|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
| Level -51 Content: disliked |
OfflineSend mail to concernedmother Block concernedmother Invite concernedmother to be your friend
latest user's comments
|#142 - Thank You.||03/18/2013 on Ellen||+1|
|#84 - No! I mean Jesus Christ. And I find no humour in you posting p… [+] (1 new reply)||03/18/2013 on I'm going to hell||-3|
|#67 - That dog is obviously a demon in disguise. This is no laughing… [+] (1 new reply)||03/18/2013 on Has Science Gone Too Far?||+3|
|#76 - I hate how people idolize that vermin Ellen. Can't you people … [+] (31 new replies)||03/18/2013 on Ellen||-49|
#106 - tomthehippie (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 - devout feminist (03/18/2013) [-]
"especially the lesbians"
#114 - devout feminist (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 - pebar (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.
that's how I see it anyway
#124 - devout feminist (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 - pebar (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 - devout feminist (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 - pebar (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.
interesting and slightly related
#77 - devout feminist (03/18/2013) [-]
Its ok, its the effort that counts in the end right?
|#76 - Not if you accept the one true lord and savior into your heart. [+] (5 new replies)||03/18/2013 on I'm going to hell||0|
|#75 - I was going to try to turn your soul to the path of good but t…||03/18/2013 on I'm going to hell||+3|
|#116 - I thumbed down because I saw the word evolution and I do not s… [+] (2 new replies)||03/18/2013 on Can't Wait||-6|