Most and least moral posters

[??????????]

Because all American food comes pre-packaged, pre-cooked, and well past its date of freshness.

All I can say is I have gastrointestinal problems here fairly often - there virtually never.

Yes, fruits and vegtables never give you gas.

[Gabu]

Certainly: that is your conception of morality. Someone else's conception may be different, and we cannot objectively say that one is inherently superior.

Sort of.  If we could define what it meant for one to be superior, we certainly could.  For example, someone who feels that sexually abusing a child is perfectly okay is very likely to cause a lot more pain in people's lives than someone who is strongly against such an activity, so if we say that a set of morals is superior to another if it causes the person to act in a way that causes less pain to innocent people, then we could say that the first set of morals is superior.

There are negative consequences incurred towards both yourself and those with whom you come into contact that come with not adhering to what most agree are acceptable standards for activity.  It's not as if everyone's idea of moral behavior resides in a vacuum and does not impact anything else in any way.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Interestingly, it is our own Least Moral poster who often compared himself favorably to VP Cheney.  Both his line of thinking and his physical attributes.  I distinctly remember several posts in which the "old opebo" (i.e., the Pre-Epiphany opebo) waxed fondly of our Vice President.  Of course, I do not mean to imply that our honorable vice president is as amoral as opebo.  It's just an interesting coincidence.  To be fair, the old opebo didn't like edwards any more than the new opebo does.  Not that Edwards is any more moral.  Just less likable.  Don't confuse morality with personability either.  History shows that morality doesn't win you many friends.  Lots of nice people get into trouble once in a while.  Hell, jesus managed to get himself crucified, after all.  In the literal sense!

Dazzleman, like Bush, I've only been arrested for DWI once.  And unlike Bush, I was never convicted.  That's what lawyers are for.  Hey, I never said Democrats are useless.  Obviously they have their place.  Mainly when you need good, but unscrupulous legal, representation.  Yeah, like O.J., I'm a big fan of the Democrats when it comes to hiring an attorney.

So Ted Olsen is a Democrat?

[Joe Republic]

Why don't you go walk up to God right now and tell him his laws are ridiculas?  Just shoot and kill yourself and have a little chat with him at the gates of heaven about why his laws are so un-educated and outdated.

As much as I'm sure you'd love me to go and kill myself (I thought you were a Christian?), I'll refrain for now.

Also, I didn't say his laws were 'uneducated and outdated'.  But as you did, I'm guessing you inherently think they are.  You might want to look at that.

In any case, I said that the 'ridiculously restrictive criteria' for what's moral were yours, not God's.

[angus]

And it's important to remind folks that just because you've been convicted three times of DWI and you don't support welfare and workers unions and your oil-drilling company gets a no-bid sweetheart deal from the your best friend's son, now president, doesn't make you anti-morality. 

Has Cheney really been convicted 3 times of DWI?  I guess he doesn't have to worry about that now that he has a government chauffeur.

I wonder why this was never publicized the way Bush's DWI was publicized.

BTW, haven't you mentioned that you've been busted for DWI more than once?  Isn't there a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black here?

Funny guy you are.  like Bush, I've only been arrested for DWI once.  But unlike Bush, I was never convicted.  yes, jfern, I think it's not accurate to say Cheney's been convicted 3 times.  I think he was only convicted on two of those arrests.  Bush was arrested for it once.  Convicted once.  Now, before you start asking, "why the hell did a rich guy like that let himself get convicted?!" remember that was back in 1976.  Dazzleman, you and I have discussed this sort of thing before.  You'll remember things were just different then.  Bush, for example, was arrested only in the sense that he was given a ticket and asked to come up and pay a fine of around 150 dollars.  Back then, you just got a slap on the wrist.  I had been pulled over many times, piss drunk, could hardly walk, and not arrested or ticketed.  I remember once, when I was about 18, a year under the legal age of 19, I was driving, drunk as a skunk, and my two other 18-year-old friends were with me in the car.  We got pulled over for running a stop sign.  They made us get out, and lectured us about the dangers of drunk driving, then found the two cases of cheap beer in the trunk.  One of them said, "now, if there was no evidence, then we'd have nothing to bust you on."   so we gave the two cops the two cases of beer.  "Enjoy, sir."  Problem solved.  True story.  That was then.  Nowadays, get pulled over for drunk driving and they act like you just raped a young man-child or something.  Nose to the wall, you scumbag!  And that's if you're white!!!  I hate to even think about how they treat you otherwise. 

I'm not sure these kids today appreciate what it meant for Bush and Cheney to get "busted" for DWI.  They imagine a few hours in jail, lawyers, huge fines, and social stigma.  you know better.  Times have changed, that's for sure.

[Emsworth]

Maybe if you had sex once or twice, and had reverted from your ways.  But if not, then no, absolutely not.  I'm sorry, but you can't be truly moral unless you abide by God's laws, or at least try to and accept Jesus as the son of god, and be saved.  Non-Religious Morality is an oxymoron.

That is, of course, your personal view; you are perfectly entitled to it. However, I would beg to disagree. Who has the authority to decide what the laws of God are? Who, in this temporal world, can objectively decide that one religious text (the Bible) is correct, while everything else is wrong? The answer: no-one can. It is a matter purely of faith, not objectivity.

Thus, while you may feel that there is no such thing as non-religious morality, others may disagree.

I don't even want to get into this argument, I'm sick and tired of dealing with this "it's ok if he's done this or that, he can still be moral" bs.  So, whatever, stick with your beliefs.  If you live by them, see where you'll end up.  I've had enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[dazzleman]

Funny guy you are.  like Bush, I've only been arrested for DWI once.  But unlike Bush, I was never convicted.  yes, jfern, I think it's not accurate to say Cheney's been convicted 3 times.  I think he was only convicted on two of those arrests.  Bush was arrested for it once.  Convicted once.  Now, before you start asking, "why the hell did a rich guy like that let himself get convicted?!" remember that was back in 1976.  Dazzleman, you and I have discussed this sort of thing before.  You'll remember things were just different then.  Bush, for example, was arrested only in the sense that he was given a ticket and asked to come up and pay a fine of around 150 dollars.  Back then, you just got a slap on the wrist.  I had been pulled over many times, piss drunk, could hardly walk, and not arrested or ticketed.  I remember once, when I was about 18, a year under the legal age of 19, I was driving, drunk as a skunk, and my two other 18-year-old friends were with me in the car.  We got pulled over for running a stop sign.  They made us get out, and lectured us about the dangers of drunk driving, then found the two cases of cheap beer in the trunk.  One of them said, "now, if there was no evidence, then we'd have nothing to bust you on."   so we gave the two cops the two cases of beer.  "Enjoy, sir."  Problem solved.  True story.  That was then.  Nowadays, get pulled over for drunk driving and they act like you just raped a young man-child or something.  Nose to the wall, you scumbag!  And that's if you're white!!!  I hate to even think about how they treat you otherwise. 

I'm not sure these kids today appreciate what it meant for Bush and Cheney to get "busted" for DWI.  They imagine a few hours in jail, lawyers, huge fines, and social stigma.  you know better.  Times have changed, that's for sure.

Hah, I was just busting your man marbles, dude.  I knew you had mentioned you got a DWI at some point.

Man, you're right about it not being a big deal back when us older guys first started driving.  I think in New York, when I first started driving, they didn't even suspend your license for the first DWAI (driving with ability impaired, a lower offense than driving while intoxicated, or DWI).  As I recall, they stiffened the penalties in the early 1980s.

Still, it just wasn't taken that seriously then.  One of my friends had just come from a bar, and got pulled over for running a red light.  The cop asked where he was coming from, and he gave the name of the bar.  He was let off with a warning, and never even tested for blood alcohol level.  This same guy drove so drunk that one night, he was driving home on a highway after a night of heavy drinking, needed to take a leak, and he stopped the car in the middle of the highway, got out, and bled the lizzard right on the highway.  Inside the car were several drunk/stoned guys who had no idea that they could have become road pizza at any minute.  And he never got a single DWI.

I was relatively careful about driving drunk, even then.  By no means did I follow the letter of the law, and I'm sure I drove with a buzz many times, but if I was really bombed, I did refrain from driving.  My big issue was speeding and the tickets that resulted from it, but that's not as serious.  I had a piss-poor driving record for a long time because of that, and it's still an issue to some extent, though I don't seem to get nailed as often now as I did back then.  Must be the nicer car.   But I'm still an inveterate speeder.

BTW, I love your story about giving the cops the beer.  Pretty cool officers you were dealing with.  You could get away with a lot more back then.  Those were the days, man.

[Nation]

You know, I'm all for discussions on threads involving the forum community, but just randomly throwing out the assertion of who we believe to be the most moral and least moral posters --- without even knowing them personally?

Seems a bit foolish. "nicest poster" or one about who'd roommate you'd like to be is one thing, but this just isn't necessary.

[Gabu]

You know, I'm all for discussions on threads involving the forum community, but just randomly throwing out the assertion of who we believe to be the most moral and least moral posters --- without even knowing them personally?

Seems a bit foolish. "nicest poster" or one about who'd roommate you'd like to be is one thing, but this just isn't necessary.

That's a very immoral thing for you to say, Nation.

[Nation]

You know, I'm all for discussions on threads involving the forum community, but just randomly throwing out the assertion of who we believe to be the most moral and least moral posters --- without even knowing them personally?

Seems a bit foolish. "nicest poster" or one about who'd roommate you'd like to be is one thing, but this just isn't necessary.

That's a very immoral thing for you to say, Nation.

I'll immoral you.

[Emsworth]

For example, someone who feels that sexually abusing a child is perfectly okay is very likely to cause a lot more pain in people's lives than someone who is strongly against such an activity, so if we say that a set of morals is superior to another if it causes the person to act in a way that causes less pain to innocent people, then we could say that the first set of morals is superior.

But the decision that a set of morals is superior to another because it causes less pain to another person is itself subjective.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I completely agree there. There is such a thing as conventional morality, as the norms and mores of a society or culture. However, some people (in my opinion wrongly) assert that these morals are somehow universal and objectively valid.

[Gabu]

For example, someone who feels that sexually abusing a child is perfectly okay is very likely to cause a lot more pain in people's lives than someone who is strongly against such an activity, so if we say that a set of morals is superior to another if it causes the person to act in a way that causes less pain to innocent people, then we could say that the first set of morals is superior.

But the decision that a set of morals is superior to another because it causes less pain to another person is itself subjective.

Well, the only reason it's subjective is because there's no universal definition for "superior".  There are objective qualities, in general, that come with having different sets of moral standards, and when a person calls one set of moral standards "superior" to another, what that person is really doing is asserting that the set of differences provided in his or her definition of the term "superior" are present between the first set of moral standards and the second.  Once this factual assertion has been identified, then it is certainly possible (although it may be difficult) to investigate the claim and verify whether or not it's true.  The only issue is that some people may not consider the above set of differences to be an indication of superiority.

I suppose you are correct that there is no universal definition for what is and isn't good, so there technically is no universal way to determine whether or not a set of moral standards is superior to another.  Even so, however, I feel that it would be a mistake to act as if this means that there is no objective difference between one set of moral standards and another.  While an objective definition of "superior" may well be impossible, it is nonetheless true that certain moral standards lead to much more beneficial actions towards the human race than others (taking "beneficial" to be as the vast majority defines it), and I feel that this should be recognized as well.

[Bono]

My example of a 45-year-old man sexually abusing a child is a good illustration of bedrock moral standards.  Opebo claims that my disapproval of this is strictly subjective.  But he fails to look at the reasons I may disapprove of it.  I disapprove of it because a child is most likely unable to defend himself/herself against unwanted advances, and such sexual contact at a very young age is emotionally devastating for the child, and can harm him/her for life.

Okay, now I will accept that this is immoral. But that is my personal view, which need not necessarily apply to everyone else.

The fundamental problem is that there are numerous different definitions of morality. Some people define it in terms of harm done to others. Others define it based on religious scripture. Still others use logical forumlations such as Kant's categorical imperative. How can we decide which standard to use to determine what is moral or immoral? The answer: we can't. Everyone will judge morality by different standards; therefore, there is no universal morality.

Consider the case of killing, which I'm sure you agree is a heinous and "immoral" action. Some may see the death penalty as moral. Some may see war as moral. Some may see abortion as moral (strange as such a view may seem). In all these cases, different people have, by applying different standards, arrived at different definitions of morality.

Of course, in the case of child molestation, it is very difficult to imagine a standard under which one would deem such an action moral. But, objectively, there could theoretically be such a standard. Hence, the notion that there is one set of objective morals that governs all of society fails, simply because morals, by their very nature, are subjective judgments.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly: that is your conception of morality. Someone else's conception may be different, and we cannot objectively say that one is inherently superior.

I believe Alasdair MacIntyre would answer to you that just because several people believe different things, that doesn't mean most of them can't be wrong.
or as I would put it, just because there are different sets of beliefs in existance, it doesn't imply that each of them must be equally valid. that task of finding out which is valid is the search for morality.

[Emsworth]

or as I would put it, just because there are different sets of beliefs in existance, it doesn't imply that each of them must be equally valid. that task of finding out which is valid is the search for morality.

And how would you objectively determine which set is valid?

[ilikeverin]

Verin? for most moral? I'm sorry, but no, verin is a little too concerned with what people think of him. Sometimes it seems there's little else to him. He is kind, true, but too self-centered to be the most moral.

[opebo]

Because all American food comes pre-packaged, pre-cooked, and well past its date of freshness.

All I can say is I have gastrointestinal problems here fairly often - there virtually never.

Yes, fruits and vegtables never give you gas.

Yes, I eat far more fruits and vegetables there than here.. but I never get gas.  Here I do - as often as several times per week.  I don't know what it is, but it is something they do wrong here.. it isn't fruits or vegetables.

[JohnFKennedy]

I am the most moral as only I subscribe to my particular moral code .

[John Dibble]

Because all American food comes pre-packaged, pre-cooked, and well past its date of freshness.

All I can say is I have gastrointestinal problems here fairly often - there virtually never.

Yes, fruits and vegtables never give you gas.

Yes, I eat far more fruits and vegetables there than here.. but I never get gas.  Here I do - as often as several times per week.  I don't know what it is, but it is something they do wrong here.. it isn't fruits or vegetables.

I'm going to go off on a wild guess here opebo and say that it's probably not the food itself, rather it's how your individual digestive tract reacts to it. I seriously don't know why you insist on saying how horrible the food is here, like there's nowhere to go to get a good meal - trust me, plenty of places exist. I'd blame your sloth for your inability to a decent meal, since cooking would be too much like work for you and God forbid you do a little research on finding some decent restaraunts.

[Huckleberry Finn]

Most moral

PBrunsel
Al
Gustaf
Josh22
Nym
Htmldon

Least moral

Opebo
Markdel
A18
Migrendel