Phoenix Network Forums

that's my point. The concept of "normality" changes all the time.

zogo wrote:that's my point. The concept of "normality" changes all the time.

I agree. A few decades ago you would have been executed or imprisoned for being a homosexual in many countries. Now you can even have homosexual marriages. A few more decades later you'll be allowed to marry in the church.

Yeah, but what becomes normal depends on us, right?

Boso wrote:Yeah, but what becomes normal depends on us, right?

Sadly it depends a lot on what large companies say.

Just because something's accepted as "normal" doesn't make it right.

If I saw someone walking around in a pink suit, I'd probably think something along the lines of "Well, that's really odd". However, I wouldn't think "Whoa, what a disgusting menace to society!"

Don't confuse styles and customs (which change all the time) with true morality (which stays constant, even though popular opinion of what it is may change).

I, personally, find this disgusting. It's not normal for someone like me to see that happen or to even participate in it. However, for those people that do engage in that, it is normal.

People have their own ideas of what is normal. Different regions believe that different things are normal. For example, some countries have cats as pets, while other countries eat cats.

Get what I'm saying... in that region, what they are doing is completely normal, while the rest of the world (us outsiders) think it is completely disgusting.

I understood your point perfectly well. I was saying that it's wrong, regardless of whether or not it's "normal".

Pantero Blanco wrote:Don't confuse styles and customs (which change all the time) with true morality (which stays constant, even though popular opinion of what it is may change).

In one country moral is to repay, in others moral is to appeace, again in others moral is not to hurt cows. There isn't any real moral not bound to any specific religion. And many religions have a different point of view than what we call moral. Our moral is christian (at least for most users here).

Different countries have their own views about what is moral, yes. However, that doesn't change what really is right.

If there's an object in a box that no one can see clearly and many people around it, each person may try to discern what the object is and form their own opinion on how it is shaped, what it looks like, and so on. That doesn't mean that they all have their own object or that the object can be all of those things...It just means that they have their own educated guesses.

Even if my own perception of morality is proven wrong, I won't believe that genuine morality is relative.

Pantero Blanco wrote:Even if my own perception of morality is proven wrong, I won't believe that genuine morality is relative.

You compare moral with an object, and you shouldn't be doing that. Moral is an imaginary construct created by the human. As such it's as abstract as humans are. There is no fundamental moral. Moral started to exist when someone invented it. Moral changed as a few people had different experiences with life. That is moral. And it's relative.

Because since 1493 humans knew that the earth is flat.

omfg.... Once I get enough courage I will look at the pics and maybe put an EDIT notice on this post.... I'm scared...

Pictures have already been removed because of high bandwidth usage. Is it a good thing I can't see them?

t3h wrote:Pictures have already been removed because of high bandwidth usage. Is it a good thing I can't see them?

Yes, it is!

I don't think it's true...morality's always the same. It doesn't change. Instead the way we interpret morality changes everytime, so it's just a matter of opinions.

So "Is it right to eat aborted children?" There is an answer to this question, we just can't find it. We're not so smart to decide if something is right or not...We can just take a decision and hope it's the right one.

p.s.: Guys, I want to see the photographs, do you know any alternative link?

I don't believe it. It's very possible that these pictures (at least, the ones I can see) were made by humans, either by computer or by manipulating objects to make it look like a real human being. This article is remarkably similar... A MySpace post is also not a very reliable place to trust for giving you information.

I know this topic has already been out-discussed and died, of course, but I thought I'd say so anyway

There's no reason to believe that this is real, as far as I know.