All those moral codes were written by people with a shared ancestry, and protecting your woman from other men is the result of very strong selective pressure. Locking your woman up is a good way to make sure your child is yours, but that doesn't make it right.

All those moral codes were written by people with a shared ancestry, and protecting your woman from other men is the result of very strong selective pressure. Locking your woman up is a good way to make sure your child is yours, but that doesn't make it right.

[quote=AntiSleep]Locking your woman up is a good way to make sure your child is yours, but that doesn't make it right.[/quote] Define right and wrong.

Quote from AntiSleep

Locking your woman up is a good way to make sure your child is yours, but that doesn't make it right.

Define right and wrong.

[quote=devilesk][quote=AntiSleep]Locking your woman up is a good way to make sure your child is yours, but that doesn't make it right.[/quote] Define right and wrong.[/quote] Right: what is socially accepted. Yep. I fully support the burning of witches.

Quote from devilesk

Quote from AntiSleep

Locking your woman up is a good way to make sure your child is yours, but that doesn't make it right.

Define right and wrong.

Right: what is socially accepted. Yep. I fully support the burning of witches.

[quote=cheeze][quote=devilesk][quote=AntiSleep]Locking your woman up is a good way to make sure your child is yours, but that doesn't make it right.[/quote] Define right and wrong.[/quote] Right: what is socially accepted.[/quote] Define socially accepted.

Quote from cheeze

Quote from devilesk

Quote from AntiSleep

Locking your woman up is a good way to make sure your child is yours, but that doesn't make it right.

Define right and wrong.

Right: what is socially accepted.

Define socially accepted.

[quote=AntiSleep]All those moral codes were written by people with a shared ancestry, and protecting your woman from other men is the result of very strong selective pressure. Locking your woman up is a good way to make sure your child is yours, but that doesn't make it right.[/quote] That those people share the same ancient ancestry which shared the same continent isn't really a terrifying (counter) argument. I think you are missing my point. I never said or implied anything about if locking up your wife is right or not. I was replying to someone's statement that there are no universal moral standards. My point wasn't about an action like protecting your partner to much or to less but that the reason [u]why[/u] people would do that are the same: taking care of your partner. There really is a great deal of difference between action and intend. People will never agree about actions and especially on forums people will just keep debating and eventually flaming. That is why I do not want to focus on that; there's nothing to gain. Instead try to look at [u]why[/u] people do things and you will be able to see a lot more similarities.

Quote from AntiSleep

All those moral codes were written by people with a shared ancestry, and protecting your woman from other men is the result of very strong selective pressure. Locking your woman up is a good way to make sure your child is yours, but that doesn't make it right.

That those people share the same ancient ancestry which shared the same continent isn't really a terrifying (counter) argument.

I think you are missing my point. I never said or implied anything about if locking up your wife is right or not. I was replying to someone's statement that there are no universal moral standards. My point wasn't about an action like protecting your partner to much or to less but that the reason why people would do that are the same: taking care of your partner.


There really is a great deal of difference between action and intend. People will never agree about actions and especially on forums people will just keep debating and eventually flaming. That is why I do not want to focus on that; there's nothing to gain. Instead try to look at why people do things and you will be able to see a lot more similarities.

[quote=Daedalus][quote=AntiSleep]All those moral codes were written by people with a shared ancestry, and protecting your woman from other men is the result of very strong selective pressure. Locking your woman up is a good way to make sure your child is yours, but that doesn't make it right.[/quote] That those people share the same ancient ancestry which shared the same continent isn't really a terrifying (counter) argument. I think you are missing my point. I never said or implied anything about if locking up your wife is right or not. I was replying to someone's statement that there are no universal moral standards. My point wasn't about an action like protecting your partner to much or to less but that the reason [u]why[/u] people would do that are the same: taking care of your partner. There really is a great deal of difference between action and intend. People will never agree about actions and especially on forums people will just keep debating and eventually flaming. That is why I do not want to focus on that; there's nothing to gain. Instead try to look at [u]why[/u] people do things and you will be able to see a lot more similarities.[/quote] There really is a great deal of similarity between action and intent. People will never agree about either one and especially on forums people will just keep debating and eventually flaming. That is why I do not want to focus on that; there's nothing to gain. Instead try to look at nothing and you will be able to see a lot more similarities.

Quote from Daedalus

Quote from AntiSleep

All those moral codes were written by people with a shared ancestry, and protecting your woman from other men is the result of very strong selective pressure. Locking your woman up is a good way to make sure your child is yours, but that doesn't make it right.

That those people share the same ancient ancestry which shared the same continent isn't really a terrifying (counter) argument.

I think you are missing my point. I never said or implied anything about if locking up your wife is right or not. I was replying to someone's statement that there are no universal moral standards. My point wasn't about an action like protecting your partner to much or to less but that the reason why people would do that are the same: taking care of your partner.


There really is a great deal of difference between action and intend. People will never agree about actions and especially on forums people will just keep debating and eventually flaming. That is why I do not want to focus on that; there's nothing to gain. Instead try to look at why people do things and you will be able to see a lot more similarities.

There really is a great deal of similarity between action and intent. People will never agree about either one and especially on forums people will just keep debating and eventually flaming. That is why I do not want to focus on that; there's nothing to gain. Instead try to look at nothing and you will be able to see a lot more similarities.

[quote]Define socially accepted.[/quote] Not you.

Quote

Define socially accepted.

Not you.

[quote=cheeze][quote]Define socially accepted.[/quote] Not you.[/quote] Define me.

Quote from cheeze

Quote

Define socially accepted.

Not you.

Define me.

[quote=devilesk][quote=cheeze][quote]Define socially accepted.[/quote] Not you.[/quote] Define me.[/quote] –pronoun 1. the objective case of I, used as a direct or indirect object: They asked me to the party. Give me your hand. 2. Informal. (used instead of the pronoun I in the predicate after the verb to be): It's me. 3. Informal. (used instead of the pronoun my before a gerund): Did you hear about me getting promoted? –adjective 4. of or involving an obsessive interest in one's own satisfaction: the me decade. [SIZE=6]"me." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 12 Mar. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/me>.[/SIZE]

Quote from devilesk

Quote from cheeze

Quote

Define socially accepted.

Not you.

Define me.

–pronoun
1. the objective case of I, used as a direct or indirect object: They asked me to the party. Give me your hand.
2. Informal. (used instead of the pronoun I in the predicate after the verb to be): It's me.
3. Informal. (used instead of the pronoun my before a gerund): Did you hear about me getting promoted?
–adjective
4. of or involving an obsessive interest in one's own satisfaction: the me decade.

"me." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 12 Mar. 2008. <Dictionary.com

[quote=midget_man_66]It does not matter what is, or what is not [U]Regarded[/U] by the "scientific" community, a fact is made from a theory through Testing. How can this theory be tested? you cannot go back in time and look to see for yourself. [/quote] Cosmic Background Radiation would like a word with you, just start talking in any direction to begin your phone call.

Quote from midget_man_66

It does not matter what is, or what is not Regarded by the "scientific" community, a fact is made from a theory through Testing. How can this theory be tested? you cannot go back in time and look to see for yourself.

Cosmic Background Radiation would like a word with you, just start talking in any direction to begin your phone call.

Considering we only know 10% of whats in the cosmos I'm not too sure thats entirely trustworthy. Then again this study of dark matter might help bump up that percentage a bit here.

Considering we only know 10% of whats in the cosmos I'm not too sure thats entirely trustworthy. Then again this study of dark matter might help bump up that percentage a bit here.

Nvm for now.

Nvm for now.

Among human nature we must have rules, and a balance. A self governed balance. Like someone said earlier in this topic, evils and goods are man made, and among man they are consequenced. I think that the two gods that govern our existance create balance, and after them everything less signifigant then they stay in this balance. Although morality may not be a good example, as i disproved mysef earlier in the topic... Everything else is. Life. All that is needed to be said. If not for human involvment, this earth would last for Millions of years. I must ask... I really dont believe in the Bible, because of the amount of faith required to believe in it. But honestly one must ask, Why is it that this man who walked around for 30 some years made such an impact? He claimed morals. He claimed to know the opposites. He claimed the absolutes. And in turn, people follow him. Monuments of stone and art were erected in his name. The years by which we mark our every day lives was done in his name. There are absolutes, and by gosh, im absolutely sure. There is positive, and there is negative.

Among human nature we must have rules, and a balance. A self governed balance. Like someone said earlier in this topic, evils and goods are man made, and among man they are consequenced. I think that the two gods that govern our existance create balance, and after them everything less signifigant then they stay in this balance. Although morality may not be a good example, as i disproved mysef earlier in the topic... Everything else is. Life. All that is needed to be said. If not for human involvment, this earth would last for Millions of years. I must ask... I really dont believe in the Bible, because of the amount of faith required to believe in it. But honestly one must ask, Why is it that this man who walked around for 30 some years made such an impact? He claimed morals. He claimed to know the opposites. He claimed the absolutes. And in turn, people follow him. Monuments of stone and art were erected in his name. The years by which we mark our every day lives was done in his name. There are absolutes, and by gosh, im absolutely sure. There is positive, and there is negative.

It's really amazing how much of an impact that 1 man has had on human civilization. It's almost crazy to think that there wasn't [I]something[/I] supernatural about this guy we form our timeline around. I persoanlly feel he was just feeling a void. It wasn't so much about him, as it was his unique time and place. This isn't my most coherent train of thought.

It's really amazing how much of an impact that 1 man has had on human civilization. It's almost crazy to think that there wasn't something supernatural about this guy we form our timeline around.

I persoanlly feel he was just feeling a void. It wasn't so much about him, as it was his unique time and place.

This isn't my most coherent train of thought.

[quote=Akar]Considering we only know 10% of whats in the cosmos I'm not too sure thats entirely trustworthy. Then again this study of dark matter might help bump up that percentage a bit here.[/quote] So you want to ignore something all over fucking space? Educate yourself on the subject before you begin discussion, to prevent your eventual embarrassment.

Quote from Akar

Considering we only know 10% of whats in the cosmos I'm not too sure thats entirely trustworthy. Then again this study of dark matter might help bump up that percentage a bit here.

So you want to ignore something all over fucking space? Educate yourself on the subject before you begin discussion, to prevent your eventual embarrassment.

I'm well read on the topic of space. And since cosmic background radiation is supposedly the afterglow of the big bang I don't trust it all too much. The big bang theory has too many flaws quite honestly. Now talk to me about super string theory and dark matter, the more recent and acceptable theories that don't fall apart when challenged by the laws of physics.

I'm well read on the topic of space. And since cosmic background radiation is supposedly the afterglow of the big bang I don't trust it all too much. The big bang theory has too many flaws quite honestly. Now talk to me about super string theory and dark matter, the more recent and acceptable theories that don't fall apart when challenged by the laws of physics.

How can you not trust something that is everywhere? The Big Bang theory has no notable flaws, and works perfectly with the Universe's development and current structure. Dark Matter is totally unrelated to the Big Bang; string theory gives a bloody plausible cause.

How can you not trust something that is everywhere? The Big Bang theory has no notable flaws, and works perfectly with the Universe's development and current structure. Dark Matter is totally unrelated to the Big Bang; string theory gives a bloody plausible cause.

String theory is completely ridiculous.

String theory is completely ridiculous.

It might of come from something else. It is probable. Big Bang works perfectly with the Universe? Oh boy. One of the major flaws is that it relies on Einstein's general theory of relativity to work, yet violates it at the exact same time.

It might of come from something else. It is probable. Big Bang works perfectly with the Universe? Oh boy. One of the major flaws is that it relies on Einstein's general theory of relativity to work, yet violates it at the exact same time.

[quote=Dapperdan]String theory is completely ridiculous.[/quote] You're completely ridiculous for not even trying to give an argument.

Quote from Dapperdan

String theory is completely ridiculous.

You're completely ridiculous for not even trying to give an argument.