November 26, 2006
-
The Love of Nature Part 2
A few people had asked for an update on the whole “guy has sex with a dead deer case.” A guy had sex with a dead deer and his lawyer was trying to get the case dismissed. The lawyer was arguing against it because he said the deer wasn’t harmed because he was a dead deer.
The judge ruled the law’s “primary focus is on human behavior and on protecting sexual morality in the community, and not necessarily on animal protection.” Here is the link: Link
So a judge is acknowledging that you can legislate morality. I hear people say all the time that “you can’t legislate morality.” They will say “what a person does in the privacy of his own home is his own business.” “As long as no one is hurt, what difference does it make?”
And yet we will let a judge do it with this case because the man had sex with a dead deer.
Who should determine what is moral?
Comments (140)
God!
j
ewwwwwww
Even still, it’s inhumane.
a law in the constitution? sry for the double post.
Deer, obviously.
Jesus
Just about anyone who has a non-religious answer to your question.
God.
..good question.
When are we going to see a picture of you Dan?
God. and no one else
God. He’s the reason we have morals anyway.
Just about anyone who has a non-religious answer to your question.
Posted 11/26/2006 at 8:35 PM by PunkAssNothing
I change my answer. That ^, and deer.
ME! or satan
Individuals, insofar that they aren’t hurting anyone else.
but then again they are kind of one in the same
GOD!!!
Each person decides for himself what’s moral.
c.s.lewis talked about how moral needs to be given by moral giver. I would think that moral giver needs to be rightous, perfect and etc..
this is my thought..
Theist: Who decides morals?
atheist: our own conscious can tell us what is right from wrong.
Theist: what about psychopaths who think what he/she has done is correct, and isn’t bothered by conscious at all?
Atheist: well, then a group of people can be the judge of the morals.
Theist: But republicans and democrats have been having opposing beliefs concerning the morals.
Atheist: well, the whole country can judge what is right from wrong.
Theist: When 9-11 happened, we had the US who sobed and saw it as injustice, yet there were other countries which leaped in joy for the justice which was done..
Atheist: ^,^;;
Jay: True morals need to be given by all knowing, all powerful, and all present being. without him is chaos.
True scholarly atheist admit that there is no meaning to life.
j
God. He’s the reason we have morals anyway.
Posted 11/26/2006 at 8:36 PM by clearlysomewhatsane
He’s the reason we have morals? Whatever. Some of us are capable of being decent people without the fear of otherworldly retribution for our sins.
All law is morality based.
That saying “you can’t legislate morality.” has nothing to do with not being able to pass laws based on morality it all about being unable to create morality by passing laws
And in this case it is all based on the yuck factor
wahoo! top 50! =]
God
ok, idk
For an atheist there is no true morality. It is all social convention and it can change any time the trends change. They put the word morality on that and call it good until the next election
God should, of course, and I think man via government has ever right to legislate that moral code–as long as it’s God’s moral code and not man’s.
I should, of course.
The point is that the guy has been publicly humiliated beyond description…even his children’s children will be asked “Isn’t your Grandfather that deer raper guy?” <==just leave the poor bastard alone. The God damn thing was dead! If he wants to have intercourse with a nasty, cold, stiff deer….shit, I say let him.
Um God of course. But in a post-modern age of moral relativism and skewed opinions of ethics, that could never be an acceptable answer. After all, what is God to me is something else to you…I hope you detect the sarcasm. Wow our culture is fargone…
-Jared
God.
Not the judge.
If no one is hurt, there is no problem except in the man himself. But if he wants to get it on with deer instead of people, that’s his decision and we shouldn’t try to stop him from getting some of his own small pleasures.
-_-
America.
-Jacob
Speaking of the law
What do you do, with a doer of dead deer?
OMG I can’t answer that becuase I am so amazingly disgusted. Where do you find this stuff?????? Who does that?
God, if we allow anyone else our moralities then become dependent on a persons opinions…….. and dont let anyone talk this crap about you can chose your own morals and “as long as it doesnt hurt anyone” crap that america likes to throw around……. its just a excuse to face the facts that some of the stuff people do is wrong…….. so basically these people are okay with that deer thing, cuz it didnt hurt anyone….. oh sure the deer but we run those over on the road and care more about our cars…. so why do we care? because its wrong! stop being so hypocritical people……..
God.
Either religion or just plain ole common sense. Jeez.
the person the situation affects.
me.
send him to the gallows, i say!
do they still do that?
Morality is religion and religion is up to individuals.
Who’s to say.
me!!!
Of course ME!
God…………and we all know it too, just some of us are too arrogant to acknowledge there is a greater power.
I should.
Yuck. There’s no denying it. That’s one messed-up dude.
Most religious texts involve laying down a law of what is moral and what isn’t and instructing people to follow it.
The government lays down morals too and calls them laws. But these laws/morals are created for the good of man, not any god. If it wasn’t illegal to kill someone, then we’d all be completely screwed and civilization would self-destruct pretty rapidly. These morals/laws are all there for one common purpose: to keep the country stable.
That’s why all the gods in all the religious texts laid down morals too: so that civilization would not destroy itself. Any god wouldn’t want to see the civilization he created flush itself down the crapper. But he also wants to see his people honor him and themselves. A man who has sex with a dead deer puts no honor upon himself or God.
But the law of man really doesn’t have honor written into it. The people writing the laws don’t care if the people revere the law-writers, they just want the people to abide by the law so order can be kept. The goal is order: not worship or honor. It’s not morality you cannot legislate: it is honor. There is nothing in the United States law anywhere that says you must honor God (or yourself that I know of).
Here we have a man who does something really gross and brings huge shame onto himself (and to anyone who believes so, God). Can we throw him in jail for this?
Is it possible to contract some whacked-out disease from having sex with a dead deer? What about passing it on if he has sex with anything else living? That might not be best for the good of man.
But then, it’s not a crime to pass on any other STD.
We’re all stuck. Someone much wiser than me or any of us has to decide what’s right here.
That is God, if you’re a believer. But we’re not all believers, and I don’t know how God would come down to earth and proclaim exactly what to do with this man anyway.
Truth is, I don’t know.
So basically this whole comment was pointless… but I’m posting it anyway.
There’s no such thing as a set rule of ‘morality,’ it’s a human concept designed to restrain human behavior to what is acceptable to society. I’ve arrived at this conclusion through the fact that our idea of morals has changed through the ages–dramatically. Even now, in different societies, different values are used. For example, 300 years ago, slavery was considered perfectly ethical and a norm of life. In some societies, it still is. As another example, whereas less than 200 years ago, premarital sex was unheard of, and was (informally) punished by ostracization. However, with the trend today, I expect that in less than 50 years, premarital sex will be perfectly acceptable in that society’s moral code.
To those that say God ordains our moral behavior, consider the norms in Jesus’s time and in ours. The Bible never speaks against slavery–the Old Testament actually justifies it. Other examples are abound.
Since the concept of morality can evolve, there never was, and never will be, any definite moral code. Society defines morality according to its norms. There is no right, there is no wrong. There is only acceptable and unacceptable.
To bring this back to your question, society determines our concept of morality. And in that, a judge is a perfect representative of society.
while i am all about following our God given consciences, i am much more with the group that basically says…we have to have a point of references. one thing, everyone believes in. i have once heard of it described as a board of rules nailed to the fence at a play ground. if everybody acknowledges that it is what determines what is and is not allowed, then everyone will be on the same page, but the day that the kids kick it down because they don’t like the rules, the biggest and strongest bully in the play ground will become in charge. there has to be something outside of us fallible human beings to make the rules, because we have very human desires to ignore our God given consciences. i understnad completely that many people don’t believe in God, but since i do, all i can say is that they are wrong, there is a God, and he has set up what is right and wrong and instilled these things into our consciences…having sex with a dead deer…hmm….what does your conscience say about it?
ryc: cool I look foward to seeing what you look like
Morality is relative. You can’t legislate it.
Some people think premarital sex is immoral, but there’s no way you’re going to get Congress to pass a law banning it. And some people think war is immoral, but obviously we take part in it as a government.
Thanks Dan…….
The President! Its wrong to have sex with a animal, and a dead one? gross
the only question I have is…. how do people know he had sex with a dead deer?. did they see it? because if they did.. thats a different story.. and if no one saw…. was the man going out and bragging about it? I just don’t understand lol
In determing what is moral… it all depends on the case and what it is about. Sometimes you yourself are the only one…or in some cases those who witness whatever is being questioned are the ones that determine it… who knows? lol. To one person it may seem horrible and another it seems okay.
I believe the perfect example of how morality is not relative is The Nazis.
oh and to…OshizushiSushiGirl, i disagree.
Like Martin Luther King said, we live in a schizophrenic society.
I think its just the word “morality” that screws us over. JUdges legislate what can and cannot be tolerated by our society, and I guess they go to law school to figure all that out. I don’t know what the judges reasoning was, but somehow my gut says he was right.
The deer
God.
It is already spelled out in all the books of old…so a higher power determines what is right and wrong…go see what I found for ya…Smile
Me.
(JK! LOL)
ha I’m just kidding
I think that if no one was harmed (ie. the deer was dead already) it’s his own business. Granted, that’s weird-ass business, and it would be different if a human were involved, but I’m not sure it’s right for anyone to legislate morality.
Jesus
God.
We (the people) determine what is moral, using current social mores and established rules of society as a guide. It’s easy to say that morals come from God (they do), but let’s face it, God speaks through human beings.
Anyway, morality is legislated all the time. I never got why people kept saying you can’t legislate morality. We have laws against killing, against incest, against robbery – where do those laws come from but from the established rules of a functional society – or morals? What you do in your own bedroom can have implications for the world beyond – unwanted children may be created, or diseases can be spread. Not saying everything done in the privacy of one’s own home can or should be regulated and legislated, but it’s not like nothing can or should be.
God’s Word (the Bible)
One’s self. We’ll never know enough of any other source to make that type of decision. As a government, we should adopt the secular-natured rule of Wicca: Harm none, do as ye will.
…are you serious? i don’t think these people know what they’re talking about.
when there’s dispute over an incident like this, what are you going to do? say, “hold up, lemme hit up my boy God. he’ll know what to do?” come on guys. be realistic.
god is just an easy answer for those who are too scared to think for themselves.
i’m not implying that i have an actual answer to the question you proposed…i guess it’s a kind of circumstantial thing that there’s no immediate answer to, which makes you realize why people end up so corrupted–but i stand my ground.
Society in general determines this – which is why it changes over time….
Against the law or not… that’s just wrong on so many levels.
It seems that many of the above commentators consider morality as a system of rules, obedience to which is an act of obedience to God. But the name of such a system is worship, not morality, and the protestant origin of the USA recognises the right of individuals to determine their own form of worship
I consider morality as a fluid and changing system by which humans regulate their conduct towards other humans, who are capable of giving and receiving help or hurt from each other. If God is omnipotent, He can neither be aided nor hurt by our actions.
The neatest central rule of morality that I have ever heard is “do as you would be done by.” As God and man are not equal in terms of either needs or powers, this rule obviously refers to the morality of relationships between individual human beings.
Back to the original question: as this deer-diddler will one day himself be dead, and an object of lust to animals (worms,) do as you would be done by says he can diddle freely with a dead deer. Diddle on, says I; go crazy.
This guy is legislating from the bench.
the phrase “you can’t legislate morality” has more to do with the effectiveness of morality laws than with actual ability to create those laws… morality has to do with the character of one’s actions more than the actual actions > abortion is legal, but is it moral? capital punishment is legal, but is it moral? taking drugs is illegal, but is it immoral? a good case in point would be Prohibition > it was primarily a moral issue, and the majority of people felt that drinking was immoral and should be abolished, therefore Prohibition became the law of the land. however, it was proven to be so ineffective, and encouraged so much illegal traficking in alcohol, that Prohibition was repealed — this effort to legislate a moral question was a dismal failure. regardless if drinking was moral or immoral, the attempt to legislate the moral issue was ineffective.
there are basic actions that no society can live with, and these are the ones that should be legislated > murder, false testimony in court, theft… there are certain issues dealing with minors and sexuality that fall under that umbrella as well, such as a minimum age of consent, the objectifying of children as sex objects, the exposure of children to viewing sexual acts… however, i don’t see how having sex with a dead deer can be considered to fall under either of those categories, unless he was having sex with the dead deer in front of children. if no one was exposed to/forced to watch this bizarre sexual practice, he should be left alone…
aside from those basic instances of legislation, morality is determined by a general consensus, expressed by social condemnation. any school age child can tell you that they know when they have crossed the boundaries of schoolyard propriety without anything ever being written down. there is no need for codified laws in that case.
thats disgusting. i read the link, and the law did not specify whether the animal need be alive. In this case, what is moral should be common sense. I guess someone needs to set morality in stone, or anything could be up for grabs.
i’m not sure.
At 18 you are an adult and can legally have sex and smoke, the popular consensus is that everyone turning 18 engages in these things in excess.
At 21 you can legally drink, and some people seem to think they are OBLIGATED to.
At 25 you can rent a car. Not quite as large of a milestone, but still worth mentioning, I think. I mean, hell, you can legally rent a car, why NOT do it?
(I’m not sure if this is decided nationally or if it’s a statewide law.)
At 35 you can run for president…have you thought about that?
Oh and in response to this question, morality can’t be argued in that way. There are many ways to look at this but to try not to rant I’ll just say that laws are not directly derived from morality, they are based on the consensus and the beliefs of the people (ideally). So the answer to your question is that no one can be APPOINTED to decide what is moral or immoral, the ideas of the public will (or maybe, SHOULD) decide whether canoodling a dead deer is wrong or acceptable.
You can ask that question all day long different ways. But it has to stop somewhere. And I think a good line to stop at is sex with a dead deer.
I believe in God and I don’t think people should try to be God. But I also have this idea of morality… that this world as experienced by humanity is first about having life at all and then hopefully thinking about what is right and wrong. I think we’re here to figure out what is right and wrong. Both a “theist” and an “athiest” should be able to agree with this goal in some way… it’s all about how we apply our different perspectives from here. I don’t know how to develop this further concisely. It seems to me that this struggle between what we call right and wrong may be a meaning for life.
Certainly not the State!
Yahweh
heterophobic_female_chauvinist is my new hero.
Also, to each his own. There is no absolute truth, nor absolute right.
The question of the century.
GEESH! I was expecting something Wordsworthian from this post…not…what I got.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH the let down…
p.s. the general public decides morality…this is why some cultures are comfortable with nudity while others aren’t…
Wait.
How the HECK do you get caught screwing a deer carcas????
Someone eternally good and wise who transcends our human limitations.
So, who walked in on this guy while he was humping the deer? Who decided to press charges?
I say we remove government and let people do what they want.
OK, maybe not.
First you have to decide what America is really going for with the government, because everyone has a different opinion. If you want freedom more than anything, go ahead, let the guy have sex with animals all he wants. If you want a government with the power to guarantee your security and one that can uphold what is correct, then they need to start cracking down on those type of situations.
The only thing that has held America together for 200 years has been mixed interpretations on government. And as long as it stays that way, while we get awkward circumstances like this, we can still be the rich powerful nation that we are.
me
God as the only thing above law determines law, but who speaks for God?
Happy birthday!
I love all the legislating from the bench comments, this guy is OBVIOUSLY legislating from the bench, and yet when judges make decisions to say legalize abortion, take God out of this that and everything, and take “under God” out of the pledge of allegiance they’re just doing their job.
The fact is it’s either one or both, either every judge who does something like this is wrong or none of them are.
in a societal sense, which is, i believe, how you meant the question, the individual; i.e., you can screw a dead deer if you’re not harming society (which, in all reality, he isn’t). in an absolute sense, however, God is the one who determines morality, in which the objective is not to minimize harm but to lead a fulfilling relationship with the Creator.
I like the qoute out of the book “what would satan do?”
One senator talking to another, “You might not be able to legislate morality, but you sure as hell can legislate immorality!”
You’d have to, what, leave the deer in your bed wearing sexy lingerie? Sheesh…
There are 3 mina sources of Morality.
I. The state
II. God
III. Society.
All 3 have been abused at one point in time so each one is flawed, but the worst thing to happen to morality is to let it be decided by the average person. Deer fucking, jew killing, raping, and pedifiling are perfectly fine to some people. Individuals fail more often then those 3 above. THere is never a perfect solution, so u have to choose between flawed systems, the only thing really is to pick the one less flawed.
sex with dead animal, yeah thats pretty nasty, but I’m not sure why one needs to be labeled a criminal because of that.
He may need some counseling though?
The deer, in this situation.
Or if you’re having a really hard time deciding, lawyers get paid to decide for you.
That is very tough. Most people agree we should not steal or kill. There is a lot that is in the gray area. When other’s are hurt there is a problem.
As far as who determines morals (in the religious sense of the word), I don’t know, but a pyschiatrist can tell you that the deer “loving” necrophiliac is mentally ill.
“you can’t legislate morality” is a self-referentially incoherent statement
Not the judge. The case should be dismissed.
A lot of states have already legislated morality by passing this so-called “4 marriage” thing which defines marriage based on a MORAL standpoint. This is nothing unusual at all.
Not God. Because when we say God decides, we are really saying it’s what we *think* God would decide. Never has God (if he exists) gone and outright said that what self-proclaimed “good people” do is moral. Basically it’s just crowd theory (can’t remember the exact term), that the crowd is more likely to be correct than any single individual, omnipotent or no. There was this great article about it; there was a fair where people were supposed to guess the weight of a cow or something, and together the crowd was *extremely* close.
I think that guy should have to pay retribution to every single person emotionally scarred by reading about his nasty sex with a dead deer. To answer the question, what society as a whole deems acceptable determines the morality that is followed. There is a morality above what is just determined by society which I think God directs, but it’s impossible to expect fallible humans and human governments/justice systems to be able to follow it perfectly.
All I can think about when i hear this is Lymes Disease.
Uhhhm, I’d say that laws shouldn’t really enforce morals. Social norms are supposed to accomplish that. Logic enforces laws, and sometimes morality coincides with logic, but, not all the time.
-David
Who should determine what is moral?
> I was of the presumption that the majority of the people inhabiting a given ‘community’ could set a moral standard, however this flies in the face of the notional concept of liberty…. Freedom isn’t ‘freedom’ if you’re NOT free to do what is reasonable to a normal person/s…. Maybe, Dan, the question could be “Is the behavior of a man that would ‘ride’ a dead dear Normal” ?
Peace with a notion….
LOL I don’t suppose it’s any worse than having sex with a pumpkin. I’ve heard of that from farm boys:>) Happy Birthday. You’re younger than my baby. A man can be sexy at ANY age; in fact, age has little to do with it.
Too bad it’s unconstitutional to let God decide what’s moral for the government.
Really, who cares if he does it?… It’s his own problem. People need to start worrying about their own lives and not other’s who are screwed up.
God. When people try to do it, the blind are just leading the blind.
Moral:
relating to issues of right and wrong and to how individuals should behave
based on what somebody’s conscience suggests is right or wrong, rather than on what the law says should be done
regarded in terms of what is known to be right or just, as opposed to what is officially or outwardly declared to be right or just
Someone eternally good and wise who transcends our human limitations.
Posted 11/26/2006 at 10:42 PM by Soultender
I agree!
God’s law determines morality because God’s law cannot be changed by the whim of man. Man’s law is changing constantly to accommodate the deterioration of morality in society.
What you do in your own home IS your own business. What you do in public becomes a matter of “community standards.” It was a dead deer. While disgusting and a bit on the sick and perverted side, no one was hurt. What was the point of this? To waste the court’s time and run up money for the city?
God
Should determine what is moral
But God
Is seen in many different ways by many different people
Each religion has its own God
Who’s to say whose correct?
A hard question to answer.
If you have a one-on-one relation with God I say you.
You’ll have an idea already.
But too many people “pretend” they do when they don’t.
Saying “God says this” doesn’t cut it anymore.
Me.
Good.
The problem is that so many people think the guys behavior so over the top that it must be a crime. I really disagree with the judge. A carcass is not an animal. So, if one element of the crime is that it must be an animal, well, then no matter how over the top the behavior, it isn’t a crime. If you have a law against having sex with dead creatures then charge the guy under that.
Me.
I know that wasn’t very original, but I really think it should be me.
i agree with terri dan, when so we get to see a picture of YOU?
i think a judge has a right to set moral issues…the law has to set morals because what is immoral to one person is not to another…so a guy who rapes a dead deer, rapes a woman next….he may not see a moral issue with either…but at some point someone has to say what it wrong and immoral….
As disgusting as it was, I still don’t see the harm of it.
Yes it’s “wrong” , but not wrong.
Wrong would be theft, murder, etc., “wrong” is you hooked up with your girlfriend’s sister.
Sorry, to answer the question,
morals should be judged only if it effects someone, and it would be the courts’ job I suppose.
I do agree that the deer, being a dead one, did not hurt during the intercourse… but then imagine, just imagine, that the same man had sex with a woman’s corpse. Disgusting. Immoral. The woman would not hurt either, but still, there’s something wrong about it.
We say if one of the parties does not give consent any attempt of sexual behavior including the unwilling party is rape. A dead creature, whatever it’d be, can not speak for itself, therefore the man is guilty of rape on the body.
It is nobody’s business what one does in their bedroom as long as no-one gets physically and/or mentally and/or emotionally hurt.
If it comes to morality, it is conditioned by culture [while culture is to a great extend shaped by religion of a certain community].
Morality should be based on the victims of the immorality…weigh the positives against the negative effects.
Beyond that no one can define it.
I don’t think he should be charged for having sex with a deer he already killed…he should for killing it in the first place…an animal was killed and the positive of having sex with it or eating it not to just survive is wrong…the negative outweighs the positive.
That is ridiculous because you cant bring morals into a court when murderers and baby rapists are getting off on “technicalities.”
besides he was fucking a deer, if it didnt belong to anyone better a dead deer then a dead person, a mans gotta get his rocks off somehow.
we should just do away with animal-human sex all together.
delete this as soon as you see it but people that spam this on the sirhts r lame i suggest u block em dont block me btw sorry for doing this
K HERE IT IS!
************************************************************* 1. To yourself, say the name of the only guy or girl you wanna be with 3 times! ************************************************************* 2. Think of something you wanna accomplish within the next week and say it to your self 6 times!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 3. If you had 1 wish what would it be? say it to yourself 9 times!!! ———————————————————————– 4. Think of something that you want to happen between you and that 1special person and say it to your self 12 times!!! ——————————————————————– 5. Now, heres the hard part! Pick only 1 of these wishes and as you scroll down focus and concentrate on it and think on nothing else but that wish. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Now make one last &final wish about that one wish that you picked. After reading this, you have 1 hour to send it out to 15 people, and what you wished for will come true within in one week! u only get one chance!!!!! Now scroll down and think of your crush!!! Keep going down Keep going Keep going !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you think of your crush? I hope so, that was your last chance. Now pay very close attention this important message! Sorry but once read, must be sent. Yes, this is one of those kinda chain letters that everyone hates. This one has been going since 1863 and if you break this chain, you will pay!!!!!! Remember that after hearing these stories. First Example: Take Barbra Wallace.. She was a pretty lucky girl, up till she got this same chain letter. She had a crush on the same kid since kindergarden. when she got this mail she didn’t pay any attention to it. She just thought, no big deal. And deleted it. The next day her dad got fired and her mom dies in a car crash. If she would have sent the letter none of that would have happened and her mom would be alive. Second Example: Try Freddie D. Now Freddie D. was your average nerd. Had glasses, was short and chubby, was in gifted. All the signs of your total dork. He also received this letter and sent it to 51 people in the hour. Now, like Barbra, he had a crush on a girl since 3rd grade. The next day after sending the chain the girl confessed her love for him ever since 3rd grade. Freddie D. finally had the courage to ask her out, and of course, she had been waiting to yes to that for years. They grew up and married each other to live happily forever. Third Example: Now if you couldn’t relate to the others, this’ll get ya hooked. Listen to this. A kid named Jordan Johnson was just getting on AOL to check his mail. He was a quiet kid, not that popular but not a geek either. he was just normal. He saw he had mail from his friend. It was this exact letter. Now Jordan Johnsen was a smart kid and he knew what could happen if he didnt pass it on. He simply pulled a few friends from his buddy list and sent it along. The next day, about that same time, he got a phone call. It said he had won the lottery! then his dad came home and bought him a new bike! His mom bought him Nintendo64 and play station! His grandmother sent him a new computer, and his best friend gave him tickets to the concert he wanted to go to, Kid Rock and Limp Bizkit! Then he inherited a brand-new tv from his aunt! He was goin’ wild! the next day his secret crush asked him out, and they have been going out ever since. Now, you heard the stories. I know which person i’d rather be, but thats up to you. I wouldn’t wanna end up like Barbra but thats only me. We all want what we cant have but now’s ur chance to go out with that special somebody ur waiting for. Take it or leave it. If you send this to- 1 person- you will lose all luck in ur love life…..forever!!!!! 10 people- your crush will say they like you as a friend……ONLY!!!!! 15 people- your crush will say they like you 20 people- your crush will ask you out! 25 people- your crush will kiss you!! 30 people – Your crush will have sex with you 35 people or more- All of the above!! Don’t blow it, it’s ur chance to shine! Have everything u wanted, and more! Now, complaining cus u dont have any friends. Well theres an answer 4 everything. It’s simple, just go in a chat room, pick some names and send away! but here’s the catch…..you only have one hour to send it after being read. Please pass this to everyone you.. know
God…not the pope, not a judge, not your pastor…God
Exactly. I knew that would go sour sometime down the line…
It depends on the situation. Different times, different measures. But seriously, a dead deer? I don’t think he’s a criminal, I think he needs help. *yeetch!*
An atheist can be a very moral, upright, and ethical person, and encourage others to be the same.
But if so, he’s a hypocrite.
The measure of morality is only consistent with the current mind-set and fashion of the current day. Consider homosexuality or even the freedom of black people: at one time, the law supported the discrimination and even the persecution of events that were related to such ‘moral anomality’. Nowadays, the law disaproves discrimination and presecutes those who are brought to the attention of authorities. Morality is defined by the current and most practical fashion that oversees the moral grounds to which people align their morality to a secular system, that means, it is non-religious.
’nuff said…
THE ONE WHO MADE US! Duh . . .
And if you don’t like that answer, I’ll say a judge can legislate morality, because he’s chosen by the people hopefully through God.
I mean, come on people, we voted the judge into office, don’t vote don’t complain. Unless he’s a liberal of course, then I’ll complain.
But I didn’t vote for him if that’s so.
God already has,
it’s just up to us if we’re gonna abide by them or not
of course, we’ve already been programmed to know what these morals are (you know, that thing called a conscience?), so I guess in the case of a court ruling, it’s really up to the judge and his interpretation of the “law”
I have no clue.
-KrIsTiN-
How far reaching do you expect a governing body to enter your life?
Many of your posters use the word morality, theist and athiest.
What is morality?
The 10 commandments is a great example or morality!
What are the 10 commandments?
Social contracts, rules for living in large groups.
I won’t mate with your mate if you won’t mate with mine.
I won’t steal your food if you won’t steal mine.
I will not kill you if you extend me the same courtesy.
We won’t help ourselves to land or look at ways to steal the fertile daughters of the neighboring farm goat herding collective…
Who the heck knows, it’s all oral tradition but all seem to stem from empathy. Morality might be empathy with an awareness of the sacred or that which we cannot comprehend.
So who decides this stuff?
I think smaller communities should have more specific rules that apply to them. You can always move while still collecting the benefits of citizenship in a large nation.
Haha, in a perfect world…
So so immoral and sick!
Only a Supreme Being.
Not a judge, that’s for sure.