APP - Do we need "morality"?

This subforum has been created to encourage a higher level of conversation and debate. This subforum inherits all site wide rules, and has some additional caveats:

1. No racism, sexism, homophobia, general bigotry
2. No insults directed at specific individuals
3. No trolling
4. No flaming
5. No "Message Board Wars," please check personal vendettas at the door
6. No thread de-railment. Please stay on topic.

You should aim to be courteous, kind, patient, intelligent and receptive to one another.
 
Legion said:
This subforum has been created to encourage a higher level of conversation and debate. This subforum inherits all site wide rules, and has some additional caveats:

1. No racism, sexism, homophobia, general bigotry
2. No insults directed at specific individuals
3. No trolling
4. No flaming
5. No "Message Board Wars," please check personal vendettas at the door
6. No thread de-railment. Please stay on topic.

You should aim to be courteous, kind, patient, intelligent and receptive to one another.
Click to expand...

and people with no morals eventually become totalitarian.
 
AssHatZombie said:
and people with no morals eventually become totalitarian.
Click to expand...

Is that your opinion, or is it an established fact?

The problem with a generalization of that sort is twofold. You have shown no evidence of its validity, and it's my belief that very few people have historically declared themselves amoral. Detractors of an individual may portray the object of their derision as amoral, but that's not the same thing, is it?

The question before us is whether or not morals are necessary.
 
This subforum has been created to encourage a higher level of conversation and debate. This subforum inherits all site wide rules, and has some additional caveats:

1. No racism, sexism, homophobia, general bigotry
2. No insults directed at specific individuals
3. No trolling
4. No flaming
5. No "Message Board Wars," please check personal vendettas at the door
6. No thread de-railment. Please stay on topic.

You should aim to be courteous, kind, patient, intelligent and receptive to one another.
 
Legion said:
Is that your opinion, or is it an established fact?

The problem with a generalization of that sort is twofold. You have shown no evidence of its validity, and it's my belief that very few people have historically declared themselves amoral. Detractors of an individual may portray the object of their derision as amoral, but that's not the same thing, is it?

The question before us is whether or not morals are necessary.
Click to expand...

so where's your proof on how they're not necessary?
 
AssHatZombie said:
I don't care to, especially since you don't really hold a counter position. it seems pointless.
Click to expand...

I never intended to argue a specific position. The stated purpose of the thread was to ask the question in the thread title and hear what others think, and talk about it.

If you don't want to discuss the question, that's OK. I've enjoyed our interaction, except for the gratuitous personal insult that you hastily edited out of existence.
 
Legion said:
I never intended to argue a specific position. The stated purpose of the thread was to ask the question in the thread title.

If you don't want to discuss the question, that's OK. I've enjoyed our interaction, except for the gratuitous personal insult that you hastily edited out of existence.
Click to expand...

I discussed it. I gave my opinion, which is more than you have done.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I discussed it. I gave my opinion, which is more than you have done.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your input. However, taking a position and then refusing to disclose a reason for holding it is a somewhat puzzling means of discussion, don't you think?

I am not attempting to debate you, or "prove you wrong", you know. I want to understand your reasoning. How does that strike you?
 
Legion said:
I appreciate your input. However, taking a position and then refusing to disclose a reason for holding it is a somewhat puzzling means of discussion, don't you think?

I am not attempting to debate you, or "prove you wrong", you know. I want to understand your reasoning. How does that strike you?
Click to expand...

I gave my reasoning.

not even taking a position is mild retardation, clinically, though I could be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top