You're talking to someone who thinks child soldiers aren't important because "that doesn't affect him."KainrycKarr wrote...
Or for that matter what's the differnce between a some random man raping a women, and an obese women ordering more food than see needs. Both have potential "victims". The man is unwilling having sex with her body, and the obese women is hurting her body(voluntarily or not).
You dont seriously believe that do you?
Collider wrote...
The man is forcing another person to have sex, thus depriving them of their benign desire not to have sex with the man.DeathCultArm wrote...
The obese woman is not doing anything except over eating. It's not the same.
KainrycKarr wrote...
DethcultArm wrote:
Or for that matter what's the differnce between a some random man raping a women, and an obese women ordering more food than see needs. Both have potential "victims". The man is unwilling having sex with her body, and the obese women is hurting her body(voluntarily or not).
You dont seriously believe that do you?
Of course it isn't objectively justified! I'm playing the devil's advocate here, numbnuts!LucidStrike wrote...
...Moral nihilists often contradict themselves. What you just argued isn't moral nihilism but moral relativism. Your original position was that no moral argument can be objectively justified.
DeathCultArm wrote...
Collider wrote...
The man is forcing another person to have sex, thus depriving them of their benign desire not to have sex with the man.DeathCultArm wrote...
The obese woman is not doing anything except over eating. It's not the same.
Yes he is foring them to partake in it, they just can't stop it. Just the same as the women is forcing herslef to eat. The women'd body can't stop herslef from eat, and the women can't stop the man from raping her. How is raping the women any more wrong. Her right are hers to denfend, and if she can't...
KainrycKarr wrote...
DeathCultArm wrote...
Collider wrote...
The man is forcing another person to have sex, thus depriving them of their benign desire not to have sex with the man.DeathCultArm wrote...
The obese woman is not doing anything except over eating. It's not the same.
Yes he is foring them to partake in it, they just can't stop it. Just the same as the women is forcing herslef to eat. The women'd body can't stop herslef from eat, and the women can't stop the man from raping her. How is raping the women any more wrong. Her right are hers to denfend, and if she can't...
So the man is justified in raping her because she cant defend herself?
Come on dude, stop typing and just read what you write. There is no way your that ignorant.
Marlina wrote...
Of course it isn't objectively justified! I'm playing the devil's advocate here, numbnuts!LucidStrike wrote...
...Moral nihilists often contradict themselves. What you just argued isn't moral nihilism but moral relativism. Your original position was that no moral argument can be objectively justified.
Modifié par KainrycKarr, 20 janvier 2010 - 10:26 .
DeathCultArm wrote...
KainrycKarr wrote...
DeathCultArm wrote...
Collider wrote...
The man is forcing another person to have sex, thus depriving them of their benign desire not to have sex with the man.DeathCultArm wrote...
The obese woman is not doing anything except over eating. It's not the same.
Yes he is foring them to partake in it, they just can't stop it. Just the same as the women is forcing herslef to eat. The women'd body can't stop herslef from eat, and the women can't stop the man from raping her. How is raping the women any more wrong. Her right are hers to denfend, and if she can't...
So the man is justified in raping her because she cant defend herself?
Come on dude, stop typing and just read what you write. There is no way your that ignorant.
I'm not giving my opinion, but I could make the case that, that is reason enough to be raped.
That doesn't matter lol.they just can't stop it.
If she was forcing herself, then I'm forcing myself to type right now. Doesn't really matter. She's doing something to herself, but the manJust the same as the women is forcing herslef to eat.
Uh, no, unless she has mental problems. Then she would less liable for her actions.The women'd body can't stop herslef from eat,
It isn't the same. The women isn't unable to stop her own actions, she is unable to stop someone elses' actions.and the women can't stop the man from raping her.
Because someone else is imposing their will on someone who doesn't want it.How is raping the women any more wrong.
it would be a pretty sad society where the only person held responsible in violence and theft is the victimHer right are hers to denfend, and if she can't...
Modifié par Collider, 20 janvier 2010 - 10:27 .
I'll try an analogy. My value of your life is my own. It doesn't inherently exist. It might be described as subjective. However, if I say to you that "If you want to continue to live, you must eat," is that subjective? It's an observation of the experienced reality. If you do not nourish your body, you will die.adam_grif wrote...
LucidStrike wrote...
There can be objective reasons for moral principles. I believe that moral principles are those principles that are necessary for the persistence of life in a social context. It may be axiomatic and based on a value of life that does not inherently exist, but the decisions folliowng from it are based on objective observations.
Comparing moral principles to color preferences oversimplifies.
No, there can't. You just admit two sentances down that it's not actually objective. Your argument is "It's not actually objective, but it is". Which doesn't make sense.
Says BioWare. As I reason, undermining a nationalist, quasi-terrorist organization is always a Paragon decision.Arrtis wrote...
not giving up the cerberus data is the paragon choice.
I believe the Alliance is immoral, but I was talking about Cerberus.Collider wrote...
Are you saying that Alliance is terrorist? LOL
Collider wrote...
Are you saying that Alliance is terrorist? LOL
I just keep thinking of Scarface, that movie, except that Tony Montana is a giant walking phallic organ, with a scar across his "face".
DeathCultArm wrote...
"No, you couldn't make that case. It's wrong. And you know it."
You just proved my point...there is no "wrong"...
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut