Calls for legal same-sex marriage (1 Viewer)

[melanieeeee.]

Btw Iron, have you done one of those political spectrum tests, I'd be interested to see where you stand. You seem to hold an unusual mix of left wing economic views and conservative social views.

it says on his profile, moderate?!?

 

[fernando]

who cares. the world is doomed anyway.

 

[xeuyrawp]

It's written not spoken.

Maybe learn the difference thing between spoken and written word..

Rofl. I was pointing out a semantic flaw in what you said, you were pointing out a pragmatic one.

That being said, referring to written word as 'said' is completely fine. See here. Nice try, though.

I suppose it's similar to your habit of being a sphincter.

Rofl. Nice call!!!

Point out the legal terminology to me?

Point out where I said 'legal terminology'? Lookup legalese on wikipedia. I'm sure it outlines more to it than its lexical features.

Edit:

Seriously though, the last 10 years saw the rise and fall of Hansonism

Hahahah. For starters, 'Hansonism' is really shouldn't be used in intellectual discussions, hunny. If you're referring to the ideology of Pauline Hanson, I believe that was around long before she was. And it clearly still is around.

Just because someone was a vocal and prominent proponent of an ideology does not mean they started it, or that, when they fell from place, so did the ideology.

and the emergence of terrorism as a major international issue, just for 2 things off the top of my head.

Hahah... Only in the modern media, if at all. 'Terrorism' has existed as a major international issue for thousands of years.

If you're referring to what people like to call 'terrorism' (ie, Islamic-related terrorism), then you'd note that it actually features quite prominently in the last, oh I dunno, 1200 years or so. The knights of the Crusades made similar comments to what US Marines do, to be honest...

I think, like most people of the world, you give your time too much credit for what its worth. In a few centuries, 1998-2008 will be remembered for a few events as part of a broader story. Also, I doubt that in ten years time, we will have made any significant scientific (whether human or natural) events.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

so i used the wrong word or something therefore nothing happened, lol

obviously you don't understand that science and technology develop faster as you have more of them

. In a few centuries, 1998-2008 will be remembered for a few events as part of a broader story.

No shit?

The 'broader' story is only made up of lots of 10 years, or fuck it 15 years or 30 years if you like, so if you believe nothing changes in 10 years then nothing can change over hundreds of years.

Back to the gay issue before you write another history essay, I think an important factor is that most of the oldest generations will (hopefully) die over the ~20 years I originally guessed, and they tend to be the most bigoted (see: the murdoch papers).

 

[KFunk]

See, that's the beauty of it. It's not "their" view at all.
You relativists blowing about in the wind, unable to grab on to anything, being tossed here and flung there with the herd of popularity, you dont get it. At least the nuts are on the ground.

We get blown about by similar forces to the absolutists - we're just realistic about the fact that people are blown around. In other words, the relativist perhaps more readily embraces the degree of contingency involved in the way moral beliefs get formed.

That said, it's not as simple a picture as 'anything goes'. We still have constraints like human nature to contend with which will tend to limit the number of possible, stable social arrangments and also determine their structure/nature to some degree. I also think that you still miss the potential displayed by hypothetical imperatives as means of grounding a relativist moral discourse.

 

[*TRUE*]

We get blown about by similar forces to the absolutists - we're just realistic about the fact that people are blown around. In other words, the relativist perhaps more readily embraces the degree of contingency involved in the way moral beliefs get formed.

That said, it's not as simple a picture as 'anything goes'. We still have constraints like human nature to contend with which will tend to limit the number of possible, stable social arrangments and also determine their structure/nature to some degree. I also think that you still miss the potential displayed by hypothetical imperatives as means of grounding a relativist moral discourse.

So does a relativist believe that ethics change over time - with the prevailing mood? A sort of moral evolution?

 

[KFunk]

So does a relativist believe that ethics change over time - with the prevailing mood? A sort of moral evolution?

Not necessarily ('relatavism' is too broad a label for that), though this is indeed my thinking. It is certainly one way you can theorise. Rather than saying that morality simply changes with the 'prevailing mood' I would suggest the term 'prevailing environment' so that we're thinking more in Darwinian terms, e.g. what sets of moral beliefs would serve to bring a society in a given context into a semi-stable equilibrium with its environment or to increase its odds of survival? This is something of an oversimplification of course. One worry I've expressed before is that the rate at which new technologies develop may outpace the rate at which we can reasonably expect morality to change so as to regulate our use of these technologies. With some technologies, think along the lines of The Bomb, there won't always be a second chance to revise our attitudes towards them.

 

[*TRUE*]

Not necessarily ('relatavism' is too broad a label for that), though this is indeed my thinking. It is certainly one way you can theorise. Rather than saying that morality simply changes with the 'prevailing mood' I would suggest the term 'prevailing environment' so that we're thinking more in Darwinian terms, e.g. what sets of moral beliefs would serve to bring a society in a given context into a semi-stable equilibrium with its environment or to increase its odds of survival? This is something of an oversimplification of course. One worry I've expressed before is that the rate at which new technologies develop may outpace the rate at which we can reasonably expect morality to change so as to regulate our use of these technologies. With some technologies, think along the lines of The Bomb, there won't always be a second chance to revise our attitudes towards them.

Wow! Yeah that would worry me too! (rate of new technologies etc)
But So many cultures have had similar moral standards to todays - but in the past? i was thinking of Ancient Roman morality...

 

[*TRUE*]

Sorry i didnt finish my train of thought...
i was getting at , does the 'moral environment' go round in a kind of cycle?
How do we get the same environment for particular morals/ethics , at such different points in our history?

 

[KFunk]

How do we get the same environment for particular morals/ethics , at such different points in our history?

There could be a few reasons, and we needn't look to 'mystical' Yeats-style cyclical processes to find them. Possibilities:

(1) Stable elements in human nature may account for some of the similarities.

(2) Some persistent social social problems may have mathematical, or other determinate, solutions (or best approximate solutions). Think of game theory and some of the cases it deals with, such as the well known prisoner's dilemma. The golden rule yields one way of playing prisoner's dilemma style games and, interestingly, is one of the few moral principles found across all societies in anthropological studies.

 

[*TRUE*]

There could be a few reasons, and we needn't look to 'mystical' Yeats-style cyclical processes to find them. Possibilities:

(1) Stable elements in human nature may account for some of the similarities.

(2) Some persistent social social problems may have mathematical, or other determinate, solutions (or best approximate solutions). Think of game theory and some of the cases it deals with, such as the well known prisoner's dilemma. The golden rule yields one way of playing prisoner's dilemma style games and, interestingly, is one of the few moral principles found across all societies in anthropological studies.

what is mystical yeats cyclical processes? Actually please dont tell me! Sounds like the beginning of a migraine
Thats very interesting.... (1) & (2) I mean.
But I wonder if it is that society keeps coming back to the same basic choices though..... thats is where i am at......

 

[KFunk]

But I wonder if it is that society keeps coming back to the same basic choices though..... thats is where i am at......

The prisoner's dilemma, for example, is so abstract that you would be hard pressed to find a society which doesn't contain social interactions that can be modelled in this way. In fact, as long as you have social interactions, full stop, you will probably be able to find social events which fit the prisoner's dilemma mold.

 

[*TRUE*]

The prisoner's dilemma, for example, is so abstract that you would be hard pressed to find a society which doesn't contain social interactions that can be modelled in this way. In fact, as long as you have social interactions, full stop, you will probably be able to find social events which fit the prisoner's dilemma mold.

What is the prisoner's dilemma?

 

[writer'sblock]

Speaking from ignorance here, but does "Marriage" in the Marriage Act refer to a civil union, or a "religious" marriage?

They're after Civil Unions which are Marriages.
Religion has no part of it, and therefore one must be civil, not religious in the formation of the union, thus, anything deemed acceptable in our socity's view of ethics should consitute a criterion for a civil union. What has the anti discrimination act been doing for the last 30 years for the equality of certain members of our society? Not too much.

 

[KFunk]

What is the prisoner's dilemma?

Here is the link again: Prisoner's Dilemma

 

[*TRUE*]

Here is the link again: Prisoner's Dilemma

Thankyou

 

[*TRUE*]

Here is the link again: Prisoner's Dilemma

Yes , very interesting.... Ill have to think about it for a while before i understand it though - so im not sure if i agree

 

[Goji Berries]

"there is no absolute moral truth"
Hypothetical question for the day: Would you say it absolutely wrong, regardless of culture, circumstances, etc. for an adult to molester a young child for the sole purpose of his own sexual pleasure? Even if you are opposed to it (as am I), could you imagine a situation in which it wouldn't be immoral?

Re: impact of state on family. In 1975 Gough Whitlam introduced no-fault divorce which basically means that if two people want to get divorced, it's a private matter so the state should have nothing to do with it, therefore you don't need to come up with a reason for it. (Pre-1975 there had to be a reason, as in many American states, hence why they often just say "irreconcilable differences".) Making it easier to divorce resulted in a lot of couples to choosing to do so. Obviously there would have been a lot of other factors- social change one of them- but did this state-decision have an impact on the family structure?

With allowing gay marriage, and inevitably, increasing gay adoption and access to IVF , is this also a circumstance where a state-decision on marriage could have an impact on the family structure?

 

[KFunk]

"there is no absolute moral truth"
Hypothetical question for the day: Would you say it absolutely wrong, regardless of culture, circumstances, etc. for an adult to molester a young child for the sole purpose of his own sexual pleasure? Even if you are opposed to it (as am I), could you imagine a situation in which it wouldn't be immoral?

It's not about being able to conceive of a situation where 'bad' actions are no longer immoral - that just amounts to imagining a situation in which they are permissible, which roughly translates to "it is not the case that you ought not to perform action X". To imagine such a situation is to still speak in absolutist terms and so misses the point somewhat. It doesn't really affect the relativist's case if they can't imagine an alternative which deals in the very absolutist terms they denigrate. What is more relevant is the ability to look at such valuations in terms of human preferences which we can make sense of independent of absolutist, metaphysical baggage.

 

[*TRUE*]

It's not about being able to conceive of a situation where 'bad' actions are no longer immoral - that just amounts to imagining a situation in which they are permissible, which roughly translates to "it is not the case that you ought not to perform action X". To imagine such a situation is to still speak in absolutist terms and so misses the point somewhat. It doesn't really affect the relativist's case if they can't imagine an alternative which deals in the very absolutist terms they denigrate. What is more relevant is the ability to look at such valuations in terms of human preferences which we can make sense of independent of absolutist, metaphysical baggage.

KFunk what do you mean by "the ability to look at such valuations in terms of human preferences (my italics) which we can make sense of independant of absolutist, metaphysical baggage" ?