Originally posted by @dj2beckerWe discussed laws and morals in depth. You are trolling. If this question about the morality of killing gays, then and now, and whether there has been a change in what is deemed moral and what is not deemed moral, is quite simply one you are not going to address, then just front up and say you're not going to answer.
You have never answered this question and until you do don't expect me to answer yours.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
23 Nov 17
Originally posted by @fmfYou have never answered this question: "If the laws of a society don't determine what is morally sound behavior for that society, then what does?"
We discussed laws and morals in depth. You are trolling. If this question about the morality of killing gays, then and now, and whether there has been a change in what is deemed moral and what is not deemed moral, then just front up and say you're not going to answer.
Just front up and say you're not going to answer.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWe have talked about the links and the differences between a society's laws and the moral codes of its citizens already. You are pretending that we haven't.
You have never answered this question: "If the laws of a society don't determine what is morally sound behavior for that society, then what does?"
Just front up and say you're not going to answer.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou already exactly what my stance on laws and morals is. Here's the question for you that you are dodging: Killing homosexuals was once morally sound - yes or no? Killing homosexuals is still morally sound - yes or no? My answers are no, and no. You?
Just front up and say you're not going to answer.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
23 Nov 17
Originally posted by @fmfTalking about the links and the differences between a society's laws and the moral codes of its citizens does not answer the question I asked.
We have talked about the links and the differences between a society's laws and the moral codes of its citizens already. You are pretending that we haven't.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
23 Nov 17
Originally posted by @fmfYour stance on laws and morals doesn't answer the question I asked you.
You already exactly what my stance on laws and morals is. Here's the question for you that you are dodging: Killing homosexuals was once morally sound - yes or no? Killing homosexuals is still morally sound - yes or no? My answers are no, and no. You?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerOf course it does. You are only asking me about it in order to bail out of this conversation.
Your stance on laws and morals doesn't answer the question I asked you.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfYou said you don't believe in moral absolutes so there is no single correct answer to the questions you ask, so why bother asking them if everyone's answer is 'right'?
Of course it does. You are only asking me about it in order to bail out of this conversation.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerGo back and look at our discussion about a society's laws and its morals. You will find that your answer is there.
Talking about the links and the differences between a society's laws and the moral codes of its citizens does not answer the question I asked.
Is this it? Are you not going to tell me what your own moral stance is on killing gays, then and now? No statement of belief? Just evasive counter-questions?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerI am asking you to say what your moral stance is on people executing homosexuals in the past and whether you think it is morally sound now.
You said you don't believe in moral absolutes so there is no single correct answer to the questions you ask, so why bother asking them if everyone's answer is 'right'?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
23 Nov 17
Originally posted by @fmfAnyone can play your games.
Go back and look at our discussion about a society's laws and its morals. You will find that your answer is there.
Is this it? Are you not going to tell me what your own moral stance is on killing gays, then and now? No statement of belief? Just evasive counter-questions?
Go back and look at our discussion about a society's laws and its morals. You will find that your answer is there.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerDo I think killing homosexuals was once morally sound? No, I don't. Do I think killing homosexuals is still morally sound or could be morally sound? No, I don't. One wonders whether it is an effect of your subscription to the Bible that has made you unable to talk unequivocally about morality as it pertains to killing homosexuals.
Anyone can play your games.
Go back and look at our discussion about a society's laws and its morals. You will find that your answer is there.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfMorally sound for whom? Everyone or only you?
Do I think killing homosexuals was once morally sound? No, I don't. Do I think killing homosexuals is still morally sound or could be morally sound? No, I don't. One wonders whether it is an effect of your subscription to the Bible that has made you unable to talk unequivocally about morality as it pertains to killing homosexuals.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerFor me, who else? One can only take moral responsibility for oneself, and for one's children while they are being raised, and for what laws with a moral dimension that one supports and which therefore affect others. You yourself have said, only recently, that you would not want to impose your morality on others. So,, on some level, you do realize that morality is a personal code that each individual moral agent has. It remains odd that you cannot be morally clear about the execution of homosexuals, whether it be now (where it continues to happen) or in the past.
Morally sound for whom? Everyone or you?