Moral relativism (was re: Political Correctness = Fascism)

[Ozzard]

See http://www.hhplace.org/discuss/hhplace_cafe_general_chit_chat/7916-political_correctness_fascism-2.html#post129627 for context - this has moved away from political correctness so I'm breaking it out into a separate thread.

Now let's see if I understand this business of moral relativism correctly. (examples elided for brevity - see the original article)

Other than some wording you've carefully chosen to be asymmetric, yes, I think you have the idea.

- Under certain circumstances I may kill someone who is causing problems in my life. I may also not want to be killed by them. This situation is symmetric. Consider a kill-or-be-killed situation - I don't care what anyone says about it being wrong to kill, I consider it more wrong for me to die :-). Similarly, the person who is trying to kill me would rather they lived and I died. I don't consider there is anything absolute that allows the two of us to get together, look at the situation according to some external set of rules, and decide which death is morally Right.

- I have had an affair in the past. I have also watched a partner have an affair. (In each case we're now living with the person with whom we had the affair, but that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.) Again, I don't think there's anything absolute that would have allowed us to get together and decide who was morally Right - not least because it's difficult to evaluate the short-term and long-term effects of the action on the people concerned.

I *do* think that attempts to form absolute sets of morals based on any premise other than "might is right" are doomed to failure due to internal inconsistency, however. As a (fictional?) example, consider a majority-Christian country where the death penalty is used sufficiently widely to cause concern among human rights groups monitoring the situation, where intimidation and electoral fraud have been used to change electoral outcomes to the point that the UN has been asked to send in monitoring teams, and where the nominally Christian leaders are willing to go to war, condemning tens or hundreds of thousands on both sides to death in exchange for possibly preventing a few hundred to a few thousand deaths. One can construct an absolute moral code based on "might is right" where that is Right; otherwise, we're down to moral relativism - it's Right for the leaders (and perhaps some/most of the inabitants of) that country.

[Dr. Shoe]

Might is not always right, just ask the survivors of the Nazi death camps or Stalin's purges. Moreover, the invasion of Iraq wasn't right either, they were absolutely no threat to either the US, the UK or any country that either or both are sworn to protect. There was a pretext that Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction but history now proves that this was a lie, just as the consensus of opinion said. The real reason for the invasion was because Iraq was about to start selling oil in Euros and not Dollars, so what happens whe the rest of OPEC follow suit? Iran has already indicated that it was considering the move. Might is right? I don't think so...

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Iraq_dollar_vs_euro.html

What is Moral Relativism then? It is the lesser of two evils. Killing in self-defence would be one situation but in this case the prosecution always proceeds on the basis that it was murder for the defendant to prove that it was self defence. In other words they are guilty until proven innocent! Now I see that GW Bush wants to remove Habeas Corpus, the basic right to a fair trial. This means that YOU could be tried for just about anything the state sees fit without any evidence at all and it is up to you to prove your innocence. Enemies of the state beware!

Moral relativism is about stealing from your neighbour to feed your children, what about him feeding his family?

No, we need laws to prevent an anarchic wild west culture where the strong prosper and the weak suffer...

[Guy N. Heels]

Thank you, Ozzard for a fine response. However, as you have correctly surmised, I find such notions about as sensible as building a house on a sand-dune. With everything always shifting around, it would be impossible to guarantee any kind of stability in the structure. Perhaps our society is experiencing a very high degree of instability because of this same kind of thinking?

On the other hand, the ancient Greeks had a term for a person who upheld one set of standards one moment but a different set of standards the next. They called such a person an "actor" because he was wearing two faces. It is the same term we use today in perjorative sense - hypocrite.

For myself, I find instructions like: "Thou shalt not commit murder." a lot more sensible than: "thou shalt not commit murder, except..." (you fill in the blanks).

[Guy N. Heels]

Might is not always right, just ask the survivors of the Nazi death camps or Stalin's purges... What is Moral Relativism then? It is the lesser of two evils. Killing in self-defence would be one situation but in this case the prosecution always proceeds on the basis that it was murder for the defendant to prove that it was self defence. In other words they are guilty until proven innocent! Now I see that GW Bush wants to remove Habeas Corpus, the basic right to a fair trial. This means that YOU could be tried for just about anything the state sees fit without any evidence at all and it is up to you to prove your innocence. Enemies of the state beware...

No, we need laws to prevent an anarchic wild west culture where the strong prosper and the weak suffer...

Bravo!

But one point of order... Habeas Corpus literally means, "produce the body". Therfore, the revocation of habeas corpus is not so much a threat of being tried on any whim or caprice, but rather, the denial of bail or release from custody because of lack of evidence. In other words, once you are seized by the state - they could "bury" you in their prison system and you might never be heard from again. In reality, it represents a far more serious threat to individual freedom than the notion of being tried on a whim, or even presumption of guilt. It smacks of the kinds of things that totalitarian governments are wont to do.

[Dr. Shoe]

That's exactly what I mean. Guantanamo Bay is just the thin end of the wedge...

[Guy N. Heels]

That's exactly what I mean. Guantanamo Bay is just the thin end of the wedge...

That, along with a host of other things, is precisely why the Democrats are in power in the Congress today. Most Americans are totally fed-up with the arrogance, the lies and the prevarications. But kaiser Bush's total disregard for the rule of law has now prompted some widespread alarm.

Don't be surprised to see the emergence of a new third party - The Fed-up party - before next election.

[Dr. Shoe]

That, along with a host of other things, is precisely why the Democrats are in power in the Congress today. Most Americans are totally fed-up with the arrogance, the lies and the prevarications. But kaiser Bush's total disregard for the rule of law has now prompted some widespread alarm.

Don't be surprised to see the emergence of a new third party - The Fed-up party - before next election.

The problem is is that that'll split the "anti-bush" vote so the Republicans will get in again!!!

It's better to persuade disaffected republican voters to vote democrat in protest....

[Guy N. Heels]

The problem is is that that'll split the "anti-bush" vote so the Republicans will get in again!!!

It's better to persuade disaffected republican voters to vote democrat in protest....

Your point is well taken. That's exactly how Baal Clinton was able to get into the White House and stay there for 8 long years without once ever getting a majority vote.

[Dr. Shoe]

Your point is well taken. That's exactly how Baal Clinton was able to get into the White House and stay there for 8 long years without once ever getting a majority vote.

Ditto GWB and T Bliar...

[Guy N. Heels]

Ditto GWB and T Bliar...

Well, I really don't know how Mr. Blair came to office, but in the 2000 election George Bush took the White House by the thinnest of margins. Thanks to our goofy way of tallying the presidential vote, the entire election hinged upon the state of Florida. That one may be a source for political arguments for decades to come, but I believe Bush actually won it. But the re-election in 2004 (even though I did not vote for him) was a clear-cut majority vote for Bush. Again, our goofy way of counting the votes is a "winner-take-all" approach by which the total number of electoral votes for any given state is awarded to the candidate who won the greatest number of votes in that state. Therefore, it is possible for a candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election (which I most emphatically state did NOT happen in 2004). So, unlike Baal Clinton, for at least one election George W. Bush did win both the popular vote and the electoral vote. Clinton never won the majority in the popular vote, but did win the election - not once, but twice!

[Dr. Shoe]

Here in the UK the prime minister is the head of the party that secures the most seats as long as there is a clear majority. If not then one party or the other must do a coalition deal with a party that will give them the house. In the 70s we had a Lib-lab pact that is to say a liberal Labour alliance. Obviously the labour party had to make concessions on policy and give the Libs places in the cabinet. Now here's the thing: Not all constituencies have the same number of voters and some of the larger ones returned a conservative MP say, whilst many of the labour seats have a very small electorate. Add to that the people who voted for minority or marginal parties such as the Green Party, UKIP, BNP, Monster Raving Loony etc. and those who couldn't be arsed and you will find that only about 30% of the electorate actually voted Labour. Here in the UK (like the States) unless you vote either Labour or Conservative you are wasting your vote. Many people who vote for the main opposition party are actually voting against government in protest but some of those can't bear to vote fo "the enemy" so tend to dump their vote on a minority party.

[Guy N. Heels]

...Here in the UK (like the States) unless you vote either Labour or Conservative you are wasting your vote. Many people who vote for the main opposition party are actually voting against government in protest but some of those can't bear to vote fo "the enemy" so tend to dump their vote on a minority party.

Your analysis is correct. Here in the states we fundamentally have a 2 party system and any votes for any of the other minority parties that come along are essentially wasted votes. 3rd parties don't have a very good survival record in this country and I don't think we've even had a 3rd party worth mentioning in the past 100 years. Abraham Lincoln was first elected by a pluraity, which is a graphic demonstration of what 3rd parties do - they split the vote.

The main problem is that the 2 major parties don't usually have the best candidates. Typically, the 3rd parties have the smarter candidates, or ones more responsive to the needs of the people. But then you are left with the vexing questions of: 1] How to get them into the office(s) and; 2] how to keep them from becoming a lame duck if you should succeed in getting them in? I suppose we could just have an "open" election, but then there would never be an end to the run-offs.

One quick question: You mentioned constituencies. How is that determined and why would one be larger than another? Here we apportion by districts and, at least in theory, the districts within a given state have the same population count. This has little to do with geographic area, as a state like Alaska is 4 times larger than Texas and is probably well capable of encompassing the whole of the British Isles.

[Dr. Shoe]

The constituencies are traditional (by and large) and many of the boundaries have not changed since the 18th century. Moreover, some constituencies contain large populations of people who are disbarred such as foreign nationals which is the case in Hackney.

[Guy N. Heels]

The constituencies are traditional (by and large) and many of the boundaries have not changed since the 18th century. Moreover, some constituencies contain large populations of people who are disbarred such as foreign nationals which is the case in Hackney.

So I take it that the constituencies are, by and large, defined by geographic bounderies as opposed to population?

[Dr. Shoe]

So I take it that the constituencies are, by and large, defined by geographic bounderies as opposed to population?

Yes exactly, though they were originally defined by having 100 voters in each back in the days when you had to own land to vote and only the head of the household could etc.

[Ozzard]

So I take it that the constituencies are, by and large, defined by geographic bounderies as opposed to population?

Depends. Yes in the country, no in the cities. For example, there was a re-drawing of the boundaries in Trafford (where I live) a few years ago due to lower voter numbers* in the area. Four constituences were merged into three, and the "vanished" seat was reallocated elsewhere in the country. The constituency that disappeared was a strongly Conservative area held by Winston Churchill, the grandson of the war leader and an utter maverick in the British parliament. This is, of course, pure coincidence and nothing at all to do with them as wot's in power wanting him out of the way. Nothing at all, I stress.

So boundaries do change as the population changes, although like all administrative changes they tend to lag somewhat.

* Lower voter numbers were principally due to people not registering to vote so that they had a better chance of vanishing off council records and not paying local taxes, but that is a completely different story...

[Dr. Shoe]

Depends. Yes in the country, no in the cities. For example, there was a re-drawing of the boundaries in Trafford (where I live) a few years ago due to lower voter numbers* in the area. Four constituences were merged into three, and the "vanished" seat was reallocated elsewhere in the country. The constituency that disappeared was a strongly Conservative area held by Winston Churchill, the grandson of the war leader and an utter maverick in the British parliament. This is, of course, pure coincidence and nothing at all to do with them as wot's in power wanting him out of the way. Nothing at all, I stress.

So boundaries do change as the population changes, although like all administrative changes they tend to lag somewhat.

* Lower voter numbers were principally due to people not registering to vote so that they had a better chance of vanishing off council records and not paying local taxes, but that is a completely different story...

This is a clasic case that illustrates precisely why the boundaries rarely change. What do you do with the encumbant MP? It could affect the balance of power in parliament. The process is tantamount to gerrymandering!

[Ozzard]

The process is tantamount to gerrymandering!

Correct. Which is why the commission that changes the boundaries (a continuous process, by the way, rather than a rare one) is so powerful.

[Fog]

Here in the UK (like the States) unless you vote either Labour or Conservative you are wasting your vote. Many people who vote for the main opposition party are actually voting against government in protest but some of those can't bear to vote fo "the enemy" so tend to dump their vote on a minority party.

That's not entirely true. In some constituencies Liberals have got rid of Tories. The only time in my life I actually had any power in my vote was when I lived in Carshalton. I was very pleased to have a hand in removing a tory MP. The majority of people in Britain live in safe seats, elections are determined by floating voters in marginal seats.

[Dr. Shoe]

Indeed. Yes of course some seats vote liberal otherwise they wouldn't have any MPs... Most Liberals are encumbant in safe seats purely because of the personality of the candidate, I don't think anyone who votes Liberal expect them to get into government unless as part of a coalition... Don't forget also that quite a lot of the old SDP members were labour before they split and ten later amalgamated with the Liberal Party to form the LibDems.

[Guy N. Heels]

...Other than some wording you've carefully chosen to be asymmetric, yes, I think you have the idea.

...I have had an affair in the past. I have also watched a partner have an affair. (In each case we're now living with the person with whom we had the affair, but that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.) Again, I don't think there's anything absolute that would have allowed us to get together and decide who was morally Right - not least because it's difficult to evaluate the short-term and long-term effects of the action on the people concerned.

I *do* think that attempts to form absolute sets of morals based on any premise other than "might is right" are doomed to failure due to internal inconsistency, however. As a (fictional?) example, consider a majority-Christian country where the death penalty is used sufficiently widely to cause concern among human rights groups monitoring the situation, where intimidation and electoral fraud have been used to change electoral outcomes to the point that the UN has been asked to send in monitoring teams, and where the nominally Christian leaders are willing to go to war, condemning tens or hundreds of thousands on both sides to death in exchange for possibly preventing a few hundred to a few thousand deaths. One can construct an absolute moral code based on "might is right" where that is Right; otherwise, we're down to moral relativism - it's Right for the leaders (and perhaps some/most of the inabitants of) that country.

Returning to the question of moral relativism. The first and foremost problem that I see with your construct is: Who is to determine what is "right" and what sort of standards are to be employed? As I understand your construct, what is "right" is what is determined by whoever is in power. Therefore, I see no difference between your construct and the more pragmatic: Power flows from the barrel of a gun." Therefore, whoever happens to be in power at the moment (ergo, whoever has the gun) gets to determine what what is "right" and what is "wrong". So in the absence of any absolute standards, if the color of your hair, or the color of your skin happens to be "wrong" or offensive to the one in power, then according to your assessment, the one with the gun has the "right" to wipe you out and remove your offensive presence from the face of the earth.

It sounds much to whimsical or capricious to me. I would much rather have some absolute values and the rule of law rather than the whim or caprice of some "moral relativist" who happens to have superior firepower in his hands at the moment.

[Ozzard]

The first and foremost problem that I see with your construct is: Who is to determine what is "right" and what sort of standards are to be employed?

That is precisely the question, yes.

As I understand your construct, what is "right" is what is determined by whoever is in power.

No.

I believe that *there is no absolute notion of right*. Big, big difference. What is right to you may not be right to me, and vice versa. Then I added a paragraph to the effect that one could construct a consistent view of Right as Power - read through again, please, and tell me where I said or implied that I believed it?

Therefore, I see no difference between your construct and the more pragmatic: Power flows from the barrel of a gun." Therefore, whoever happens to be in power at the moment (ergo, whoever has the gun) gets to determine what what is "right" and what is "wrong". So in the absence of any absolute standards, if the color of your hair, or the color of your skin happens to be "wrong" or offensive to the one in power, then according to your assessment, the one with the gun has the "right" to wipe you out and remove your offensive presence from the face of the earth.

That seems to be present usage in parts of the United States, yes. They (you) have the power, so apparently get to determine what is "right".

It sounds much to whimsical or capricious to me. I would much rather have some absolute values and the rule of law rather than the whim or caprice of some "moral relativist" who happens to have superior firepower in his hands at the moment.

I would much rather prevent the superior firepower from being used and allow individuals to sort it out. I accept this is impractical - we can't get there from here, and we probably couldn't get there at all.

Here's a challenge for you: State any one belief that a) you believe to be absolutely Right, is internally consistent (so you cannot for example cite "Thou shalt not kill" unless you also cite "the death penalty is Absolutely Wrong) and c) you believe fewer than one person in a hundred, worldwide, would disagree with you, including the internal-consistency corollories. We'll leave 1% room for lunatics to have their lunatic views here. The key point is *worldwide* - your sample cannot be constrained by country, political system, race, relative wealth, religious belief or similar.

I can't find any belief that satisfies these criteria; nor can I find any way of moving the world to a state where these criteria could be satisfied. Therefore I am a relativist, not an absolutist.

[Dr. Shoe]

Actually, the bible does not say "thou shalt not kill" (unless you read King James) what it says is "You should not murder". In the original Hebrew, murder and kill are the same word which is why Genesis goes on to define what is meant and then advocates the death penalty, ie stoning. I don't think any of us are absolutists but I think that we are compassionate enough to appreciate that the other person has a point of view and believe that they are right too. This is why we have laws which in themselves are absolute because in the event where two people both believe they are right then they have the Law or a rule book of some kind to refer to. Take for example a situation where one driver drives into the back of another. He would try to say that the driver in front stopped suddenly (he probably did) and the other driver would say that the guy behind was too close. We have the convention that the driver behind is always at fault- and this stops arguments that could escalate to violence or worse. Obviously I would feel a little sorry for the guy if it happened to me but at the end of the dayI would expect him (or his insurance) to make good any damage to my car...

[Ozzard]

Actually, the bible does not say "thou shalt not kill" (unless you read King James) what it says is "You should not murder". In the original Hebrew, murder and kill are the same word which is why Genesis goes on to define what is meant and then advocates the death penalty, ie stoning.

Thanks for the clarification. It seems I'm a little odd in reckoning that taking someone's life - for whatever reason - is the same: a life has been taken, whether by a murderer, a terrorist, a freedom fighter, an executioner or a warrior.

This is why we have laws which in themselves are absolute because in the event where two people both believe they are right then they have the Law or a rule book of some kind to refer to. Take for example a situation where one driver drives into the back of another. He would try to say that the driver in front stopped suddenly (he probably did) and the other driver would say that the guy behind was too close. We have the convention that the driver behind is always at fault- and this stops arguments that could escalate to violence or worse. Obviously I would feel a little sorry for the guy if it happened to me but at the end of the dayI would expect him (or his insurance) to make good any damage to my car...

... I'm sorry? Laws are absolute? First I've heard.

Firstly, laws apply within a particular jurisdiction. I am aware of no worldwide jurisdiction. There is no World Court. This in itself makes it difficult to argue that laws are absolute.

Secondly, laws within a particular jurisdiction are subject to modification by whatever body created them in the first place. They are mutable. I accept this is a weak point, as they can be considered at a point in time, but laws change over time. My mother recently pointed out to me that she found it hard to accept civil partnerships given that homosexuality was illegal as she was growing up - how times change. I suspect that few of us have done our pike practice recently, either, and I'm not aware of anyone living having been fined or imprisoned for failing to go to the State-sponsored church in England. All of these have been past laws.

Thirdly (and more strongly) laws are subject to interpretation. Take your convention above: that whoever drives into the back of another vehicle is considered at fault. This was arrived at by case law, and is presently being modified by case law as groups of (typically) youths deliberately drive erratically ahead of vehicles in the hope that the vehicle behind will drive into them and they can all get compensation payments for whiplash from the "at fault" driver behind. Someone - a judge in the English legal system - has to interpret the law as written and the existing case law and precedents as they are aware of them, to arrive at a guess as to what the law actually means. In some cases, for example European law, the judge is allowed to scrutinise the Parliamentary debate that led up the law being passed in its current form; in others, for example English law (except where overruled by European law in a very peculiar way that can be further patched as circumstance allows) the judge is not allowed to examine the intent of Parliament and must deal with the law as worded. It's really all very confusing.

Are these absolutes?

[Ozzard]

Are these absolutes?

Missed one.

4) Enforcment of these "absolute" laws is relative. It is a criminal offence (in the UK) to give a copy of a piece of recorded music to someone. Prosecutions are rare, especially for small-scale infringement. Why is this law not enforced with the same zeal as (say) the law making the sale of alcohol to under-16s a criminal offence, where undercover officers attempt to entrap shopkeepers into a sale?

[Dr. Shoe]

Thanks for the clarification. It seems I'm a little odd in reckoning that taking someone's life - for whatever reason - is the same: a life has been taken, whether by a murderer, a terrorist, a freedom fighter, an executioner or a warrior.

Actually you are (with all due respect). What is the differnce between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? Point of view, that's all. To his allies he's a freedom fighter and to his enemies he's a terrorist. What about euthanasia? How can you sit there and watch a loved one begging you to give them an overdose because "all killing is the same" and you don't want to be a murderer? What about execution, this is justified and recommended in the bible too. A woman who commits adultery should (must?) be stoned. If all killing were the same why would God tell us that we should kill under certain circumstances.

If you kill a member of an invading army to protect your country then you're a hero, if you kill your neighbour because of a dispute over where a fencepost is then you're a murderer. I'm sorry, but I just cannot see where this could possibly be open to interpretation. The only reason why we think that Iraqis who kill our troops are evil is because they're killing our troops. If they were Russians, the Iraqis would be freedom fighters...?

... I'm sorry? Laws are absolute? First I've heard.

Of course they are! Do you think they should apply to one person and not another? This is ridiculous! If the speed limit in a certain road is 30mph and you drive faster then you are breaking a law. If you sell cocaine to someone you are breaking the law. How can this NOT be absolute?!

Firstly, laws apply within a particular jurisdiction. I am aware of no worldwide jurisdiction. There is no World Court. This in itself makes it difficult to argue that laws are absolute.

The absolution of law has absolutely nothing to do with jurisdiction. It doesn't matter where you go, there are laws and there are punishments for breaking them. I'm sorry but your argument just doesn't make sense!

Secondly, laws within a particular jurisdiction are subject to modification by whatever body created them in the first place. They are mutable. I accept this is a weak point, as they can be considered at a point in time, but laws change over time. My mother recently pointed out to me that she found it hard to accept civil partnerships given that homosexuality was illegal as she was growing up - how times change. I suspect that few of us have done our pike practice recently, either, and I'm not aware of anyone living having been fined or imprisoned for failing to go to the State-sponsored church in England. All of these have been past laws.

Of course they are, that is why we have a legislature. Times do change and laws have to change with them. Homosexuality was eventually legalised because making it illegal was wrong in the first place and the people knew it and so did the legislature. Did you know that lesbianism has never been illegal? What would be the point of practicing the pike or archery or whatever, they're obsolete weapons and this law has no place in the modern world. To say that just because new laws are made and old laws repealed does not mean that you can pick and choose which laws you obey! Imagine using that as a defence in court: "I broke the law your honour because one day it will be repealed and will no longer apply!"

[Guy N. Heels]

...Here's a challenge for you: State any one belief that a) you believe to be absolutely Right, is internally consistent (so you cannot for example cite "Thou shalt not kill" unless you also cite "the death penalty is Absolutely Wrong) and c) you believe fewer than one person in a hundred, worldwide, would disagree with you, including the internal-consistency corollories. We'll leave 1% room for lunatics to have their lunatic views here. The key point is *worldwide* - your sample cannot be constrained by country, political system, race, relative wealth, religious belief or similar.

I can't find any belief that satisfies these criteria; nor can I find any way of moving the world to a state where these criteria could be satisfied. Therefore I am a relativist, not an absolutist.

The first and foremost problem that I find with your challenge, is the notion that the lunatic and mentally & emotionally defectives represent 1% of the population of this world. It is my personal belief that the truly sane people represent less than 1% of the population. Consequently, I am finding far less "middle ground" between us.

[Fog]

What about execution, this is justified and recommended in the bible too. A woman who commits adultery should (must?) be stoned. If all killing were the same why would God tell us that we should kill under certain circumstances.

So God is telling us to execute adulterous women? Of course the man gets away scot free. Are those God's rules or the rules drawn up by the blokes to make life sweet for themselves?

The first and foremost problem that I find with your challenge, is the notion that the lunatic and mentally & emotionally defectives represent 1% of the population of this world. It is my personal belief that the truly sane people represent less than 1% of the population. Consequently, I am finding far less "middle ground" between us.

And therein lies the problem. I'm assuming Guy you're putting yourself in the 1% who are sane. Nobody would say 1% of people are sane - but I'm in the 99% who aren't sane. I'm not sure whether it's worth having a discussion with someone who truly believes that whenever anyone says anything that they disagree with it's because they're insane.

[Guy N. Heels]

So God is telling us to execute adulterous women? Of course the man gets away scot free. Are those God's rules or the rules drawn up by the blokes to make life sweet for themselves?

And therein lies the problem. I'm assuming Guy you're putting yourself in the 1% who are sane. Nobody would say 1% of people are sane - but I'm in the 99% who aren't sane. I'm not sure whether it's worth having a discussion with someone who truly believes that whenever anyone says anything that they disagree with it's because they're insane.

Hi there, Fog. Long time, no hear from.

So let's take yer questions in reverse order, shall we? Nope, I'm a guy with bone cancer and a broken back who is still wearing skirts and high heels. Worse yet, I'm finding myself having an argument with another high-heel wearing male who considers himself a moral relativist. After I struted into a courtroom wearing earrings, heels and a skirt, I seriously doubt that I would stand a very good chance in a competency hearing - unless the jury was willing to commit the judge first. As for the male high-heeled moral relativist - he's certifiable!

Now, about stoning those wretched adulters - just what makes you so sure the man was supposed to get off the hook? It is true that the scriptures don't specify the manner of punishment for the man, but most conservative circles held to the notion: "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". However, there are some biblical scholars who have now uncovered evidence that the male adulterer was to either be: hanged, garroted, or torn apart by horses:furious: . So adultery in one community would merely get you stoned:text_help:, whereas in some other community you might literally be torn limb from limb.

Does that help you feel a little better now, Fog? Good to hear from you again.

[Ozzard]

(Aside: Dr. Shoe makes a number of points and his post deserves a detailed reply. This requires more time than I have in this visit - consider this a placeholder. Sorry!)

The first and foremost problem that I find with your challenge, is the notion that the lunatic and mentally & emotionally defectives represent 1% of the population of this world. It is my personal belief that the truly sane people represent less than 1% of the population. Consequently, I am finding far less "middle ground" between us.

Just a quick check, then:

- Do you consider yourself "truly sane"? Why or why not?

- Who should be allowed to participate in decision-making: everyone, or only those designated "truly sane"?

- If it is not everyone, who decides which people should be called "truly sane" and hence be allowed to participate in decision-making? And how do you prevent that spiralling into a nasty little system where "people like us" take over from the initial well-meaning people and "everyone else" is branded insane - where, if the atheists initially came into power, theists would be taken from their homes at night and never seen again, or put into secure hospitals and given treatment for their "insanity" until they were "cured", or where if (say) the Discordians, or Sunni Muslims, or Shia Muslims, or Quakers, or Roman Catholics, or Methodists, or... came into power, all the atheists and anyone who didn't share their exact beliefs had the same fate?