Neverside

Originally posted by vierstein:

Most praise directed at people is generally due to their genetic traits and I think overall that is, in fact, the way to go. Someone who is genetically psychotic, should be punished for murdering people despite the fact that it wasn't due to his own choice per se. He would still not function in society and should therefore be removed from it (and possibly rehabilitated) until such time as he can function agreeably with fellow humans.

While yes, praise can be directed at someone because of their traits (e.g. good looks), most praise issued is not because of those traits, but because of a right or good decision that they have made, and if our genes dictated what decisions we would make, then they wouldn't be decisions at all. And you are incorrect, someone who is "genetically psychotic" should not be punished, no more than someone with some other genetic malformity should be punished. The best that you could do would be to treat it as you would any other genetic problem, such as a disease, but punishment would be out of the question.

Originally posted by vierstein:

Could you explain how 'morality is premised on choice'. I will reply with an assumption of what you are implying, but I would like it if you could go into a little bit more depth. It is an interesting topic.

To put is simply, morality is nothing but "right" or "wrong" behavior, and behavior is nothing but a series of decisions (that is, outcomes of choices).

Quote:

I do not think we make 'moral choices' as such. I'm sure you could make a list now of what you would consider moral and immoral, therefore these choices are not made at the point of action but beforehand, you simply apply your personal moral code to the situation at hand.

...and that is making a choice. ?

Originally posted by vierstein:

There is something at the center of my 'self' that tells me what i ought to do. I do not want this to come from somebody else (possibly the divine aspect comes from within, I'm not going to argue that here). And I do not mind that it is different for other people. Indeed the world would be rather boring otherwise.

Not to be too forthcoming, but I'm not sure you really believe that. It is easy to espouse diversity of morality so long as you do not directly encounter someone with opposing moral beliefs. For instance, if my "personal moral code" dictates that cheating is acceptable, then you might be inclined to accept that, so long as I don't cheat you. If I were to directly cheat you, then you would most certainly mind that my moral code is different than yours, but, according to what seems to be your "tolerance" viewpoint, there would be nothing you could say or do about it, because just as you do not want your moral code to come from someone else, so it would be the same with me.

Originally posted by vierstein:

Well, I would disagree. I believe I have the right to impose my morality on to others. If a friend of mine is on the verge of doing something significantly immoral in my mind, I would do whatever possible to change the choice he is about to make. My moral code requires me to do this.

Pardon, I think there is a slight misunderstanding. I do not believe that "imposing my morality" means telling others what they ought to do. That is not imposition, just stating an opinion. Imposition would be if I told you what you should do, then used any means to carry it through (i.e. the law, suing, etc). Regarding your example, trying to change someone's mind is not necessarily imposing your morality on them. For instance, if he had a gun to his head, and you tried to talk him down, that is not imposition. You are simply asking him to make the choice to agree with you. If you grabbed the gun and forced it away, that would be imposition.

Thus my previous statement. Without an absolute moral law, that is - divine law, there exists no right whereby morality can or should be imposed upon another with any sort of rightful authority, and we are left with moral relativism, with the logical outcome of that worldview being anarchy.

___________________

When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Last edited by Celldss, October 3rd, 2005 02:30 AM (Edited 1 times)

Originally posted by celldss:

While yes, praise can be directed at someone because of their traits (e.g. good looks), most praise issued is not because of those traits, but because of a right or good decision that they have made, and if our genes dictated what decisions we would make, then they wouldn't be decisions at all. And you are incorrect, someone who is "genetically psychotic" should not be punished, no more than someone with some other genetic malformity should be punished. The best that you could do would be to treat it as you would any other genetic problem, such as a disease, but punishment would be out of the question.

Well, i would tend to disagree simply because it is impossible to draw an exact line between what is an active choice and what is not.
Then again I think that we should go the other way, we do with regular criminals what we are already doing with those who are genetically criminal, i.e. rehabilitation only (this may include some punishment but only if it is to help the individual, and not as some sort of vengeance (how primitive is that. 'an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind'))
_

Originally posted by celldss:

To put is simply, morality is nothing but "right" or "wrong" behavior, and behavior is nothing but a series of decisions (that is, outcomes of choices).
...
...and that is making a choice. ?

right, if that's how you define choice.
but I think that would invalidate this:

Originally posted by celdss:

{from post #19}
and a genetic element would remove (or at very best, compromise) any moral choice to be made.

_

Originally posted by celldss:

Not to be too forthcoming, but I'm not sure you really believe that. It is easy to espouse diversity of morality so long as you do not directly encounter someone with opposing moral beliefs. For instance, if my "personal moral code" dictates that cheating is acceptable, then you might be inclined to accept that, so long as I don't cheat you. If I were to directly cheat you, then you would most certainly mind that my moral code is different than yours, but, according to what seems to be your "tolerance" viewpoint, there would be nothing you could say or do about it, because just as you do not want your moral code to come from someone else, so it would be the same with me.

right. I apologise, I didn't think that through completely. I would mind in specific situations, but I think overall the positive aspects are greater than the negative ones.
_

Originally posted by celldss:

Pardon, I think there is a slight misunderstanding. I do not believe that "imposing my morality" means telling others what they ought to do. That is not imposition, just stating an opinion. Imposition would be if I told you what you should do, then used any means to carry it through (i.e. the law, suing, etc). Regarding your example, trying to change someone's mind is not necessarily imposing your morality on them. For instance, if he had a gun to his head, and you tried to talk him down, that is not imposition. You are simply asking him to make the choice to agree with you. If you grabbed the gun and forced it away, that would be imposition.

Okay, my mistake. Then in that case it would far more gray, I wouldn't take away their freedom, but if it was immoral enough (a gun definitely), I would interfere.
_

Originally posted by celldss:

Thus my previous statement. Without an absolute moral law, that is - divine law, there exists no right whereby morality can or should be imposed upon another with any sort of rightful authority, and we are left with moral relativism, with the logical outcome of that worldview being anarchy.

right, but we have an authority from the government, where the law (authoritative morality) is decided in a democratic way (Or at least i hope so).
Which is why it is very often the case that morality does not equal law, despite the fact that it should. As for anarchy, I believe it is always a matter of balance.
I'm okay with not agreeing with the law exactly, I don't think the world could work otherwise.

___________________

|'Personal Growth'|'Personal Development'|
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.
|Threadless T-Shirts|Last.fm:NS Group|

Last edited by vierstein, October 3rd, 2005 05:30 AM (Edited 1 times)

Quote:

Well, i would tend to disagree simply because it is impossible to draw an exact line between what is an active choice and what is not.

I think I understand what you mean, but would you mind defining what an "active choice" is and moreover, how any choice we make is not "active"?

Quote:

Then again I think that we should go the other way, we do with regular criminals what we are already doing with those who are genetically criminal, i.e. rehabilitation only (this may include some punishment but only if it is to help the individual, and not as some sort of vengeance (how primitive is that. 'an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind'))

You speak of vengeance as though it is an unjust thing, when in fact, it is very just. There is a time and a place for vengeance (or punishment), as well as forgiveness. Many times "justice" and "vengeance" can be interchangeable. Prison for the criminal can be deemed vengeance by the people, or the law. It is also justice. I do not believe for one moment that people are born genetically criminal. I believe they can have tendancies that lend themselves toward criminal behavior, but they are not "born" criminals. Criminals are made, and in fact, it is vengeance that curbs this behavior. But I digress -

Let me pose a scenario for you: Man A murders Man B in cold blood, having full knowledge of his premeditated crime. Psychologists, in all their wisdom, determind that Man A's behavior was unavoidable, being genetic. What should his sentence be?

Quote:

Originally posted by celldss:

To put is simply, morality is nothing but "right" or "wrong" behavior, and behavior is nothing but a series of decisions (that is, outcomes of choices).
...
...and that is making a choice. ?

right, if that's how you define choice.
but I think that would invalidate this:

Originally posted by celdss:

{from post #19}
and a genetic element would remove (or at very best, compromise) any moral choice to be made.

How else is "choice" properly definied? And I'm not quite sure how that invalidates my previous remark. Would you mind illustrating please?

Quote:

Okay, my mistake. Then in that case it would far more gray, I wouldn't take away their freedom, but if it was immoral enough (a gun definitely), I would interfere.

Of COURSE you would, as would anyone with a conscience. However, if that behavior is genetic, then you have no right to intervene, and that is my point entirely. You would have no more authority to take the gun out of his hand than you would to forcefully change his eye color. That is why it is absurd to think that morality could be genetic by nature, and why morality finds it's basis in right or wrong decisions, not genetic traits, which can have no moral element whatsoever.
_

Quote:

Originally posted by celldss:

Thus my previous statement. Without an absolute moral law, that is - divine law, there exists no right whereby morality can or should be imposed upon another with any sort of rightful authority, and we are left with moral relativism, with the logical outcome of that worldview being anarchy.

right, but we have an authority from the government, where the law (authoritative morality) is decided in a democratic way (Or at least i hope so).

I'm not sure what your getting at. I could effectively reply with "So?".

Quote:

Which is why it is very often the case that morality does not equal law, despite the fact that it should. As for anarchy, I believe it is always a matter of balance.
I'm okay with not agreeing with the law exactly, I don't think the world could work otherwise.

You kind of lost me with your final point. Let me ask you this: Would you agree with an argument that goes - "Without transcendent, absolute, moral commandments, the best moralism that society can offer is moral relativism"? If not, why not?

___________________

When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Originally posted by celldss:

I think I understand what you mean, but would you mind defining what an "active choice" is and moreover, how any choice we make is not "active"?

An inactive choice could be something that is more instinct than choice; the example we used before, of a psychopath, the choice would not be active, but it would be a choice.
_

Originally posted by celdss:

You speak of vengeance as though it is an unjust thing, when in fact, it is very just. There is a time and a place for vengeance (or punishment), as well as forgiveness. Many times "justice" and "vengeance" can be interchangeable. Prison for the criminal can be deemed vengeance by the people, or the law. It is also justice. I do not believe for one moment that people are born genetically criminal. I believe they can have tendancies that lend themselves toward criminal behavior, but they are not "born" criminals. Criminals are made, and in fact, it is vengeance that curbs this behavior. But I digress -

Our differing views on vengeance obviously come from the fact that you believe that everyone is completely responsible for their actions, whereas I do not. While I do agree that from a personal viewpoint it is healthy for me to assume responsibility as much as possible (It also me to work at my faults), overall in a society it is better to do the opposite, assume responsibility of society, maybe it is society that needs to adjust to people and not the other way round. People can change, it is only a matter of circumstance.

Originally posted by celdss:

Let me pose a scenario for you: Man A murders Man B in cold blood, having full knowledge of his premeditated crime. Psychologists, in all their wisdom, determind that Man A's behavior was unavoidable, being genetic. What should his sentence be?

His punishment should be the same as for any other murderer, we should not distinguish between different classes of murderers.
_

Originally posted by celdss:

How else is "choice" properly definied? And I'm not quite sure how that invalidates my previous remark. Would you mind illustrating please?

well, you stated that the genetic element would take away any choice to be made, but when i explained how the genetic element works, without requiring choice, you agreed that I was, in fact, describing choice.
By my earlier definition of choice, choice does not in fact exist, which was a mistake, because why would such a common word describe something purely theoretical. With that definition I did not have choice include any repetitive or instinctive action. for example, donating to charity is a choice made every time you do it. But the definition I used would not define it as a choice if the person donated regularly every year, because when in fact he 'could' choose not to, there is no conceivable circumstance where he wouldn't, therefore he could not be said to be making a choice. But anyway, I agree with your definition so we can just discard that.
_

Originally posted by celdss:

Of COURSE you would, as would anyone with a conscience. However, if that behavior is genetic, then you have no right to intervene, and that is my point entirely. You would have no more authority to take the gun out of his hand than you would to forcefully change his eye color. That is why it is absurd to think that morality could be genetic by nature, and why morality finds it's basis in right or wrong decisions, not genetic traits, which can have no moral element whatsoever.

But I think that I DO have a right to intervene. Eye colour is different because it is not detrimental to anyone, not even the person to whom those eyes belong. But if, say, he had a mental illness, I certainly should help him, by preventing him from unintentionally hurting others, or himself.
_

Originally posted by celldss:

I'm not sure what your getting at. I could effectively reply with "So?".
{...}
You kind of lost me with your final point. Let me ask you this: Would you agree with an argument that goes - "Without transcendent, absolute, moral commandments, the best moralism that society can offer is moral relativism"? If not, why not?

Yes, I would agree. There is no reason not to, and the terminology is warranted. 'best' suggests that moral relativism isn't as good, society has offered moral relativism forever (I'm sure you disagree), and it hasn't been all bad.

I was trying to say, we may be left with moral relativism, but this does not need to (and doesn't) result in anarchy.

___________________

|'Personal Growth'|'Personal Development'|
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.
|Threadless T-Shirts|Last.fm:NS Group|

Originally posted by vierstein:

An inactive choice could be something that is more instinct than choice; the example we used before, of a psychopath, the choice would not be active, but it would be a choice.

Instincts, insofar as humans are concerned, are absolutely "active" choices, to use your language. Even the most subconscious of instincts, such as flinching, can be controlled with time and practice. Also, I would advise caution here, because it seems as though you are suggesting that premeditated murder is not an "active choice". How on earth is that logically reconcilable?

Quote:

Our differing views on vengeance obviously come from the fact that you believe that everyone is completely responsible for their actions, whereas I do not. While I do agree that from a personal viewpoint it is healthy for me to assume responsibility as much as possible (It also me to work at my faults), overall in a society it is better to do the opposite, assume responsibility of society, maybe it is society that needs to adjust to people and not the other way round. People can change, it is only a matter of circumstance.

Unfortunately vierstein, it is that exact mentality that has brought the United States to it's knees on just about every sociological platform conceivable. The "I'm a victim" rationale that has become today's motto has ruined more marriages, created more frivolous lawsuits, destroyed more families, corrupted more children, and cost more money than just about any other idea thus far. It is because people refuse to take responsibility for their actions (and thus lay the burden at the taxpayer's feet) that western civilization has become the plethora of wasted money, idiodic laws, and ruined lives that it has.

Let me ask you this: can you name just one instance in which someone is not logically responsible for their own decisions? Keep in mind this is to be approached from a logical mindset.

Quote:

His punishment should be the same as for any other murderer, we should not distinguish between different classes of murderers.

I don't understand though, why punish someone for something that was not an "active" choice, but simply the logical outcome of their genetic material?

Quote:

Originally posted by celdss:

How else is "choice" properly definied? And I'm not quite sure how that invalidates my previous remark. Would you mind illustrating please?

well, you stated that the genetic element would take away any choice to be made, but when i explained how the genetic element works, without requiring choice, you agreed that I was, in fact, describing choice.
By my earlier definition of choice, choice does not in fact exist, which was a mistake, because why would such a common word describe something purely theoretical. With that definition I did not have choice include any repetitive or instinctive action. for example, donating to charity is a choice made every time you do it. But the definition I used would not define it as a choice if the person donated regularly every year, because when in fact he 'could' choose not to, there is no conceivable circumstance where he wouldn't, therefore he could not be said to be making a choice. But anyway, I agree with your definition so we can just discard that.

<chuckle> Okay - you're going to have to help me out here. My remark about "and that is making a choice" was in response to your previous paragraph saying you don't believe we make moral choices. How about this - as clearly and briefly as possible:

1) Please give me your definition of choice.
2) Please give me your definition of morality.
3) Please tell me why morality is not a choice.
_

Quote:

But I think that I DO have a right to intervene. Eye colour is different because it is not detrimental to anyone, not even the person to whom those eyes belong. But if, say, he had a mental illness, I certainly should help him, by preventing him from unintentionally hurting others, or himself.

I would agree that you have a moral obligation to protect others from harm, the case has not been made why you ought to protect him from himself. If his genetic material is causing him to committ suicide, who are you to stop it? Why then to do you not try and stop those predisposed to obesity from eating junk food (which harms themself)? Also, if you try and stop someone who is hypothetically genetically predisposed to harm himself, then you are effectively saying that his genetic material is morally wrong. How can genes be wrong?

_

Quote:

Originally posted by celldss:

I'm not sure what your getting at. I could effectively reply with "So?".
{...}
You kind of lost me with your final point. Let me ask you this: Would you agree with an argument that goes - "Without transcendent, absolute, moral commandments, the best moralism that society can offer is moral relativism"? If not, why not?

Yes, I would agree. There is no reason not to, and the terminology is warranted. 'best' suggests that moral relativism isn't as good, society has offered moral relativism forever (I'm sure you disagree), and it hasn't been all bad.

I was trying to say, we may be left with moral relativism, but this does not need to (and doesn't) result in anarchy.

Yet you hold to the logically unsound position that morality is relative to the individual? I'm not sure how to respond to that.

___________________

When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Originally posted by celldss:

Instincts, insofar as humans are concerned, are absolutely "active" choices, to use your language. Even the most subconscious of instincts, such as flinching, can be controlled with time and practice. Also, I would advise caution here, because it seems as though you are suggesting that premeditated murder is not an "active choice". How on earth is that logically reconcilable?

Maybe instinct is not the right term. I'm not talking about flinching (I don't know if that is really subconscious, maybe semi-conscious). Real sub-conscious choices can not be controlled, such as your body digesting food, or controlling your temperature. Premeditated murder, is and active choice, because even though the choice is not made at the point of action (choices are always made before the action (the time difference varies)), the active choice is made.
_

Originally posted by celldss:

Unfortunately vierstein, it is that exact mentality that has brought the United States to it's knees on just about every sociological platform conceivable. The "I'm a victim" rationale that has become today's motto has ruined more marriages, created more frivolous lawsuits, destroyed more families, corrupted more children, and cost more money than just about any other idea thus far. It is because people refuse to take responsibility for their actions (and thus lay the burden at the taxpayer's feet) that western civilization has become the plethora of wasted money, idiodic laws, and ruined lives that it has.

That's absurd and impossible, the mentality that i was describing included a part on personal responsibility, and how it should be carried out to a great extent.
The idea that my ideology is wrong because it is too similar to a damaging mentality is a logically unsound conclusion. We can not simply support the better of two extremes, but should try to compromise to the point in the middle which is superior in effects to all others.
_

Originally posted by celldss:

Let me ask you this: can you name just one instance in which someone is not logically responsible for their own decisions? Keep in mind this is to be approached from a logical mindset.

Maybe I should have used clearer terminology. They are responsible. But we should not assume responsibility on to them, in terms of punishments.
_

Originally posted by celldss:

I don't understand though, why punish someone for something that was not an "active" choice, but simply the logical outcome of their genetic material?

Which is why i said abolish punishment completely (unless it is a part of rehabilitation), and why I don't agree with vengeance punishments. The difference between is a grey area, which also causes problems when distinguishing between classes of murders.
_

Originally posted by celldss:

<chuckle> Okay - you're going to have to help me out here. My remark about "and that is making a choice" was in response to your previous paragraph saying you don't believe we make moral choices. How about this - as clearly and briefly as possible:

1) Please give me your definition of choice.
2) Please give me your definition of morality.
3) Please tell me why morality is not a choice.

I've been through this, but, like I said, my definition of choice wasn't very good, so I've discarded it in favour of your one. From there, I also followed from there that morality is a choice.
But here, clearly, I will state my position. My definition of morality: 'A belief that certain behaviour is right and should be promoted, and that other behaviour is wrong and should be discouraged. The line between the two is not always clear cut.'

How can morality be absolute when it is obvious from different people's actions that they have differing moral codes.
_

Originally posted by celldss:

I would agree that you have a moral obligation to protect others from harm, the case has not been made why you ought to protect him from himself. If his genetic material is causing him to committ suicide, who are you to stop it? Why then to do you not try and stop those predisposed to obesity from eating junk food (which harms themself)? Also, if you try and stop someone who is hypothetically genetically predisposed to harm himself, then you are effectively saying that his genetic material is morally wrong. How can genes be wrong?

Well, morality is just a word we use to describe thoughts of a certain nature (or actions, but that's only an extension of the definition). Genes don't have thoughts, they don't have morality.
_

Originally posted by celldss:

Yet you hold to the logically unsound position that morality is relative to the individual? I'm not sure how to respond to that.

Care to back up that claim?

___________________

|'Personal Growth'|'Personal Development'|
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.
|Threadless T-Shirts|Last.fm:NS Group|

In answer to the orginal question yes people can be good without religion, I find that overly obvious because the amoutn of them I ahve encountered. Also because I myself do not specifically have a relgiion, just beliefs i've thought of myself, and I know I am good at least sometimes(don't tell me religious people don't have pitfalls also).

If you have no religion you must have rationalized a reason for living, a standard for how you should live. I don't really think its possible to just continue living not believing in a god, an afterlife, or any of that stuff, and not create any reason for yourself. Its completely illogical, you would have to at least rationalize some sort of existence. Some people might decide that since there is no god each person lives to please themselves and indulge in whatever they choose, becoming a completely immoral person and not doing good. However there are some that decide that since there is nothing to abide by(religously), nowhere to get to at the end of your life, you should live according to the culture. They think they should live to please themselves without harming others and try to be as helpful as they can. This is because that is our cultures morals and we live in our culture, if there is no god we should do our best in our lives to help others and ourselves.

In respect to this I think what some people were saying when they do not care or are fine with all others moral beliefs and just try to do develop their own system, they mean specifically unless it is visibly harmful. Basically if somebody is doing something you find culturally wrong you try to stop it, its not an acceptable belief, because you are living by cultures standards(with small deviation of course based on what you think is right, every person has a choice to decide this). Morality is relative to the individual, that person takes what input they get and deicde what the correct things to do are, then act on that information. Religion works the same way you just get your morals or ethics from a specific source, not every source(which is why I believe its inherently worse).

Anyways I think religion is helpful just not needed. How hard do you think it would be to reform someone who is completely immoral without religion? Would you say the culture doesn't accept that, or it harms people therefore its wrong you should find a better moral code for yourself? We all know it would be very difficult, and still is with religion, but religion is MUCH better for the job. I've personally seen people change through religion and it works better. The person may then reject religion later(as I have) but it still will have chagned them so they could reason things better for themselves.

Sorry if that is hard to understand and seems an unsound argument, but I have trouble putting what I feel into words.

Offtopic: I was raised in a religous family but eventually realized I wasn't truely happy with the religion, which people were saying is how you should feel, so I started to analyze why. I decided it was because i didn't truely believe it, could never truely have "faith" in it without some sort of proof, then realized that meant there was no reason to keep having a partial belief in it. After this I abandoned Christianity in my own mind and im a much happier person now, I don't feel guily after I help someone(I use to think that what if I just helped him because I don't want to go to hell?) but I know I helped them because I wanted to and thats all that matters.

___________________

"Dip your feet in your own pool of knowldege before asking someone else to bathe in theirs"

Quote:

... there are some that decide that ... you should live according to the culture.
...
This is because that is our cultures morals and we live in our culture, ...

I disagree I do not think morality comes from culture, some accepted behaviour (custom) does but not morality.

Quote:

Morality is relative to the individual, that person takes what input they get and decide what the correct things to do are, then act on that information. Religion works the same way you just get your morals or ethics from a specific source, not every source

right. I agree with what you're trying to say here.

Have you read the exchange between me and celldss? there is a lot of interesting discussion on the issue of morality.

Which reminds me, celldss, are you going to answer my last question

Originally posted by vierstein:

Originally posted by celldss:

Yet you hold to the logically unsound position that morality is relative to the individual? I'm not sure how to respond to that.

Care to back up that claim?

___________________

|'Personal Growth'|'Personal Development'|
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.
|Threadless T-Shirts|Last.fm:NS Group|

Originally posted by vierstein:

Which reminds me, celldss, are you going to answer my last question

Originally posted by vierstein:

Originally posted by celldss:

Yet you hold to the logically unsound position that morality is relative to the individual? I'm not sure how to respond to that.

Care to back up that claim?

D'oh! Sorry about that - thanks for the reminder. Sure, morality that is relative (like most forms of relativism) is self-defeating because it violates the law of noncontradiction. For instance, relativist A states that murder is a moral evil, and if we assume relativistic truth, then he is correct. Relativist B states that moral is not a relativistic evil, and he is also correct. Hence the obvious contradiction (in it's simplest form) and the tenuousness of moral relativism. Cultural relativism, like individual relativism also crumbles under it's own logical weight - the logical conclusions undermining the premise.

___________________

When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Religon is for the weak.

___________________

Free Desktop Wallpapers