No, I’ve stayed on point and topic.
I was stating that in the two specific threads that I was referencing, that people who were being moralistic in a hostile mode were filtering things through in a way that ignored that they were not taking into account the difference in mores and laws in the areas being discussed.
At least frame that debate correctly. The concern was not just about pre-teen sex…it was about statutory rape.
Your first sentence in this thread was
"Lately I’ve seen far too many posts where people sit in judgement of others. They filter the experiences of others through their own morality and feel that they can judge who is right and who is wrong. "
Would you stand in judgement of slaveowners in the American 18th and 19th century?
Would you feel qualified (if you lived during those times) to judge who is right and who is wrong about slave ownership?
Would you impose your value system on slaveowners who were dependent on cheap labor to make a living?
Yes slave ownership and the rise of Hitler are different issues than statutory rape…your mandate to not judge people on their behavior seems pretty all inclusive to me (and, apparently other posters) though.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Hastur *
**
MGibson: You’ve had little to say in other threads that you have participated in, and in this thread like others, insult someone directly and diffuse any chance for real discussion and debate. You behave poorly, and seem more concerned with being right than have an honest discussion.
This is the pit. If you wanted an honest debate you would have posted this in great debates. And if I might quote you from the opening post.
My my Hastur, it really sounded like you wanted an open intellectual debate.
**
Ethics are simply a set of principles of correct conduct. Morality is of course a system of ideas concerning what is and isn’t right. You can’t act in an ethical manner if you don’t have some sort of moral code. You can’t say something is ethically right without some sort of moral justification.
Marc
OK, just going by your two examples
A doctor would be ethically obligated to point out to the 15 year old that he is in grave risk of contracting the disease if he fucks someone with HIV. A lawyer would be ethically obligated to inform the 18 year old that he is committing statutory rape and, as such, might even be charged with attempted murder for fucking the kid, even if the kid absolutely wanted it. An average person would be ethically correct in disapproving of a situation that the law doesn’t allow and is not in the best interest of the parties to do.
Americans would be ethically correct in disapproving of the 11 year old having sex, even if the Dom. Rep. accepts it, if they do it out of concern and love for their fellow human being. This is based entirely on your definition of ethics. It is ethically acceptable to say that another country is doing something wrong not merely because it clashes with our values but because it harms someone.
But your post was about more than just that. The title of the thread was “Who the hell do you think you are to judge others?”
You said in your OP “So, to those who feel that they have the right to place themselves in the lofty realms that allow themselves to force their narrow views and judgement on others: Fuck You!”
Is it any wonder people misunderstood you to mean ONLY those two threads were being discussed?
Well, okay … you say that in these two specific instances it is not okay to judge because we’re not of the same cultral understanding. Perhaps you’d be so kind to give us a list of other times that it’s not okay to judge? Just so we can all stay on your good side?
We all judge. Maybe it’s a human weakness or maybe it’s just human but it’s something we all do. Iranians judge the U.S. as the evil empire. Are we not allowed to disagree with them? as beagledave said above :
Even though we do have cultural differences we can still judge that things may be inherently unfair or disrepectful to people, especially to what we would consider minors, and that doesn’t make us pricks because of it.
Without the ability to make judgements our society would simply fall apart.
You say that morality, or rather its abuse, has been exclusively carried out in furtherance of religious values, but of course there are many who hold deep religious convictions who would argue that such individuals are hardly following the Word and their actions have more to do with power than reverance, in that you are making a judgement yourself.
Is it not possible that morality persecution takes place from a non-religious background, thinking back to the McCarthy era I think so, therefore you have not considered the full picture, which is what you accuse the judgemental of so doing.
If someone truly loves another they would place the welfare of their loved one at least equal, if not greater, than their own, which is one very good reason why a HIV antibody positive 18 year old ought not to be considering sex with a 15 year old, or anyone for that matter, so in my mind it just seems like a case of self-gratification first, true love second, not very admirable in any language.
Next, a pregnant 11 year old, hmmm, wish Quadgop were here to talk about the very real physical hazards such an early preganancy entails.
The lack of consideration by the impregnator again seems like an act of self-gratification.
Quite honestly if impregnating children is acceptable to citizens of the Dominican Republic then they have a serious problem in their society and I would condemn anyone who advocates such a practice.
Right now there is a conferance going on about racism and slavery, its big enough and you must have seen it mentioned in the news reports, one abject form of slavery is child prostitution which is held to be uniquely evil in that the subject of such abuse cannot possibly be equipped to make the choice for themselves so you will forgive me if I feel incredibly uneasy when I hear of a case of such youthful pregnancy.
I make no apologies whatsoever, the chances of that child getting the emotional support and the education and the opportunities of employment from such a situation are vanishingly small, in that I would sit in judgement and lose no sleep at all.
Not being prepared to make a call on what you believe to be right and wrong is a major cop-out, how can you educate yourself to the ways of mankind when you hold no position from which to move ?
A case of the bland leading the bland.
You must surely have limits to your model of acceptable behaviour, one of the problems worldwide is that as an international community we think its none of our business what despots do to their own citizens in their own countries, so we suck up to them when it suits us, for fear they may turn off the oil pumps or the dirt cheap labour or the damaging safety-free industrial practices and then duck the issue in a cowardly and morally bereft way by saying ’ Oh, it’s their culture - that makes it alright then’
.
You don’t even strive for debate. You insult, demean, and reduce things to your comfort level, which is in a very low area indeed. In the SUV House thread, much like others you participate in, your boorish and obvious attempts to be the devil’s advocate do nothing more than attempt to derail debate and incite people to anger.
Ethics are fare more than principles of correct conduct. Read some books on ethics and you shall see that. Moral justifications are just that. Justifications for often poor descisions based on morality. Justification is just another word for excuse. And one can say something is ethically right or wrong without polluting it with morality.
But of course, you will phrase your remarks once again with more insults and attempts to derail debate, so why bother responding? In fact, why bother posting on a board that is to dispell ignorance when you seem to have such a desire to propgate it?
Did I miss something? There was no insult in his post either implicit or implied.
Or am I being too judgemental? 
Hastur, I saw nothing insulting, demeaning, or sarcastic in MGibson’s post. But if you feel that’s what Marc was striving for then it’s your right to ahem judge him how you see fit.
But then I must ask: if you truly see his posts in that manner, and you truly want to debate this issue why then did you
**
Perhaps you need to get it through that skull of yours that this is the Pit and not Great Debates. You want to complain about me being boorish in the Pit? You set the tone of this discussion in your OP when you said FUCK YOU to everyone who disagreed with you.
And I do not simply play devil’s advocate and attempt to make others angry. There are plenty of Straight Dope threads that I don’t post in because either I don’t care about the subject, I have no strong opinions about it, or I’m tired of talking about it.
**
Who’s being boorish? Morality is more then the personal version of right and wrong based on religious training that you seem to think it is. Read some books on the subject and maybe you’ll see that.
**
Actually you have a good point. People often attempt to morally justify actions that are wrong. That still doesn’t mean that one can say anything is right or wrong without morality entering into the picture.
You think ethics is knowledge of right and wrong based on love and compassion for your fellow human beings. You’re about the first person I’ve ever heard to make that assertion. What book did you read that in?
I didn’t derail anything. If you were interested in debate you would have posted this in Great Debates and wouldn’t have written FUCK YOU in the OP. Remove that beam from your eye before you accuse me of anything.
Marc
Hastur, I think you of all people have no right to throw stones. You have a habit of tarring anyone with whom you disagree as homophobic, as several have noted in the past, for saying something as simple as “lifestyle”, “sexual preference”, etc etc.
HASTUR –
As has already been pointed out, your apparent definitions of “ethics” and “morals” do not jibe with the common definitions. From dictionary.com:
Though the definitions obviously overlap, neither is dependent upon where you learned it (in church versus from a teacher you really respect) or what motivates you to do it (an open heart versus, say, societal conditioning).
“Justifications” are something else, since the word is currently most often used pejoritavely, as you yourself use it (meaning, something that appears to justify an action, but really doesn’t).
Also totally different is the idea of absolutism versus relativism. Both morality and ethics may be either absolute or relative. Either can provide justification for an action or an opinion (true justification or sham justification). You throw these terms around as if they all mean the same thing (which they don’t) or as if certain of them (justification, relativism) can only be hooked up with one (morality) and not the other (ethics).
And I would advise you that I have read Marcus Borg extensively (since he’s both (a) smart and (b) a dedicated Christian (but you knew that, right?)), and have also heard him speak and he does not to my knowledge ascribe to the artificial and religious-based distinction between ethics and morality that you have set forth here. He may well have been your teacher but that doesn’t mean you learned anything from him.
Oh, and anyone who posts in the pit a big ol’ and preemptive FUCK YOU! to those who disagree with him is in a poor position to bemoan the low tone of the “debate.”
Oh, Jodi, don’t you know anything? The only accurate source of information is Hastur’s Appeal To Authority Du Jour. Everything else is just judgemental.
6.2 at first (primarily for the vehement righteous indignation despite a lack of cohesion), but then down to a 4.8 for total loss of focus by the bottom of page one.
Average it out to a hard fought for 5.5. Congratulations and better luck next time.
Might I suggest that if you want to improve your scores, you should focus on depth.
Oh, Hastur, I like you, but are you not happy unless you are getting gang-banged in the Pit?
Help me out here. What were these people forcing, and who were they forcing it on? The lying pervert? What was forced on him? The 15 yr old? What was forced on him?
As far I can see, these 2 people are probably blissfully unaware of both coversations. Our threads do not really spark the passing of litigation, and have no force of law by themselves, so these 2 would be completely unaffected by any remarks in those threads.
The posters stated their opinions, nothing more. Those opinions seemed pretty much on target.
Again, what was being forced and who was it being forced on?
[sub]I apologize for my poor grammer[/sub]
My last words in this threads are this:
You, as well as others, cannot seem to accept that people can change. I will not explain the process I’ve went through, but change I have.
That you throw such remarks at me shows me exactly how stuck you and others are with an image of me that is no longer me.
I have not been hostile in this thread, nor have I been hostile since my return to posting three weeks ago.
I did not post for two months. I see that with the rigid image people have of me, perhaps I shouldn’t have bothered to return.
This board has degenerated to insults, name calling, baiting in the GD, and little of what was good has remained. This has turned into the sandbox for children who wish to force their views, and damn those who might disagree or challenge.
Edna St. Vincent Millay once spoke of a bitter cup of gall at a gathering. I feel much as she did in the presence of people like you who wish to gather torches and attack and demean those who have good intent and desire to discuss and grow.
Thanks for reminding me why debate on here is often a pointless pastime that often teaches nothing more than how to hone an insult. And not even a good insult at that.
Actually, I have no recollection of you, and therefore no bias based on your self proclaimed problems.
Now isn’t that a tad judgmental? More to the point, isn’t that a poorly supported decision?
Sound decision making, including making personal judgments, is necessary to existing as an adult in society. Learning to make sound judgments is a part of growing up. Rather than railing about the morality of making judgments, you might consider accepting that judgments are unavoidable, and instead learn about how sound judgements can be distinquished from unsound judgments.
Horseshit.
You started this thread with hostility and insults.( You insulted everyone who posted to either of threads you linked.)
You came out swinging.
Waaa fucking waaa.
Get off the cross dude…somebody else needs the wood.
(curious how you equate “good intent” with FUCK YOU in your OP)