So wait, in prehistoric times when there were no laws, - #87020317 added by anonymous at Ellen

Reply-49

(03/18/2013)[-]

I hate how people idolize that vermin Ellen. Can't you people see how immoral she is? She tied her sentence in hell once she chose to be a fag. All you fag lovers will follow her unless you accept Jesus as your true lord and savior. The gays should be all killed.

#149 to #76 - studbeefpile

Reply0

(03/22/2013)[-]

Damnit, you're exactly the kind of jackass that makes reasonable people that happen to believe in the teachings of Christ without trying to shove it down everyone's throat (such as myself) look bad.

#136 to #76 - hurricanesam

Reply+2

(03/18/2013)[-]

Mom, take your pills and go to bed.

#135 to #76 - Nullifier

Reply+3

(03/18/2013)[-]

10/10 got all of these people below me

I mean, honestly? Someone who makes an account on funnyjunk called concerned mother, then posts controversial and obviously exaggerated opinions? Come on now, guys. Jesus ****.

#144 to #135 - thatnerdyguy

Reply0

(03/18/2013)[-]

Watch your language, mom will get mad.

#133 to #76 - turdburgalar

Reply0

(03/18/2013)[-]

Just stop trying to make Christians look bad with your pathetic "joke".

#128 to #76 - thatnerdyguy

Reply+1

(03/18/2013)[-]

GUYS. Check the username.
I'm pretty sure it's a novelty account.

#132 to #128 - turdburgalar

Reply+2

(03/18/2013)[-]

Especially since it was made today hah.

#134 to #132 - thatnerdyguy

Reply+1

(03/18/2013)[-]

And honestly, I thought they were pretty funny. I wish people would stop thumbing them down, I don't want this guy to get autobanned.

#142 to #134 - concernedmother

Reply+1

(03/18/2013)[-]

Thank You.

#127 to #76 - thesirofponies

Reply-1

(03/18/2013)[-]

#122 to #76 - thedynamicman

Reply0

(03/18/2013)[-]

#117 to #76 - wholesomeburn

Reply+2

(03/18/2013)[-]

#110 to #76 - gunnyjoe

Reply+4

(03/18/2013)[-]

So..
Do we post gay porn to your page or..?

#125 to #110 - cubanwhiteman

Reply-1

(03/18/2013)[-]

Why would we not?

#109 to #76 - werrew

Reply+2

(03/18/2013)[-]

#106 to #76 - tomthehippie

Reply+5

(03/18/2013)[-]

To all of you... as a Christian I am sorry for douchebags like this retard who can't follow what Jesus said.

Love each other. Love god. Those were his final commands to us as Christians before he died for us.

I hope that you don't confuse pricks like this guy and WBC for all Christians.

God bless you all. Even the gays. Especially the lesbians.

#107 to #106 - anon id: d6ccdad2

Reply0

(03/18/2013)[-]

"especially the lesbians"
hue

#104 to #76 - pebar#151 on commentsRank#151

Reply0

(03/18/2013)[-]

A person's morality doesn't concern anyone else. Unless they are violating some law, you have no reason to care. It is just plain arrogance for someone to think other people should conform to someone else's sense of ethics.

*throws the troll some peanuts*

#114 to #104 - anon id: 4de1b1f0

Reply0

(03/18/2013)[-]

So wait, in prehistoric times when there were no laws, it was morally acceptable to kill and torture others in any way you wanted and we should just condone that?

#120 to #114 - pebar#151 on commentsRank#151

Reply0

(03/18/2013)[-]

People would band together and set rules for community to follow. These rules would eventually become laws. A total anarchist society is unnatural because people will do what they can to survive. So for this new society to function, people gave up their "right to kill." Without law, family and friends would take revenge then the other side would take revenge and there would be a loop. With this new society, the community as a whole agrees to take revenge on behalf of the victim so that there would be no loop of endless violence; this eventually becomes government.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

that's how I see it anyway

#124 to #120 - anon id: 4de1b1f0

Reply0

(03/18/2013)[-]

Yeah, the emergence of law and order is great and all, but that didn't make it ethical to kill before they came about. And competent governments with codified justice systems lagged a few centuries behind humans making tools and weapons, so for some uncertain period, whoever had the biggest family had earthly license to kill anyone for any reason. Should we really not condemn them because nobody told them to stop?

#131 to #124 - pebar#151 on commentsRank#151

Reply0

(03/18/2013)[-]

The law is not a system of morality. While law does have its roots in ethics, for example my state has nearly made abortion illegal, the primary purpose of the law is to maintain social order. If a majority of the population thinks something is immoral, generally a law will be made because people being upset disturbs social order. But this is only seen after some kind of crude government is already set up.

There are people who think human sacrifice is morally ok for the sake of religion. My point is that morality is entirely opinion-based. Until a law is made, the ethics of an issue will remain merely a person's opinion.

#137 to #131 - anon id: 4de1b1f0

Reply0

(03/18/2013)[-]

But even laws which aren't based on a morality system can be open to interpretation. The best example I can think of would be Supreme Court rulings on segregation. Based simply on who the Justices are when a case is brought in, the Court will have directly contradictory rulings on the meaning of a particular part of the Constitution.

Making a law doesn't make ethics much more objective, especially with conscientious objection, laws being written and repealed frequently, etc. If you don't have your own idea of what is right and wrong, no government can give you a reliable answer.

#141 to #137 - pebar#151 on commentsRank#151

Reply0

(03/18/2013)[-]

This is why it's important not to confuse law and morality. The law can only give a broad generalization of what the society thinks. For example, Saudi Arabia is a completely different place because it bases its government on religion and the people there are pretty much ok with it. America on the other hand was founded on the idea of religious tolerance. Because both sides think they are morally right, one side can't patronize the other.

People's views change over time so the law will also change. If you look our court system, they only interpret existing laws. It's true, courts can change how laws are viewed, but courts also have to take into consideration previous court findings. It is this way so that the laws don't change rapidly and they mean the same thing in different places.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
interesting and slightly related