|
Post by jean on Jan 19, 2010 16:02:40 GMT
...as i have told you, any and all human's perception of anything, particularly right and wrong, has nothing to do with it. right and wrong are carved in stone, and people's ideas about it are totally irrelevant, and change absolutely NOTHING... That would include your ideas presumably, since I believe you are a human person?
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Jan 19, 2010 16:12:22 GMT
I'm sorry Jumbo, but you DO talk a load of bollocks at times! In your world things are only black and white, whereas in the normal world (the one most of us inhabit) there are infinite shades of grey. Right and wrong can never be absolutes, for to believe thus without first asking who decides what is right, or wrong, leaves you in limbo.
Consider. A Jehovahs witness refuses to allow the doctors to transfuse her sick child; which is necessary to save said childs life. In the first instance a doctor follows her instructions to the letter, and the child dies. In the second, he ignores her edict and gives the child blood which saves its life.
You argue that "right and wrong are not determined by anyone's perspective. They are absolutes". So who was right? The mother, or the doctor; and if the doctor, in which example would you say he was right.? There are so many examples I could give to show that you are completely and utterly wrong when you argue thus;but I doubt if any would impinge on your thought processes.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 19, 2010 19:39:16 GMT
I'm sorry Jumbo, but you DO talk a load of bollocks at times! In your world things are only black and white, whereas in the normal world (the one most of us inhabit) there are infinite shades of grey. Right and wrong can never be absolutes, for to believe thus without first asking who decides what is right, or wrong, leaves you in limbo. Consider. A Jehovahs witness refuses to allow the doctors to transfuse her sick child; which is necessary to save said childs life. In the first instance a doctor follows her instructions to the letter, and the child dies. In the second, he ignores her edict and gives the child blood which saves its life. You argue that "right and wrong are not determined by anyone's perspective. They are absolutes". So who was right? The mother, or the doctor; and if the doctor, in which example would you say he was right.? There are so many examples I could give to show that you are completely and utterly wrong when you argue thus;but I doubt if any would impinge on your thought processes. your rhetorical question doesn't show much. there is obviously ONLY one right answer and that is the doctor who ignores the mother and saves the child's life. the mother does not have a right to kill her child. susan smith is in prison, and darlie routier on death row for exactly the same thing. as always, your "grey" fails. each and every shade of grey requires a mixture of black and white. there is NOTHING that is equally good and bad, right and wrong, at the same time, which is what you're saying when you talk about anything being grey.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 19, 2010 19:43:45 GMT
...as i have told you, any and all human's perception of anything, particularly right and wrong, has nothing to do with it. right and wrong are carved in stone, and people's ideas about it are totally irrelevant, and change absolutely NOTHING... That would include your ideas presumably, since I believe you are a human person? absolutely. my perception of anything does not change the reality. as i said on another thread, i know that living together without being married is wrong, but that has not stopped me from doing it. the fact that i do it however, does not change the fact that it is wrong, regardless of how i rationalize it
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 19, 2010 19:50:40 GMT
But Jim, Darlie Routier murdered her child. That's a bit different from just not letting it have a blood transfusion!
That was conscious, deliberate murder which is not quite the same thing.
For what it's worth (though I'm anything BUT sympathetic to Jehovah's Witnesses) I DO give them credit for ending up in the camps rather than submitting to the Nazis and I've known two who refused to have blood transfusions for themselves and still lived to tell the tale.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 19, 2010 20:44:47 GMT
That would include your ideas presumably, since I believe you are a human person? absolutely. my perception of anything does not change the reality. as i said on another thread, i know that living together without being married is wrong, but that has not stopped me from doing it. the fact that i do it however, does not change the fact that it is wrong, regardless of how i rationalize it But maybe it is your perception that living together without being married is wrong that is wrong, and living together without being married is in fact not wrong at all.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 19, 2010 22:40:47 GMT
absolutely. my perception of anything does not change the reality. as i said on another thread, i know that living together without being married is wrong, but that has not stopped me from doing it. the fact that i do it however, does not change the fact that it is wrong, regardless of how i rationalize it But maybe it is your perception that living together without being married is wrong that is wrong, and living together without being married is in fact not wrong at all.except for the fact that it is not my perception that makes it wrong
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 19, 2010 23:16:32 GMT
How else would you know?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 19, 2010 23:42:48 GMT
But Jim, Darlie Routier murdered her child. That's a bit different from just not letting it have a blood transfusion! That was conscious, deliberate murder which is not quite the same thing. For what it's worth (though I'm anything BUT sympathetic to Jehovah's Witnesses) I DO give them credit for ending up in the camps rather than submitting to the Nazis and I've known two who refused to have blood transfusions for themselves and still lived to tell the tale. no, it IS the same thing. knowing for an absolute certainty that the kid will die without the transfusion, and refusing to give it to the kid, IS wilful murder at least now, fools like that are being prosecuted and sent to prison
|
|