curl-6 said:
I guess so, but relatively speaking it's very low level harm compared to something like the death penalty, so while I don't personally approve, I don't consider it immoral to the point of "this should be prohibited". |
I don't think that everything that is morally unacceptable should necessarily be prohibited. I also disagree on the level of harm it causes.
JWeinCom said:
I don't think that everything that is morally unacceptable should necessarily be prohibited. I also disagree on the level of harm it causes. |
I mean I'd never cheat myself and I'd disapprove of others doing so, but at the end of the day, as far as moral issues go I just don't think it's a big deal relatively speaking, not compared to things that can cause death, serious abuse, lack of rights, or systemic oppression.
curl-6 said:
I mean I'd never cheat myself and I'd disapprove of others doing so, but at the end of the day, as far as moral issues go I just don't think it's a big deal relatively speaking, not compared to things that can cause death, serious abuse, lack of rights, or systemic oppression. |
Not saying it's the worst thing in the world, but I think it's definitely bad enough to be deemed immoral.
shikamaru317 said:
That is why I put it in my gray area section. Smoking is never explicitly mentioned in the bible, but generally speaking it would fall under this verse: "If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple." Just like tobacco smoke, cannabis can have many adverse effects on your health, and therefore would be considered as treating your own body poorly, which is a sin. |
Maybe a sin for certain religions but not for Rastafarians. Just because something is a sin to you doesn't mean it is for other people.
So you think God put cannabis on earth to see if people would sin and enjoy it? Watch out for the devil's weed....
Don't need to respond to me because don't give a shit
Last edited by sethnintendo - on 07 August 2020
padib said:
Posting the way you do, to me it's immoral. A baby, to me, is whatever I think it is. |
Well... no, if a word means whatever you say it means, communication entirely breaks down. I mean... you're free to think whatever you want, but if your language usage doesn't conform with everyone else's, you're not going to be able to have an actual discussion.
As for the posting style, I explained what the problem was. So, let's hope it stays at that, and otherwise we'll handle it.
sethnintendo said:
Maybe a sin for certain religions but not for Rastafarians. Just because something is a sin to you doesn't mean it is for other people. So you think God put cannabis on earth to see if people would sin and enjoy it? Watch out for the devil's weed.... Don't need to respond to me because don't give a shit |
Dude. I asked him what potential biblical rationale there may be for thinking weed was immoral, because as an atheist I was curious, and he was nice enough to explain. He wasn't saying everyone has to think that way, and I don't think he was even saying he thought that way. Totally uncalled for.
As a general thread warning, a few comments are getting out of hand.
The thread is asking people to express what's morally acceptable to them. If you disagree with them you can of course RESPECTFULLY challenge their position. And they are free to defend it or not. I think it's an interesting topic, so let's keep it civil so it can stay open.
I'm okay with all of them, so long as substances are used in moderation, the sexual parts are consensual (for the polygamy I'm okay with polyamory). If I had to chose one that I was against it would be cloning humans, no I don't know why this one sticks out to me, and to be honest, I don't really care about it, and I won't ever vote against it, but nor will I vote for it. Really the only scenario I would vote for it is if some Hitler figure came along and tried to create a superrace, at that point is when I think the tech should be destroyed, until then go for it.
padib said:
J, it doesn't work like that. I don't need to have the same definition as everyone else, otherwise there wouldn't be room for any debate it would be an echo chamber. If a dead fetus in a container is, to me, a dead baby, then that's how I see it. And his definition changes nothing to how I subjectively feel about it. Anyway, I didn't particularly need to have a discussion, sometimes I just like posting my opinion. The other person is free to reply to me, and I'm free not to reply back. A forum post doesn't always need to foster discussion, especially in such a subjective thread about opinions. The OP asks "What's morally acceptable to YOU", and I perfectly answered that question. In truth, he should be moderated for flaming/baiting and ad hominem. |
Actually, conversations require us to agree on definitions. Otherwise we're talking about different things. Suppose I say that I ate twenty humans today.
But when I say human I mean what most people think of as grapes. That person is going to be very confused about what actually went down in my kitchen this morning.
You're not obliged to discuss anything you don't want to. As for the user's post, that's off topic, so I'll PM you about it.
RolStoppable said:
You were challenged on your beliefs and didn't take the option to explain yourself. Now you are acting like a pinost. Your idea that debate requires that people have different definitions for the same word is entirely wrong, because what wrong definitions do is stifle debates due to people having to go to lengths to first settle definitions before an actual debate can begin. Furthermore, you can't separate persons and arguments in all instances. This thread is specifically about opinions on morals, so people and their beliefs are intertwined. Any instance of challenging a belief can automatically be considered an attack on the person. Also, the term 'ad hominem' branches into two kinds. The acceptable one is applicable to this topic because you can't separate person and argument. The bad type of ad hominem is the one where the substance of an argument isn't addressed at all, but pointing out a potential contradiction in someone's beliefs isn't that, because it directly addresses what the other person said. |
The topic was an open invitation to express one's beliefs. In this case, I think it was perfectly acceptable not to defend them. And of course, people have the freedom to not reply to anything they don't want to. If there's a case where a user is saying things in bad faith to start shit then refusing to defend the statements, it may be a problem, but that's not what the case was here.
In the post in question, it was definitely a bad type of ad hominem attack. Addressing the distinction between terms was relevant to the argument. Claiming that the terms were used in that way with the specific intent to be dishonest is not relevant to the argument. Again, this is a conversation better for PMs, or the mod thread. Let's shift back to what is moral or not.
64% consider porn immoral? America is weird man.
Last edited by curl-6 - on 07 August 2020
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
