Are there any absolutes that we can agree upon?

[MrsSpringsteen]

I don't think it matters whether rape is evil to a rapist, I think the overwhelming power of the evil it perpetrates on the victim negates what it is to the rapist.

 

[Ft. Worth Frog]

But what about to a rapist?

Then the same could go for any evil perpetrated by one person to another-Holocaust, USSR, Slave trade, etc.

 

[nbcrusader]

i think there are no absolutes. none.

Define irony.

 

[nbcrusader]

I doubt there is anything we can completely agree on here in FYM. Even for some of the offered topics, there will be differences of opinion as to what qualifies as racism, sexism, etc.

I think this was an eye opener of a thread. It seems that too many threads are started simply to demonize political foes. Searching for understanding, a stepping-stone to consensus, is lost for now.

 

[Irvine511]

Define irony.

exactly.

 

[LadyRhia]

To molest a child in any way is wrong.

 

[BVS]

Then the same could go for any evil perpetrated by one person to another-Holocaust, USSR, Slave trade, etc.

That's my point. Can it really be an absolute if others don't see it as evil?

 

[cujo]

We were born and we'll all die.

L. Ron Hubbard might find contention with that.

Maybe the spaghetti monster too.

 

[Ft. Worth Frog]

That's my point. Can it really be an absolute if others don't see it as evil?

Then what gives us the motivation to stop something? We (FYMers) can all say slavery is wrong, Nazism is wrong, etc., but that it looks different to those perpetrating those evils. Then why should we make efforts to stop them?

 

[Irvine511]

Then what gives us the motivation to stop something? We (FYMers) can all say slavery is wrong, Nazism is wrong, etc., but that it looks different to those perpetrating those evils. Then why should we make efforts to stop them?

because we can.

seriously. it's less about moral superiority and more to do with ability.

 

[financeguy]

because we can.

seriously. it's less about moral superiority and more to do with ability.

To play devil's advocate for a sec, from time to time we get gay bashers on FYM. Sometimes they get banned or sometimes they just stop posting after trolling for a few days.

Given that what you and Melon appear to be advocating is the post modernist idea that all view points are merely in the eye of the beholder, would you then say any gay basher should be allowed to come onto FYM and say whatever they like against gay people, without any intervention or sanction from moderators, etc?

 

[BVS]

Then what gives us the motivation to stop something? We (FYMers) can all say slavery is wrong, Nazism is wrong, etc., but that it looks different to those perpetrating those evils. Then why should we make efforts to stop them?

So we're only motivated by absolutes? That's ridiculous.

There are plenty of things in life that I believe in and will fight for, but would never hold as absolutes for I'm humble enough to realize my truth isn't everyone's truth.

 

[Irvine511]

Given that what you and Melon appear to be advocating is the post modernist idea that all view points are merely in the eye of the beholder, would you then say any gay basher should be allowed to come onto FYM and say whatever they like against gay people, without any intervention or sanction from moderators, etc?

people are free to say whatever they want.

however, most people who are banned usually say things like "gays are gross" or "gays molest children" etc. i would say it's less that those views are *wrong*, and more that those views make any sort of conversation impossible because they're logically absurd.

whether or not the mods should do that ... i dunno. i'm fine with people saying whatever they want, and i'm going to get right back in their face, or treat them with the contempt i think they deserve.

but it's less about saying something that's wrong, and more about saying something that's logically indefensible and more or less a conversation killer.

 

[Carmelu2fan]

I think almost everyone would agree that racism, fascism are not cool.

Agreed

 

[melon]

Given that what you and Melon appear to be advocating is the post modernist idea that all view points are merely in the eye of the beholder, would you then say any gay basher should be allowed to come onto FYM and say whatever they like against gay people, without any intervention or sanction from moderators, etc?

I think some of the trouble here is the baggage of connotation thrown on top of the essence that is postmodernism.

Just because I don't believe in absolute truth does not mean that I don't have standards. I believe in secular humanist ideals on society, which, more or less, believes that we should have maximum freedom of life, liberty, and happiness, but never crossing the line where one's "freedom" infringes on someone else's freedom. Likewise, my own personal religious morality is even more subjectively placed on myself, and I do not insist that others be forced to act to the standards that I place upon myself.

In short, even if I don't believe in "absolute truth," it doesn't mean I don't have standards. It just means I have an open mind.

Melon

 

[2Hearts]

But what about to a rapist?

He knows he's doing wrong.

The screams and tears of his victim would clear up any misunderstanding he has about the morality of rape.

 

[BVS]

He knows he's doing wrong.

The screams and tears of his victim would clear up any misunderstanding he has about the morality of rape.

First of all it's not always a he.

Secondly you'd be surprised how that isn't clear to some.