|
Snoopy:
Sorry I used "average". I suppose it would be impossible to define an "average" American. We are quite a diverse society. I come from immigrant parents "one of those" and I don't mean to "bash" our country. I'm not one to say either you are with or or against us, but I think we need to look realistically at our values to learn something about ourselves and improve upon our failings. PLease don't tell me everything is all-right for you if you look around and see what's is happening. I have been in contact and discussions with many Norwegians young and old. I know what they study in school and what they read. I only know from what I see around me, and I don't see many of my fellow citizens reading newspapers, except for what they see at the grocery check-out aisles! As far as a better comparison of voters...what "percentage" of Americans vote? Compare that to the percentage of Scandanavians vote. They almost lost their rights on several occassions, so I think they are keen to excersing their rights. Good conversation! |
Re: <i>if two adults agree that sex with a child is not immoral.</i>
Well, even though you're being ridiculous, don't be. If two (or two hundred) adults agree that stealing someone else's car <i>without their consent</i> is not immoral, that doesn't make it moral. |
Kikster, I am not an economist, but I have no reason to doubt their competency or their income estimates. I suspect that they are clever enough to realize that income statistics based solely on tax returns would be skewed. Moreover, unless someone were a Danish social worker, I don't know why they would expect "to see" marginalized workers in Scandanavia.
Argument by litany may have a certain emotionally satisfying appeal, but often amounts to little more than obfuscation. When the items in your list are considered individually, they do not seem very compelling. It is likely that I pay considerably less in healthcare and insurance than the average Swede pays in taxes. Also, rural Sweden is sparsely populated, and this is part of the reason that Swedish mass transportation is both popular and efficient. Areas of the US with large contingent populatons (e.g., east coast) have mass transportation systems. Stirring Enron and World Comm into the pot seems to be either argument by obfuscation or an appeal to emotion rather than objective analysis. First, these scandals have no direct influence on the quality of life or the moral condition of the vast marjority of Americans. Second, Europe is obviously not immune to corporate scandal (Vivendi, Fiat, etc.). Third, I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that these corporations were "bailed out" by the government. It is very probable that most Scandanavians are satisfied with their society, just as most Americans are satisfied with ours. Both societies are likely convinced that their approach is morally superior. In some sense, it is possible that both are right. |
Kikster,
I am a little more of a "for us or against us" kinda guy but your point about fixing things that need to be fixed is well taken. I think the point that I have worked so hard to be vague about is that if there was a WAY to do things right, someone would be doing it. And bless Ozarkbill's heart, as a general topic for discussion he has a good one, but you can't swing through a country in 3-5 weeks and KNOW what that country is about. When I hear someone talk about the "abundance of blonde Scandinavians" or the "romantic Frenchman" or the "loud and argumentative Italian" or the "boorish Swiss" or the "stoic German" or "bland food in England" it makes me cringe. That is the epitome of judging a book by its cover. In a sense, OZBill's queston is the political and social equivalent of "does a river cut its own path or is it guided by its banks?" That's the way government works . . . |
"Is it moral for Canadian bishops to do what they did just yesterday...In my opinion, what they are doing is deeply immoral, under the pretense of morality."
Capo, it's interesting that you, with no apparent standard for defining morality, would accuse as immoral those trying to defend and preserve their standard of morality. |
Wait a minute, capo . . . you say I'm being rediculous. Im not sure where you are from, but have you heard about the ongoing debate of same-sex marriage? legitimacy of homosexuality? teaching sex-ed to 3rd and 4th graders? corporate benefits for same-sex partners? relaxing laws against marijuana use? legalized prostitution? legalized gambling? These were ALL considered moral issues at one point but some "shrewd" people have convinced some "stupid" people that these aren't moral issues at all.
|
Beachbum, "apparent" was an excellent choice of words since it is very apparent you neglected to read -- or did not grasp -- my post above where I wrote: "Why are theft and murder <i>innately</i> immoral acts? Because they involve doing something hurtful to someone else without their consent."
So, to help further drive my point into that sandy bum of yours, <i>consent</i> is a key principle in my standard of morality. Ergo, when anyone argues that when two consenting adults love each other -- and wish to express that love for each other through various forms of intimacy -- that this is somehow "wrong" I find their "morality" to be immoral, not to mention fundamentally unkind. |
Snoopy, but they are still moral issues, just not moral in the way YOU happen to perceive them.
For example, it's moral for two consenting adults to not only love each other but to express that love via various forms of intimacy. What is <i>immoral</i>, on the other hand, is for a heterosexual (or homosexual) man to beat or otherwise abuse his wife (or partner) without their consent. Why is that distinction so difficult to understand? mosexual) |
capo,
"At one time it was legal to own slaves in the southern U.S. states. Did that make it moral? Of course not. Was it moral when women, or blacks, were forbidden by law from voting? Of course not." You are clearly missing the point . . . Slavery was NOT seen as immoral by a LOT of people -- Im not just talking about black slavery -- and here I am talking simply about the "ownership" of a human NOT the "right" to beat the ever loving crap out of him. Not letting women vote had nothing to do with morality or a lack of morality. Voting was for land owners who presumably were better equipped to deal with "political" issues. In fact I see absolutely NOTHING immoral about not letting women vote. In fact I thing the current voting laws in America are immoral. I just spent a little time with trying to get registered to vote now that I have moved and I had to wade through gobs of "do you speak Spanish or English" questions just to get to the web site I needed. Are you going to tell me that political debate anywhere in the US is equally broadcast in Spanish or English or have we simply caved in "morally" to special interest groups in the interest of political correctness? My guess is that you would say the US and particularly California are doing the right thing by letting illegal immigrants get a drivers license and then use that drivers license to get a voter registration card so they can vote for morons like Gray Davis . . . and they aren't even citizens! That's immoral! |
No, I wiped the sand from my bum long enough to read your posts. But I can't accept consent as a standard. Is consensual sex between a 12-year-old and a 22-year-old moral? Or how about the act of killing a criminal who has consented to capital punishment; moral or immoral? Too much flexibility in consent.
|
Re: <i>Is consensual sex between a 12-year-old and a 22-year-old moral?</i>
Oh, for Pierre's sake. Does your brain reside in your sandy bum? :) What part of "consenting <i>adults</i>" do you not understand? |
Holy cow, capo. Now you have got to be just jerking my chain.
"What is immoral, on the other hand, is for a heterosexual (or homosexual) man to beat or otherwise abuse his wife (or partner) without their consent." So you are saying that if the partner consents to the beating, society should not view the act as immoral? Are you from California? Are you the Governor of California? So how near death can the beating come before you'd consider the act immoral? Or like I suggested earlier, if Goofus with the consent of Gallant, beats Gallant to death, Goofus may or may not be found guilty in a court of law but you'd argue that the beating was not immoral? I think your "consent" argument isn't very well thought out. And I'd suggest that your "consent" argument is drawn primarily along the lines of gay / lesbian relationships. For example, my wife says it's OK for me to get too drunk to go to work and it's OK to gamble away all of my paycheck. Kids! Eat paint! Responsibility is not a moral thing in your world, it appears. What matters is mutual consent among adults. You may call this argument absurd, but that only proves you've never spent time as a social worker. I think it's people like you that make people like me feel really, really, really old and out of place until we realize that you are simply wrong. Good fun, capo. I'm outta here. It's Friday! |
Re: <i>In fact I see absolutely NOTHING immoral about not letting women vote.</i>
And that would go for blacks or Hispanics too, right? Thanks for letting us see your most peculiar notion of morality. |
That was a joke, Doofus.
|
LOL capo, my bad. But who's Pierre? And you conspicuously didn't respond to the second scenario. Further, who's to say that the standard of consent is better than that of the Canadian bishops? A little close-minded, isn't it?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:23 AM. |