those of you with kids

wow i was really just asking from a developmental standpoint but thanks for interesting debate. we believe in God. she gets excited about saying prayers. we don't go to church or belong to any specific religion. we just try to live well rounded lives that include spiritual guidance. thanks again

el zola

Laws are not based on what is right and wrong, they are based (at least in this country) on the peoples's concensus (as put forth by our duly elected representatives) of what constitutes acceptable behavior in civilized society. Eliminating the 10 Commandments would have no bearing on societies laws, just as eliminating the bible, the quoran or whatever other literary works would have no effect. The fact that some people decide to calibrate there moral compass based on what may or may not be works of fiction is really irrelevant, because if such works didn't exist they would simply find some other source from which to draw thier morality. Our laws exist in a state of temporal flux, as does our externally constructed definitions of right and wrong, percisely because there is no inherent definitions of good, evil, right, or wrong (or even chair or pen for that matter), only those constructed from each individuals experience and agreed upon by concensus with others.

Well here's a construction of right and wrong, and you're wrong. By the way, your worldview makes you a relativist. Now go do your homework and report back here when you have a clue: let's say, when you enter your teenage years.

From Websters Dictionary - relativist fallacy

Those discussions of the relativist fallacy which make the fallacy out to be identical to relativism (e.g., linguistic relativism or cultural relativism) are themselves committing a commonly-identified fallacy of informal logic, namely, begging the question against an earnest, intelligent, logically-competent relativist. It is itself a fallacy to describe a controversial view as a "fallacy"--not, at least, without arguing that it is a fallacy. In any event, it will not do to argue as follows:

1. To advocate relativism, even some sophisticated relativism, is to commit the relativist fallacy.

2. If one commits a fallacy, one says something false or not worth serious consideration.

3. Therefore, to advocate relativism, even some sophisticated relativism, is to say something false or not worth serious consideration.

Virtually no philosopher worth his salt would take such an argument seriously; it is a fine example of circular reasoning.

I think that somes up your arguement pretty well (except for the name calling).

Thanks for playing

I would start her on slow aerobic training, some of it barefoot on grass with a few pick-ups and some form drills/plyometrics. lay off the weights till she turns 4.

Your argument SUPPORTS MY contention:

>>>1. To advocate relativism, even some sophisticated relativism, is to commit the relativist fallacy.

2. If one commits a fallacy, one says something false or not worth serious consideration.

3. Therefore, to advocate relativism, even some sophisticated relativism, is to say something false or not worth serious consideration.<<<

Read #1 CAREFULLY.

>>>Virtually no philosopher worth his salt would take such an argument seriously; it is a fine example of circular reasoning.<<<

I doubt any philosopher would take YOUR argument seriously.

ps, Sorry. I was just guessing that you were a pre teen based on your ill informed argument.

No @sshole, you read what was written carefully. #1, as you put it, is the first tenent of an arguement which is presented as an example of a logical fallacy. In case you still don't understand, #'s 1-3 lay out a false arguement used those with a poor command of logic to disprove a relativist arguement.

I don't know what you have against me, I was only pointing out that our laws are not derived, only influenced, by Judeo-Christian morality. Philosopher or not I don't see how you can argue this (for instance how would a law against skateboarding on Main St. be derived from the 10 Commandments?). Nothing against Christianity, I myself am a catholic, just pointing out that are system of laws are not derived from the bible, the 10 Commandments, or whatever, but simply from our shared experience of right and wrong as it can be practically applied to our cultural and civic lives.

Until you can put together some rational arguement (preferably longer than 2 or 3 sentences) supporting your arguement that law in the United States has its basis in the bible, you my friend are the one who seems a preteen.

Thanks try again.

I think your daughter is some kind os saint. Please get her an go to a church NOW.

Is this a running message board ?

I didn't say the argument was correct. I said (meant) you support my point because your first premise has nothing to do with being a relativist. You inserted it, the relativist fallacy, as if I was employing that line of reasoning which I was not. It's a straw man you erected, not I.

You are a classic relativist. Right and wrong according to your construction is plastic and ever changing--especially since there is no concrete basis, like a religious rationale, for their existence. Thus right and wrong are not determined outside of ourselves, but rather dependent upon the whims of society, or us, at any given time.

The framers of the constitution believed that rights ad duties existed independent of man via our Creator. While we did not live in a theocracy at our country's inception, we nevertheless were governed, especially at the local level (ex: Maryland had a STATE CHURCH for a time) by laws springing forth from our Judeo Christian heritage. NO historian or philosopher of any repute would or has argued otherwise. None of this PROVES that this was a proper course of historical action, or even proves the validity of the truth claims. But make no mistake, The laws of early America were colored in large part through the lens of biblical Christianity. It is only after the Civil War along with the slow erosion of federalism that America through the vehicle of judicial fiat became a much more secular state regarding it's view of law and where it emanates from.

As a Catholic you should know better. Don't even tell me you were schooled anywhere but in a government school. I'd then understand why you think as you do.

i remember back at high school,college, those religous girls could not get enough of the cock!!!!!

they f***ed like rabbits!