|Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 ||
|600=short money for a real pro|
no one added ranked #3 inlas vagas 2012 to her professional stats list/
None, I expect. She apparently could have gotten a lot of guys on LRC to empty their piggy banks if she had advertised on LRC, but anyone on LRC would have blabbed/bragged immediately.
I'm surprised she managed to keep it quiet so long, just because she was a fairly big celebrity back in the day even outside of running circles and appeared in national commercials-
I don;t think this is true. I'm sure we can come up with numerous examples of perfectly normal, successful adults whose childhoods' included much more traumatizing incidents, particularly involving parental actions. The family appears to be well off, Suzy will cut a book deal, possibly a movie deal, talk shows, etc. The kid will grow up, and one day receive a windfall. I think we could even find "legal" business people-parents and politicians who have much greater affect on society and their own kids' futures that you have managed to screw up their kids more than this will. Nevermind certain self-interested, self-centered youth sports-parents, youth celebrity-parents, etc. who have already factually (as opposed to theoretically, here) ruined their kids' childhoods for the sake of their own personal interests.
|clearing the bs up|
Or to summarize your opinion more intelligently -
1. Different cultures / people have different moral codes, i.e., there is a disagreement regarding morality.
2. Therefore there is no objective, universal moral standard.
However, if there is no objective, moral standard then changing a society doesn't improve that society's morality, it just becomes different. I.e., we were morally right then and we're morally right now.
Things that are morally permissible under the theory of moral relativism
- denying women suffrage
- Hitler's genocide of Jews
If you believe that what Hitler did in WWII was morally impermissible then you are NOT a moral relativist
Conclusion: Most people are not moral relativists.
If your post that "Only idiots aren't moral relativists" is true then the majority of people in the world are idiots. If you believe that what Hitler did in WWII was morally impermissible then you too are not a moral relativist and, according to you post, an idiot as well.
Good day sir.
I saw that book in a store: http://www.amazon.com/Ho-Gold-Fields-Northern-Overland/dp/0873515013
Anyhow, I really would have said this was a story from the Onion or an April Fool's joke, except that it would have gotten someone sued for libel.
This has to be really humiliating for her husband.
|Aer you all really that dumb?|
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/20/2012 12:13PM - in reply to Rocky Balboa Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
The article only says #3 ranked at her company. Someone misread this as #3 in Vegas. Who was ranked #1 and #2? Pics???
Read more: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4963763&page=3#ixzz2FdEt7Suz
So you believe we have reached the pinnacle of what we consider moral? Liberals and conservatives can't even agree. Each side thinks the other is stupid (as if a deficit of intelligence leads to moral differences) because they can't see the obvious moral views of hte other.
You clearly didn't read the Prinz piece - thinking something is morally relative doesn't mean it is morally permissable - it means I have no absolute standard by which to judge my dislike of it. Morality is about emotion. Learn to live with moral relativism - that we can declare things wrong while realizing we are the ones doing the declaring.
There is no moral force in the universe dictating right and wrong. Obviously, even a God wouldn't solve the problem.
So modern western liberals (or conservatives, or libertarians) have reached the endgame of moral belief?
Your objections are more on the lines of "how horrible moral relativism would be" rather than "moral relativism is wrong". Show me where right and wrong is handed to us (and revealed religion makes the problem worse, not better).
Moral relativism is a comment about etiology, not permissability.
When liberals and conservatives, easterners and westerners, etc. differ on moral dumbfounding questions, the trolley problem, the Euthyphro problem and other ingenious tests of moral commitment that make hay of profferred reasons for moral belief, it seems clear that there is more to morality than meets the eye.
As a western liberal, I have the typical suite of harm and fairness based liberal commitments (as in violations of these cause me strong emotional reactions which I then seek to justify through reasons), but it would be foolish to think I have these reactions (strong as they are) owing to unbiased rational reflection. When you can sway people\'s more judgement merely by exposing them to pleasant or unpleasant environmental stimuli, for example, or demonstrate that morals are genetically heritable, you start to sense that our vaunted reason or moral \"nature\" isn\'t as special as we think it is.
|clearing the bs up|
There is no objective, universal standard of right and wrong in moral relativism.
Therefore, you can't tell Hitler that what he did in WWII was morally impermissible.
What part of that don't you understand?
It is an easy test.
Do you believe that what Hitler did in WWII was morally impermissible?
If the answer is yes, then you are not a moral relativist.
Nothing surprises me anymore. Helluva runner.