User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 123

Thread: What's morally acceptable to you?

  1. #21
    Points: 74,657, Level: 66
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 793
    Overall activity: 43.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314977
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,631
    Points
    74,657
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,719
    Thanked 21,094x in 12,287 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Your list is confusing as you do not also provide the percentage of those who find each action morally unacceptable, say it depends, or give no opinion. Abortion for example is view as 2020 May 1-13 44% acceptable, 47% unacceptable, 9% depends, and 1% no opinion. In total then 57% do not find it morally acceptable. Not to single that action out, just to show that giving all the percentages adds meaning.
    While I agree that context and the inclusion of all the responses does make an important difference to understanding, any conclusion based on all the responses has to be stated with accuracy and without bias. Why, in this case, do you add the 9% "depends" responses and the 1% "no opinion" responses to the "unacceptable" total? Presumably those responders do find abortion to be acceptable in some situations and not in others; would it not be just as accurate, then, to add at least the 9% to the 44% "acceptable" total?

    In fact, if one is going to be characterizing the "unacceptable" total as representing a "pro-life" stance - which, I understand, you did not - tacking on that 9% is most definitely misleading. A poll that I recall from several years ago did exactly that: it took any response that indicated an objection to any abortion procedure, under any circumstances, and categorized it as a "pro-life" response, thereby arriving at the conclusion that a sizable majority of Americans were "pro-life".

    I'm actually surprised that the 9% "it depends" total is so low. I have to wonder how many of the "acceptable" and "unacceptable" responders would, upon further questioning, consider that a categorical acceptance or an exceptionless rejection of the procedure isn't necessarily the answer they want to give.
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  2. #22
    Points: 665,345, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433322
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,560
    Points
    665,345
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,988
    Thanked 80,911x in 54,724 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    While I agree that context and the inclusion of all the responses does make an important difference to understanding, any conclusion based on all the responses has to be stated with accuracy and without bias. Why, in this case, do you add the 9% "depends" responses and the 1% "no opinion" responses to the "unacceptable" total? Presumably those responders do find abortion to be acceptable in some situations and not in others; would it not be just as accurate, then, to add at least the 9% to the 44% "acceptable" total?

    In fact, if one is going to be characterizing the "unacceptable" total as representing a "pro-life" stance - which, I understand, you did not - tacking on that 9% is most definitely misleading. A poll that I recall from several years ago did exactly that: it took any response that indicated an objection to any abortion procedure, under any circumstances, and categorized it as a "pro-life" response, thereby arriving at the conclusion that a sizable majority of Americans were "pro-life".

    I'm actually surprised that the 9% "it depends" total is so low. I have to wonder how many of the "acceptable" and "unacceptable" responders would, upon further questioning, consider that a categorical acceptance or an exceptionless rejection of the procedure isn't necessarily the answer they want to give.
    Why, in this case, do you add the 9% "depends" responses and the 1% "no opinion" responses to the "unacceptable" total?
    Because, as I stated, they "do not find it morally acceptable."

    Note that I did not say they found it unacceptable.

    Polly's own list implies it: "Abortion: 44%" find it acceptable. The rest do not. OK, do not find it completely, absolutely acceptable. That should be clearer.

    Somebody's math is off.


    Agree on the depends. Any thinking person ought to say it depends.
    Last edited by Chris; 08-06-2020 at 09:28 AM.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  3. #23
    Points: 74,657, Level: 66
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 793
    Overall activity: 43.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314977
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,631
    Points
    74,657
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,719
    Thanked 21,094x in 12,287 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Because, as I stated, they "do not find it morally acceptable."

    Note that I did not say they found it unacceptable. ....
    You must admit, however, that to the casual listener (or reader) one sounds exactly like and implies the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Agree on the depends. Any thinking person ought to say it depends.

    Absolutely. (Irony intended.)
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  4. #24
    Points: 665,345, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433322
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,560
    Points
    665,345
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,988
    Thanked 80,911x in 54,724 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    You must admit, however, that to the casual listener (or reader) one sounds exactly like and implies the other.


    Absolutely. (Irony intended.)
    Clarified potential ambiguity as "do not find it completely, absolutely acceptable."
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  5. #25
    Points: 84,523, Level: 70
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 327
    Overall activity: 12.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    12826
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Charleston South Carolina
    Posts
    38,294
    Points
    84,523
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    67,690
    Thanked 12,837x in 10,134 Posts
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    I grouped these two responses together because they struck me as similar.

    First of all, thanks for your replies! Interesting stuff!

    Honestly I feel like maybe I'm being hypocritical in a way when I say that I'm against the death penalty because if a loved one of mine were say murdered for example, what sentence would I want for that person? I honestly don't know. Under those circumstances, placing myself in the shoes of the victims, I can imagine wanting the harshest possible penalty. But sitting here right now, I also don't think that that feeling, that I think understandable visceral desire for simple vengeance, is necessarily the same thing as justice being done. As an illustration of that, consider that many people who are convicted of offenses like murder ultimately wind up getting exonerated by evidence that comes out after trial. You can consequently free someone who has been sentenced to life in prison, but you can't free an innocent person wrongly convicted who is dead. I also have doubts that I'd actually find the execution of someone satisfying in the end. Just as points.

    When it comes to abortion...it's a fertilized egg, I'm sorry. I mean opponents of abortion really like to dramatize rare third-trimester abortions and portray them as the rule, but in reality more than 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester at points when the "unborn baby" looks nothing like a baby, has no consciousness at all, cannot exist outside of the woman's body, and cannot even necessarily feel pain. Comparing that to the Holocaust is just...ridiculous, in my view. Most Jewish people seem to think it's ridiculous too, considering that 83% of them poll as pro-choice.
    A fertilized egg is as human as you are. All your reasons apply to people in comas as well. Should we have the right to kill them?
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our nation
    Pick your enemies carefully.






  6. #26
    Points: 143,780, Level: 91
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 2,870
    Overall activity: 75.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    carolina73's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    43662
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    57,497
    Points
    143,780
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    56,070
    Thanked 43,667x in 28,253 Posts
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The missing question was; Is it moral to push your morality on others?
    I can understand abortion because there is an innocent that is the victim of the action of the immoral person.
    I understand issues when others want government to fund them or give them tax breaks, but the morality question there is the theft of funds by government in the first place and the governments selective redistribution.
    Last edited by carolina73; 08-06-2020 at 10:58 AM.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to carolina73 For This Useful Post:

    HawkTheSlayer (08-06-2020)

  8. #27
    Points: 74,657, Level: 66
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 793
    Overall activity: 43.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314977
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,631
    Points
    74,657
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,719
    Thanked 21,094x in 12,287 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina73 View Post
    The missing question was; Is it moral to push your morality on others? ....
    Very true - that's a vital point I meant to bring up and forgot to. It's certainly one thing to find some action or behavior to be "immoral", but another to want - or even insist - on getting the State and its laws and regulations involved. Law and morality do sometimes overlap, of course, but not to the extent that some would like.
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Standing Wolf For This Useful Post:

    Collateral Damage (08-06-2020)

  10. #28
    Points: 665,345, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433322
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,560
    Points
    665,345
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,988
    Thanked 80,911x in 54,724 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina73 View Post
    The missing question was; Is it moral to push your morality on others?
    I can understand abortion because there is an innocent that is the victim of the action of the immoral person.
    I understand issues when others want government to fund them or give them tax breaks, but the morality question there is the theft of funds by government in the first place and the governments selective redistribution.
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    Very true - that's a vital point I meant to bring up and forgot to. It's certainly one thing to find some action or behavior to be "immoral", but another to want - or even insist - on getting the State and its laws and regulations involved. Law and morality do sometimes overlap, of course, but not to the extent that some would like.

    I have no problem with people "pushing" morality on others, that's what people in a society do in their judgments of condemnation and justification. I do have a problem with the state (local or especially federal) coercing morality on the people, like the court pushing abortion. The state should leave social issues to society, the people to work out, and once there's consensus perhaps reinforce it. I think that would move positive law closer to natural or moral law.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  11. #29
    Points: 100,746, Level: 77
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 1,804
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first Group50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    IMPress Polly's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    156220
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    8,575
    Points
    100,746
    Level
    77
    Thanks Given
    10,232
    Thanked 7,643x in 4,358 Posts
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There's a way of viewing every moral issue in the survey as harmful to others. That's why they either are now or have been at some point in time sharply debated issues. Just as a footnote.

  12. #30
    Points: 100,746, Level: 77
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 1,804
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first Group50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    IMPress Polly's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    156220
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    8,575
    Points
    100,746
    Level
    77
    Thanks Given
    10,232
    Thanked 7,643x in 4,358 Posts
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Trish View Post
    I look at the list and my first impression is that I could find each of these moral and immoral depending on the situation. One of the reasons why we used to be a great country is because we allowed people freedom to make their own decisions based on their own individual situations.

    I would rather hear what influencers have made items on the list more immoral than others. I'll leave it there because I don't want to derail the discussion.
    My actual opinions contain a bit more nuance than simply answer "OK" or "not OK" to these various queries as well. Take gambling for example. I think casinos are basically a form of straight-up organized thievery. They just take people's money without giving them anything in return. That's their whole business model. The games are all rigged such that the house wins. There's nothing fair or honest about them. But if queried I'd still say that gambling itself is not immoral because I view the patrons of these institutions as their wide-eyed victims, not as being at fault themselves.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts