about that in the past.
How it was viewed in the past doesn't equate to it being right because it was excepted by society.

I dont believe in a changing of morality from a personal sense. Probably because mine is not rooted in what everybody else just accepts.
Click to expand...
I hope you're not insinuating that mine is.
My morality is far less rooted in what everybody else accepts than most.
Find the idiots who were "anti-gay" in the 80's and 90's but would now never admit to those beliefs.
Find the morons who were segregationists in the 60's and 70's, but would now never admit to those beliefs.

The founding fathers who owned slaves.........do you think that they were knowingly being immoral?
If they were living today, do you think that they would have differing views regarding the morality of slavery?
 
#2,087
#2,087
luthervol said:
I hope you're not insinuating that mine is.
My morality is far less rooted in what everybody else accepts than most.
Find the idiots who were "anti-gay" in the 80's and 90's but would now never admit to those beliefs.
Find the morons who were segregationists in the 60's and 70's, but would now never admit to those beliefs.

The founding fathers who owned slaves.........do you think that they were knowingly being immoral?
If they were living today, do you think that they would have differing views regarding the morality of slavery?
Click to expand...
I'm not insinuating anything. I'm allowing you to explain a comment that I quoted that didnt appear very clear. That is the extent of it.

I wouldn't have a clue as to what they would think now. It wouldn't change my opinion either way so it doesn't really matter. They were not perfect or without fault even with the great things they achieved.
And that opinion applies for any other idea pitched out there thru history.
 
#2,088
#2,088
BeecherVol said:
I'm not insinuating anything. I'm allowing you to explain a comment that I quoted that didnt appear very clear. That is the extent of it.

I wouldn't have a clue as to what they would think now. It wouldn't change my opinion either way so it doesn't really matter. They were not perfect or without fault even with the great things they achieved.
And that opinion applies for any other idea pitched out there thru history.
Click to expand...
lol...........
You think the founding fathers, if alive today, might still support slavery and view it as moral?
Give me a break.......you know better, but then you also know where that admission leads.
 
#2,089
#2,089
luthervol said:
lol...........
You think the founding fathers, if alive today, might still support slavery and view it as moral?
Give me a break.......you know better, but then you also know where that admission leads.
Click to expand...
I didn't say either way because I dont know and frankly you don't either. You can have an opinion to the way they may feel today, but thats all it would be. Heck you can't even definitively say how you would have viewed if in previous times.
You questioned me about insinuating and follow that up with an insinuation? Lol

The point was I dont care, because it doesn't change the way I view it then or now. Which was the purpose of the question. I allowed you to go into further detail about what you meant with the original post.
Its extremely possible thats not the case with everyone. And thats fine as well.
 
Last edited:
#2,091
#2,091
Rickyvol77 said:
There’s no logic or consistency with your statements
Click to expand...
Sure there is logic and consistency.
I don't think it is immoral for a 17 year old to drink, but I support the law making it illegal for them to buy alcohol.
I don't think it is immoral to drive 55 in a 40 mph zone, but I support the law making the speed limit 40 mph.
I don't think it is immoral to drive a car without a license, but I support the law that requires you to have a license.
I don't think it is immoral to drive a car with one headlight, but I support the law requiring two.
I don't think it is immoral to drive without a seatbelt, but I support the law requiring you to wear a seatbelt.
 
#2,093
#2,093
luthervol said:
I hope you're not insinuating that mine is.
My morality is far less rooted in what everybody else accepts than most.
Find the idiots who were "anti-gay" in the 80's and 90's but would now never admit to those beliefs.
Find the morons who were segregationists in the 60's and 70's, but would now never admit to those beliefs.

The founding fathers who owned slaves.........do you think that they were knowingly being immoral?
If they were living today, do you think that they would have differing views regarding the morality of slavery?
Click to expand...
Wasn't Joe one of those segregationist morons? Didn't Kamala accuse him of such in one of their debates?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#2,094
#2,094
Weezer said:
Wasn't Joe one of those segregationist morons? Didn't Kamala accuse him of such in one of their debates?
Click to expand...
He was. He's the perfect example of what I'm talking about. He represents the vast majority. Everyone's morals are a little fluid (whether or not they admit that fact to themselves or others). It's just that moral fluidity is on a continuum. If a person is over 30 and hasn't witnessed that reality, they haven't been looking.
I've got a good mental exercise that I may put on here when I have a little more time.
It proves the fact....at least for anyone with open eyes.
 
#2,095
#2,095
luthervol said:
He was. He's the perfect example of what I'm talking about. He represents the vast majority. Everyone's morals are a little fluid (whether or not they admit that fact to themselves or others). It's just that moral fluidity is on a continuum. If a person is over 30 and hasn't witnessed that reality, they haven't been looking.
I've got a good mental exercise that I may put on here when I have a little more time.
It proves the fact....at least for anyone with open eyes.
Click to expand...
I suggest you engage in as much mental exercise as possible. You need it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, C-south and luthervol
#2,096
#2,096
luthervol said:
He was. He's the perfect example of what I'm talking about. He represents the vast majority. Everyone's morals are a little fluid (whether or not they admit that fact to themselves or others). It's just that moral fluidity is on a continuum. If a person is over 30 and hasn't witnessed that reality, they haven't been looking.
I've got a good mental exercise that I may put on here when I have a little more time.
It proves the fact....at least for anyone with open eyes.
Click to expand...

that's BS Luther. If your morals are "fluid" they aren't morals. What you are describing are flaws. We all make mistakes, God didn't make us perfect.

But if we excuse mistakes as a result of "fluid morals" all we are doing is moving the standards to allow people to skirt responsibility for their actions.
--

The every day Nazis at the time thought putting Jews in the gas chambers were morally justified. That's not an example of "fluid morals" its an example of abandoning or abusing morals
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, LouderVol and hog88
#2,098
#2,098
Tastylicks said:
that's BS Luther. If your morals are "fluid" they aren't morals. What you are describing are flaws. We all make mistakes, God didn't make us perfect.

But if we excuse mistakes as a result of "fluid morals" all we are doing is moving the standards to allow people to skirt responsibility for their actions.
--

The every day Nazis at the time thought putting Jews in the gas chambers were morally justified. That's not an example of "fluid morals" its an example of abandoning or abusing morals
Click to expand...
Please. That's just completely absurd.
Take a woman who has a moral stance that she is going to dress in a fashionable but not provocative fashion.
Now place her in Victorian times, 1900, 1940, 1960, 1980, 2000, 2020. China, Brazil, US, Uganda.
The same level of morality will lead to different results in every instance...............
Because what is considered moral changes over time and from place to place.
 
#2,100
#2,100
luthervol said:
Please. That's just completely absurd.
Take a woman who has a moral stance that she is going to dress in a fashionable but not provocative fashion.
Now place her in Victorian times, 1900, 1940, 1960, 1980, 2000, 2020. China, Brazil, US, Uganda.
The same level of morality will lead to different results in every instance...............
Because what is considered moral changes over time and from place to place.
Click to expand...

that's what you consider a moral stance? wow
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top