Sociopath Community

The problem with absolute morals is that they don't properly model reality. 

Except for the principal of equality of life absolutism tends to fail in face of reality. Often times moral principles clash and dealing in absolutes in either side is not optimal if your goal is to maximize utility or either of the principles. 

Another problem with absolutism is that it can't weigh morals against each other in an effective manner. Someone who subscribes to another set of morals equally absolutely will definitely clash.

Inquirer stated: source post

 

leon14 stated: source post

Of course there will always be some expected latitude in relation to sadists, eg. a guy who raped and murdered children should be disposed of in a quite unpleasant manner.

Why's that okay?

You realize that a world with your morals (as you have stated them to be) would devolve into chaos? You can't reliably define a soul or tell when someone lacks it, the meaning of 'attacking' would be extremely subjective and having arbitrary exceptions (you can be a sadist to sadists) would just help muddle things further.

 

Do unto others.......

Unless a society adheres to laws and morals which are absolute, then that society will not be an absolute because of fluid laws and morals.

Is not the West drowning in self imposed stupidity? You can say 'I do' in a marriage ceremony in a church and then walk out and go to a gay orgy. It is perfectly legal and legally protected. 3rd world filth are plowing into Europe because they smell blood and a dying corpse

So many molestation victims come here it's crazy, you asked for it btw ;)

Pachuco stated: source post

as for the thingo about "santa claus" sentances, the move towards recognizing mitigating circumstances has more to do with current criminological theory. eg strain theory, social disorganization theory..

the move away from punitive legal structures is in my opinion a sort of social maturity. rather than hit the kid, work out why the kid fucked up, and try to prevent it from happening again

the whole eye for an eye shtick is medieval

If your dog pisses against your sofa do you kick it up the bum or give it a biscuit?

Inquirer stated:

What's the problem with being married and yet have gay orgies? You know, apart from a really old book telling you to trust its word.

Whats right about it? Dickheads picking up HIV, herpies and other STDs and bringing them  home.

What the problem with a really old book? Laws came originally from the 10 Commandments now they are fluid due to moral relativism and we see crims getting santa claus sentences because they werent hugged as a child or some other lame shit

Inquirer stated:

You're trying to say that atheism is bad because secular states are responsible for millions of deaths? If I give you examples of non-secular states committing massacres, have I successfully debunked your theory then?

Point 1. Communist states were not secular - they were atheist.

Point 2. Secular states allow both theism and non theism, communist states didnt

I dont see sociopaths/pedos/psychos/junkies/etc as equals

actually inquirer is right about most of those communist states not actual being communist states. one of the strategys of marxism was vanguardism, where basically an organization (ie a temparary oligarchy) would lead the communist state in the very early stages and then reliquinsh control to the people when communism could be established (ie revolution complete). the bolshevik party is an example

the problem with this was that when you give people power, they rarely give it back. i cant think of a single communist state that moved past the vanguard stage. most descended into oligarchy (china is a good example), or dictatorship.

as for the thingo about "santa claus" sentances, the move towards recognizing mitigating circumstances has more to do with current criminological theory. eg strain theory, social disorganization theory..

the move away from punitive legal structures is in my opinion a sort of social maturity. rather than hit the kid, work out why the kid fucked up, and try to prevent it from happening again

the whole eye for an eye shtick is medieval

You're disregard for the principals of egalitarianism is disgustingly intellectually dishonest. William Wilberforce is turning in his grave. 

leon14 stated: source post

Whats right about it? Dickheads picking up HIV, herpies and other STDs and bringing them  home.

What the problem with a really old book? Laws came originally from the 10 Commandments now they are fluid due to moral relativism and we see crims getting santa claus sentences because they werent hugged as a child or some other lame shit

STDs get 'brought home' by straight people as well. Bad argument. Besides, this would be an argument against the culture of gay people, not against being married yet gay.

leon14 stated: source post

Point 1. Communist states were not secular - they were atheist.

Point 2. Secular states allow both theism and non theism, communist states didnt

 And if a secular state allows theism, but does not follow it, that changes their morals relative to an atheist state in what way?

Then you subscribe to the same anti christian-egalitarianism and moral relativism you seem to hate.

But alright I guess you can pick, choose and weight morals against each other in absolutism... Oh wait that's moral relativism.