Morality is the real 'inconvenient truth'

"Morality is the real 'inconvenient truth'." Frank Miele thanks the American Library Association, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Supreme Court for the mess our country has become. "Indeed, our society today has been so habituated to immoral behavior that most of us don't even know it is immoral any longer."

"Backed by one court order after another, what could be called the apotheosis of the individual has made it almost impossible for modern society to regulate itself as a group. The group must always bow to the individual, not the other way around. This sounds great to our liberty-loving people until you realize that the proper word for such a system is anarchy."

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Whose "morality"?

Morality is solipsistic. Your morals aren't any good for anybody but you. And just because someone has morals that are different from yours, that doesn't make them any more immoral than it makes you immoral because your morals are different from theirs.

God, I get so tired of your "followers" who cannot see this magnificient and wide-ranging universe beyond terms of black and white. Give them a brain or give them a life, why don't you?

Sincerely yours: Me.

Re:Whose "morality"?

Oh, yes, and on this topic:

Today, anything goes.

. . . this is one of the biggest lies told by the self-righteous; it almost ranks right up there with the false witness that prayer is illegal in schools and the anti-dogmism and outright blasphemy that God has been kicked out of the schools.

Why do these people hate American and American freedom? Why are they so blind that they cannot see that any outward restriction must be reasonable as to time, place, or manner, but that they are still at liberty to impose any asinine restriction or set thereof upon themselves? (Well, with the exception of outright criminal behaviour, perhaps.)

Why have none of them learned that God himself, speaking in the person of Jesus Christ, mandated and commanded the separation of church and state in the words: Then render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and render unto God that which is God's; for my Father's kingdom is not a kingdom of this earth; it is the Kingdom of Heaven.

Bleah. A pox on all of them and may Finagle jam their foreskins in their zippers.

More (Canadian) Dime Store Philosophy

Your morals aren't any good for anybody but you. And just because someone has morals that are different from yours, that doesn't make them any more immoral than it makes you immoral because your morals are different from theirs.

Really? And mine, morals that is, impress upon me to react to the homespun tautology of self described moral relativists like yourself. I may argue that a moral relativist can be nothing but immoral. MySpace pedophiles with sticky mice, all victims of sexual abuse. Leave them click. Crack pushers peddling on playgrounds, just the toil of the economically disenfranchised. Leave them prey. Jew-hater morals? Simply a manifestation of what could be justified as ARC, Acute Racial Confidence, syndrome. Clitoridectomies and infibulations? African folkways.......

But ne'er to judge, right Fang?And because your enlightened fold will never stoop to judge I won't expect any further fusillades from you to my comments around here any more. Just my morals talkin'...again, that's all.

You just continue sitting on your mitts and biting your tongue.

immorality

How about the narrow-minded, merciless, suffocating, ignorant, nosy, self-righteous bigotry masquerading as religion in this country? That's pretty immoral.

Re:Whose "morality"?

Fang, this discussion got overheated and I want to apologize on behalf of everyone for the angry tone this has taken on.I think that we all need to agree that "what's right for me isn't necessarily what's right for you," and that all moral positions are equally valid. What I believe is my business, and what you believe is your business, and anything else is sheer oppression of one group over another.I'm feeling so bad about this I would like to offer to have you over for supper. Is that something you could bring yourself to do, despite all the acrimony?Oh, by the way, I believe in murder and cannibalism. See you six-ish?

Re:Whose "morality"?

I believe in murder and cannibalism. See you six-ish?

Certainly; and I believe in self-defence. Where and how would you like to be buried?

See, what you and Tomeboy are apparently too stupid to understand is that restrictions must be reasonable, which point I specifically made above. It doesn't at all surprise me that the two of you are unable to even see those words when they are written down in plain English, much less understand the moral principals they conceptualize.

Re:More (Canadian) Dime Store Philosophy

What a load of typically black v. white claptrap from a hypersenstive reactionary. Pedophilia, while repugnant, is not a crime; Child Molestation is a crime; the red-necked, yellow-bellied white cracker bigot is solely responsible for his ignorance, as much as you are responsible for yours, and it is not a crime to be a white supremacist; substance abuse, crack, heroin, or the mainstream alcohol, derives from complex sociological issues which we have due in large part to the immorality of short-sighted, black-white thinkers. People like you.

You just keep sitting on your intellect and smothering it.

L'Chaim.

P.S.: You have no idea what solipsism is, do you?

Re:Whose "morality"?

Reasonable to who or whom, Fang?"Morality is solipsistic. Your morals aren't any good for anybody but you. And just because someone has morals that are different from yours, that doesn't make them any more immoral than it makes you immoral because your morals are different from theirs."Reasonable to Rousseau, keeper of the "General Will?"Reasonable to the Comite de salut public?No thanks, "been there, done that," as Santayana (more nicely) says, and all I got was this bloody t-shirt.

Re:More (Canadian) Dime Store Philosophy

You have no idea what solipsism is, do you?

I reckon my answer depends upon which definition. The definition found in any given dictionary or the one discovered in that inveterate encyclopedia of yours?

Guilty if the latter.

But I do know this. Your reasoning to use statutory law (e.g. crime) to support your solipsistic world view is befuddling if not impeccably moronic. Slavery is repugnant too, though no doubt Justice Taney would have been "morally in bounds" with you at some previous point in time. That is, if you would ever stand by your original words without equivocating your rebuttals with "reasonable", "complex social....."

tschuss erstmal

Re:immorality

I'm narrow-minded, suffocating, ignorant, nosy, self-righteous and a bigot, but I don't consider myself amoral :)

Re:immorality

Matt--you can hold your liquor, though, and that makes up for a multitude of other sins.

Re:Whose "morality"?

Reasonable to who or whom, . . .

Your Supreme Court.

Re:More (Canadian) Dime Store Philosophy

I'll interpret your baffle-gab to mean that you don't know and won't admit it. But I do find it amusing how you say slavery is repugnant while your philosophies and viewpoints support and promote it.

Re:immorality

That is the only time I consider being amoral :)

Redefining the term

Until one becomes a victim of an immoral act or behavior, then one's view of what is moral or immoral gets re-defined.

Re:Redefining the term

Ah, . . . the kind of morals -- or "principles" actually -- that Sir Thomas Moore chastised Roper for having. Funny thing about Moore, he was probably the first Libertarian if Bolt's portrayal of him is accurate. Moore had morals. He recognized that even the Devil himself had to have a right to due process, because he knew that denying that right to Satan would have established a precedent that would eventually reach even to him. And yet, the loudest screeching "moralists" of the Amerikan right-wing will deny civil liberties to any demographic that frightens them, while reserving those "rights" (privileges, actually) for themselves, and then sentitiously proclaim that they are firmly anchored to their "morals".

So, I guess I should ask myself, who should I seek to emulate -- a pack of screeching hysterics or Sir Thomas Moore?

Gee; ain't that a no-braniner.

Syndicate content