Mass Shooting in Atlanta

#2,178
#2,178
luthervol said:
Mainly, wrong as judged with historical perspective. It will obviously be viewed as wrong by those who are not part of that critical mass.
Click to expand...

Have you seen a doctor about everything coming out of the mouth on the side of your neck?
 
#2,179
#2,179
Here's another angle that may make sense.
A man has the moral stance that he does not want to be offensive to females in his work place.
Twenty years ago he could have said and done things in the work environment that were not generally viewed as offensive that would be viewed as extremely offensive today. His moral desire to not be offensive didn't change but the societal view of how a moral man behaves in the work environment has changed greatly. In order for him to adhere to his moral code of ethics, his behaviors have had to change over time.

The same is true with this example. A man could have had the moral stance that he is going to treat his fellow man with dignity. What treating your fellow man with dignity looks like has changed drastically over the centuries, it has changed drastically over the past 50 years.

My stance is this. 3000 years ago a man could have held the moral stance that he would treat his fellow man with dignity while still being a slave owner. A man with that exact same moral stance today would obviously find slavery abhorrent and unconscionable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1
#2,180
#2,180
Tastylicks said:
I don't know. I think training requirements are a good idea. Parenting. Maybe civil suits should be filed against negligent owners. I dont have all the answers.
--

My cousins (city kids) never grew up hunting or anything. My dad and brothers did. They used to shoot their shotguns and stuff all the time. My cousins though turned of age and bought one of those AR15s, didn't know what the hell they were doing. Never shot a gun in their lives but got that thing. How is that safe?

They should be required to have some training, I dont think that's out of line.

they asked my Dad if they could shoot it on his land and he said no FYI.
Click to expand...
Do you know why your dad didn’t want them target practicing on his property? Sounds like he believes in trying the next generation responsible gun use with you and your brother.
 
#2,181
#2,181
Wireless1 said:
Do you know why your dad didn’t want them target practicing on his property? Sounds like he believes in trying the next generation responsible gun use with you and your brother.
Click to expand...

I guess he thought it wasn't responsible. The fact that those two young, untrained and clueless city kids were able to buy an AR15 like that. I suspect if they came over with a shotgun growing up it woulda been different. The man is a Marine vet so he's not anti-guns
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1
#2,182
#2,182
luthervol said:
Mainly, wrong as judged with historical perspective. It will obviously be viewed as wrong by those who are not part of that critical mass.
Click to expand...
This seems like the same straw poll with a larger consensus. Everybody agrees slavery was wrong, therefore it was wrong.

So any objective moral framework; I.e. the Bible, is just a roadmap to help people end up on the side of the eventual consensus?
 
#2,184
#2,184
With our well documented history in the US of politicians and their scandals (some have which have landed in jail for those actions) we now turn to flannel and blue jeans in a quest for morality.
 
#2,185
#2,185
RockyTop85 said:
Starting to think Northdallas40 is contagious. That’s not what I thought you said.
I told you what I thought you said.
It wasn’t that.
Why would you say I thought you said something that I didn’t think you said, even after I already told you exactly what I thought you said?

I thought you said that style of dress isn’t an issue of morality it’s personal preference.

I responded that there are several cultures for which it absolutely is a moral stance. Dressing provocatively is absolutely immoral in a number of cultures. It was less socially acceptable in all of the time periods and locations that Luther mentioned in the part of his post that you cut off in your recitation of his “full statement.” There are still perfectly mainstream cultures today that see it as immoral to dress a certain way.

You responded with something about how Luther didn’t say anything about her being influenced by culture. This is incorrect, but also doesn’t address the problem presented:

If culture influences morality.
And there are multiple cultures that say clothing choice is an issue of morality.
Then how is it that clothing choice isn’t an issue of morality?

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

I'll start at the end - your last conditional statement only suggests clothing choice could be an issue of morality but doesn't guarantee it is. As I read the statement made by Luther I saw no statement that her choice was influenced by her culture. Had he said she comes from a culture where non-provocative clothing was the norm therefore she... then it would be clear.

To my two examples both eating healthy and not exhibiting conspicuous consumption are cultural norms in some places but as I stated them (choice to be vegetarian and choice on car style) were not anchored in an cultural norm hence I wouldn't consider them moral stances. It is possible in your conception they could be if they were held by the individuals due to the broader cultural norms in which they reside.

Likewise, I hope that helps
 
#2,186
#2,186
luthervol said:
I feel there should be a limit on all gun purchases in a given time frame.
Click to expand...
Why? Can you cite an instance where someone has acted badly after purchasing a large stash of weapons? Are we opening up restriction of commerce because “someone” doesn’t think it’s rational? Is @YankeeVol st risk of losing sales because nobody needs to buy more than one car in a week? If a winning lottery ticket flys into my car window my family would be in trouble for the multiples we’d buy
 
#2,187
#2,187
RockyTop85 said:
This seems like the same straw poll with a larger consensus. Everybody agrees slavery was wrong, therefore it was wrong.

So any objective moral framework; I.e. the Bible, is just a roadmap to help people end up on the side of the eventual consensus?
Click to expand...
You only want people to end up on the side of the eventual consensus if the eventual consensus is on the right side.

Things like the ending of slavery, women's rights, desegregation, civil rights, gay rights were inevitable; not because society was becoming more moral but because society was continually redefining what morality entailed.

I'm not sure what overall impact objective moral frameworks have - sometimes they help, sometimes they hinder.
 
#2,188
#2,188
Wireless1 said:
Why? Can you cite an instance where someone has acted badly after purchasing a large stash of weapons? Are we opening up restriction of commerce because “someone” doesn’t think it’s rational? Is @YankeeVol st risk of losing sales because nobody needs to buy more than one car in a week? If a winning lottery ticket flys into my car window my family would be in trouble for the multiples we’d buy
Click to expand...
Bulk Gun Purchases | Giffords
Multiple sales are a significant indicator of firearms trafficking, and firearms sold in such sales are frequently recovered at crime scenes.
  • Data indicates that approximately 20–25% of all handguns recovered at crime scenes were originally purchased as part of a multiple sale.4
  • Handguns sold in multiple sales were up to 64% more likely to be used in crime than handguns sold individually.5
  • A study of crime gun recoveries in Baltimore found that guns purchased in multiple sales were significantly more likely than guns purchased in single sales to be recovered from a possessor who was not the original buyer.6
 
#2,189
#2,189
luthervol said:
You only want people to end up on the side of the eventual consensus if the eventual consensus is on the right side.

Things like the ending of slavery, women's rights, desegregation, civil rights, gay rights were inevitable; not because society was becoming more moral but because society was continually redefining what morality entailed.

I'm not sure what overall impact objective moral frameworks have - sometimes they help, sometimes they hinder.
Click to expand...
When you refuse to define morality of course anything consistent is going to have a varying impact.
 
#2,190
#2,190
volinbham said:
I'll start at the end - your last conditional statement only suggests clothing choice could be an issue of morality but doesn't guarantee it is. As I read the statement made by Luther I saw no statement that her choice was influenced by her culture. Had he said she comes from a culture where non-provocative clothing was the norm therefore she... then it would be clear.

To my two examples both eating healthy and not exhibiting conspicuous consumption are cultural norms in some places but as I stated them (choice to be vegetarian and choice on car style) were not anchored in an cultural norm hence I wouldn't consider them moral stances. It is possible in your conception they could be if they were held by the individuals due to the broader cultural norms in which they reside.

Likewise, I hope that helps
Click to expand...
“Could be” is sufficient to make his analogy work because he explicitly said that her decisions were motivated by morality. All that needs to overcome your ridiculous disbelief is plausibility.

There’s more, like the context of the entire conversarion. Plus, it’s not I came up with the culture thing on my own: the post contained an obvious reference to cultural influence on morals:
luthervol said:
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...............
Click to expand...

But, really, the fact that he explicitly said it was a moral decision and it can be a moral decision seems totally sufficient.
 
#2,191
#2,191
luthervol said:
Bulk Gun Purchases | Giffords
Multiple sales are a significant indicator of firearms trafficking, and firearms sold in such sales are frequently recovered at crime scenes.
  • Data indicates that approximately 20–25% of all handguns recovered at crime scenes were originally purchased as part of a multiple sale.4
  • Handguns sold in multiple sales were up to 64% more likely to be used in crime than handguns sold individually.5
  • A study of crime gun recoveries in Baltimore found that guns purchased in multiple sales were significantly more likely than guns purchased in single sales to be recovered from a possessor who was not the original buyer.6
Click to expand...
I’d be willing to bet these “multiple” sales are referencing the low cost handguns purchased at gun shows then transported into “no gun” zones by girl friends and such
 
#2,193
#2,193
so labeling anything as a moral decision makes it a moral decision. got it.

I'd argue his cultural references argue against her decision her dress style (fashionable yet not provocative) being grounded in a particular culture that sets norms on what to wear since it transcends multiple cultures in the example. Are we to believe that fashionable yet not provocative is the cultural norm across 6 different time periods and 4 different geographic locations? Surely not all of those examples are cultures where the norm is fashionable yet not provocative.

Her fashion choice transcends culture in his example so it's hard to argue it is rooted in culture. Don't confuse the norm (fashionable yet not provocative) with what that looks like at different times and locations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and BeecherVol
#2,196
#2,196
luthervol said:
You only want people to end up on the side of the eventual consensus if the eventual consensus is on the right side.

Things like the ending of slavery, women's rights, desegregation, civil rights, gay rights were inevitable; not because society was becoming more moral but because society was continually redefining what morality entailed.

I'm not sure what overall impact objective moral frameworks have - sometimes they help, sometimes they hinder.
Click to expand...
To me, historical perspective seems like just applying a consensus of the cumulative moral judgments of multiple generations to a particular behavior.
But then you seem to be judging the objective rightness or wrongness of a given consensus. So either we’re not on the same page or it has fallen apart.

There are some aspects of it that I like but I think there has to be a natural law of things that are objectively morally right and wrong, irrespective of their social acceptance in a given society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tastylicks
#2,197
#2,197
RockyTop85 said:
To me, historical perspective seems like just applying a consensus of the cumulative moral judgments of multiple generations to a particular behavior.
But then you seem to be judging the objective rightness or wrongness of a given consensus. So either we’re not on the same page or it has fallen apart.

There are some aspects of it that I like but I think there has to be a natural law of things that are objectively morally right and wrong, irrespective of their social acceptance in a given society.
Click to expand...
And that natural law of things comes from where?
I think there are instinctive behaviors that are the foundation for the most basic morals, but there are instinctive behaviors in all species. I think that is just an evolutionary necessity.
 
#2,199
#2,199
luthervol said:
And that natural law of things comes from where?
I think there are instinctive behaviors that are the foundation for the most basic morals, but there are instinctive behaviors in all species. I think that is just an evolutionary necessity.
Click to expand...

It comes from religion/ religious traditions
 
#2,200
#2,200
luthervol said:
My stance is this. 3000 years ago a man could have held the moral stance that he would treat his fellow man with dignity while still being a slave owner. A man with that exact same moral stance today would obviously find slavery abhorrent and unconscionable.
Click to expand...
That wasn't a moral stance he just used it to justify testing other humans as livestock.

Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it moral, I will. I got spare time.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top