Originally posted by whodeyBut you clearly believe it and have clearly implied it.
I never said that.
And if a school refuses to take a position on morality, they have already taken a position. Kids take note when teachers are unable to tell them that having sex is "wrong", even if their parents tell them otherwise.
It is then up to the parents to find a school that best suites their moral perspectives. Naturally, I would choose one that teaches appropriate morals. But without vouchers, poor folk are often forced into sending their children into school systems that oppose their particular moral outlook.
So you do support government forcing morals on kids. Yet oddly enough you tried to make out earlier in the thread that that was my position and not yours.
Originally posted by whodeyI have answered the question. Clearly morals are different from wisdom and anyone who doesn't know that they are different is really really stupid.
No need to act like that, if you don't want to answer the question then that's fine.
Putting a loaded gun with the safety off in your belt, is unwise. It is not immoral.
Dropping a brick on your foot is unwise. It is not immoral.
Making yourself look a fool in this forum is unwise. It is not immoral.
Lying like you constantly do, is immoral. It is probably also unwise.
Originally posted by whodeyExcellent. So we agree that there is no point telliing children something is 'bad' without explaining why in terms that are meaningful to them. What works is not the moral injunctions but the rational explanations. Look at the "silver ring thing" for a good example of abject failure.
I would say that telling someone that a particular behavior is "immoral" sends a different message than saying it is "unwise".
So say that something is immoral, the natural thought is that it goes against what God says. This means that you may or may not understand the logic behind it. It also means that there is no getting away with anything, God sees a ...[text shortened]... I think has little bearing on how they will act. More than likely they will just laugh at you.
Of course, this assumes that our morality makes sense and can be explained and defended in rational terms. For many religious injunctions I do not think that assumption will work reliably. For example, In relatively recent times, the wearing of a wig or a half-wig, called a “sheitel” in Yiddish, became a way for a very religious Jewish woman to conform to the requirement to cover her hair. Eventually some decided that it was easier (and cooler) to wear the sheitel on a shaved head or one with short hair than to cover a full head of hair with a wig. It also has the advantage of not allowing one’s real hair to show, thus preserving modesty. However, some ultra-orthodox believe that wearing a wig looks too much like real hair and so will only wear a scarf or veil with no wig. Personally, I find the practice of head shaving absurd and unacceptable on feminist grounds. I cannot imagine a rational way to teach about this so it seemed a sensible practice. Obviously, I can accept that it is a religious practice and perhaps a cultural / ethnic one. As long as I can evade forcible conversion, I just smile and move on. But I cannot agree that it makes sense and I am deeply irritated by the sexism inherent in it.
Originally posted by finnegan=== Personally, I find the practice of head shaving absurd and unacceptable on feminist grounds. I cannot imagine a rational way to teach about this so it seemed a sensible practice. Obviously, I can accept that it is a religious practice and perhaps a cultural / ethnic one. As long as I can evade forcible conversion, I just smile and move on. ===
Excellent. So we agree that there is no point telliing children something is 'bad' without explaining why in terms that are meaningful to them. What works is not the moral injunctions but the rational explanations. Look at the "silver ring thing" for a good example of abject failure.
Of course, this assumes that our morality makes sense and can be exp ...[text shortened]... . But I cannot agree that it makes sense and I am deeply irritated by the sexism inherent in it.
As long as you realize that what you find acceptable or unacceptable matters not one whit to those people and that you don't and should not have any authority whatsoever to interfere with what those people do on their own volition, I'm sure they can smile at your irritation and move on.
Otherwise, your assumed authority over other people based on your own irritation and ignorant conclusions is irritating.
Originally posted by sh76What a weird post. I have no idea why you imagine I claim authority in any respect at all. We were toucing on the question whether morals are something we can explain rationally or if instead we just have to pronounce that they are moral rules that must be obeyed. I identified a case in which a moral injunction is dictated by religion and presumably works in terms of that religion, but does not admit of a rational justification. Indeed, to people not sharing that religion, it seems absurd and unpleasantly patriarchal. In such a case, one would be unable to appeal to anything other than the religion, and perhaps cultural tradition: you must do this because you must do this, or because this is your religion, or because your mother and your aunts did it. I arbitrarily picked an example I happened to have in my mind at that moment. Religious fundamentalism, of course, provides many exotic examples in all the major faiths.
=== Personally, I find the practice of head shaving absurd and unacceptable on feminist grounds. I cannot imagine a rational way to teach about this so it seemed a sensible practice. Obviously, I can accept that it is a religious practice and perhaps a cultural / ethnic one. As long as I can evade forcible conversion, I just smile and move on. ===
As long as ...[text shortened]... authority over other people based on your own irritation and ignorant conclusions is irritating.
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganFor something to be moral it must pass a simple test.
Of course, this assumes that our morality makes sense and can be explained and defended in rational terms.
Is it life affirming?
This makes 99% of rap music immoral, including Christian rap and a bunch of the commandments but that's more than enough religion for the debates board.
Goodnight.
Originally posted by WajomaFor something to be worth reading, it must pass a simple test:
For something to be moral it must pass a simple test.
Is it life affirming?
This makes 99% of rap music immoral, including Christian rap and a bunch of the commandments but that's more than enough religion for the debates board.
Goodnight.
It must make sense.
That makes 99% of your posts a waste of space. The rest are just unpleasant.
Good morning.
3 edits
Originally posted by finneganCan life affirming 'be explained and defended in rational terms'?
For something to be worth reading, it must pass a simple test:
It must make sense.
That makes 99% of your posts a waste of space. The rest are just unpleasant.
Good morning.
I believe so, therefore moral can 'be explained and defended in rational terms'.
Most of those words are your own, if you're having trouble making sense of them....
?????????
My post was a succinct comment on a query you made, your post was a failed jibe. Despite your recent rants on what is/isn't debate, you're as close minded as anyone else here.
Originally posted by whodeyNow they can look forward to the stupid Obama pick what ever bathroom you want pedophile enabling executive order. Either he is trying to hurt humanity or he is retarded. I think both.
http://www.fox4now.com/news/4-in-your-corner/several-boys-have-sex-with-girl-15-in-south-fort-myers-high-school-bathroom
A 15 year old girl had a gang bang in a school bathroom recently in Florida. The mother seems proud.
Welcome to your secular humanist utopia everyone.
So for your secular humanists, what is "wrong" with this if anything?
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganyes but why? Surely the principle is that as Christ himself stated, 'wisdom is proven righteous but its works? Luke 7:35 an incredibly profound statement. What is wisdom? but the practical application of knowledge. Surely then we can gauge a moral stance by the result of its application and clearly those (who profess Christianity at least) who perpetrate atrocity have not applied the moral principles despite having knowledge of them. Clearly there is a massive gulf between professing Christianity and practising it.
The evidence shows that telling children sex is wrong does not inhibit sexual activity and does not promote responsible, safe sex.
The evidence also shows that enabling children to make well informed choices with the encouragement of their peers - who share the same education in sexual health - has a major, beneficial impact on behaviour.
If you wan ...[text shortened]... nt while holding a nicely illustrated missal in one hand, hoping the other hand is out of sight.
“The greatest religious change in the history of mankind” took place “under the eyes of a brilliant galaxy of philosophers and historians who disregarded as contemptible an Agency (Christianity) which all men must now admit to have been . . . the most powerful moral lever that has ever been applied to the affairs of men.”
https://www.probe.org/the-social-and-historical-impact-of-christianity/